HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-24 Parks & Recreation Commission Agenda PacketPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 24, 2023
Council Chambers & Hybrid
7:00 PM
Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council 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. Masks are strongly encouraged if
attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and
report are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐
Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)
Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. 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 Council and available for
inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing
in your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
BUSINESS
1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconfrencing for Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting During COVID‐19 State of Emergency – Action – (5 min)
PUBLIC COMMENT
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 the Draft Minutes from the November 22 , 2022 Parks and Recreation
Commissioin Meeting – Action – (5 min)
3.Approval of Draft Minutes from the December 13 , 2022, Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting – Action – (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
4.Department Report
BUSINESS ITEMS
5.Cubberley Community Center Playfields Restroom Addition Project – Peter Jensen –
Discussion – (60 Min)
6.Aquatics Annual Report – Sharon Eva – Discussion – (45 Min)
7.Golf Annual Report – Lam Do – Discussion – (45 Min)
8.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Discussion – (15 min)
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
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.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. 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 Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
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.
nd
th
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingTuesday, January 24, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andreport are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
BUSINESS
1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconfrencing for Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting During COVID‐19 State of Emergency – Action – (5 min)
PUBLIC COMMENT
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 the Draft Minutes from the November 22 , 2022 Parks and Recreation
Commissioin Meeting – Action – (5 min)
3.Approval of Draft Minutes from the December 13 , 2022, Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting – Action – (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
4.Department Report
BUSINESS ITEMS
5.Cubberley Community Center Playfields Restroom Addition Project – Peter Jensen –
Discussion – (60 Min)
6.Aquatics Annual Report – Sharon Eva – Discussion – (45 Min)
7.Golf Annual Report – Lam Do – Discussion – (45 Min)
8.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Discussion – (15 min)
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
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.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. 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 Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
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.
nd
th
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingTuesday, January 24, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andreport are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALLBUSINESS1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconfrencing for Parks and RecreationCommission Meeting During COVID‐19 State of Emergency – Action – (5 min)PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONSThis is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve meetingmanagement.APPROVAL OF MINUTES2.Approval of the Draft Minutes from the November 22 , 2022 Parks and RecreationCommissioin Meeting – Action – (5 min)3.Approval of Draft Minutes from the December 13 , 2022, Parks and RecreationCommission Meeting – Action – (5 min)CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS4.Department ReportBUSINESS ITEMS5.Cubberley Community Center Playfields Restroom Addition Project – Peter Jensen –Discussion – (60 Min)6.Aquatics Annual Report – Sharon Eva – Discussion – (45 Min)7.Golf Annual Report – Lam Do – Discussion – (45 Min)8.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Discussion – (15 min)
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
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.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. 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 Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
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.
ndth
TO:
FROM:
DEPARTMENT:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
DAREN ANDERSON
COMMUNITY SERVICES
JANUARY 24, 2023
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF
TELECONFERENCING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING COVID-19 STATE OF
EMERGENCY
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government
Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees
due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency.
BACKGROUND
In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the
Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect.
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act,
effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by
teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State
law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at
least once every 30 days.
AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy
bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under
the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and
state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social
distancing.
(B)The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the
purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency,
meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has
determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of the
emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of
attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).)
1
Packet Pg. 4
In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the
state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and
at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists:
1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the
members to meet safely in person.
2.State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to
promote social distancing.
DISCUSSION
At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health
Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and
other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021
Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational
Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code
of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and
instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including
physical distancing and other social distancing measures.
Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for
public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish
to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and
constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via
teleconferencing are protected.
To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies
have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City
Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission
meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be
conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide
whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via
teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards and
Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference through January 2022.
Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section
54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees.
1
Packet Pg. 5
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,
1
Packet Pg. 6
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
1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFT
DRAFT 1
1
2
3
MINUTES 4
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING 6
November 22, 2022 7
In-Person & Virtual Conference 8
Palo Alto, California 9
10
Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair LaMere; Commissioners Amanda 11
Brown, Anne Cribbs, Nellis Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, and Joy 12
Oche (virtually) 13
Commissioners Absent: 14
Others Present: Council Liaison Tom DuBois 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Adam Howard, Lam Do, Javod Ghods 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 Kleinhaus moved to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Vice Chair 21
LaMere, the motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 22
PUBLIC COMMENT 23
Samir Tuma of Barron Park spoke regarding a dog park concept and petition. Early in 24
the pandemic when community members felt scared and isolated, groups of dog owners 25
began to meet at Barron Park Elementary School. This group has become a community 26
with social interaction and support. Dog ownership grew nationwide by 12% from 27
December 2020 to April 2021, and this sustained growth has put significant stress on the 28
limited resources Palo Alto offers to dog owners. After some complaints and being 29
shooed away by Animal Control Services, the dog owners began a process to investigate 30
a dog park. The feedback was that most people wanted a dog park but the question was 31
where. Mr. Tuma was here to open a conversation with the community to try to arrive at 32
something that would be helpful for everybody. 33
2
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFT
DRAFT 2
Carole Lin, Clinical Associate Professor at Stanford University School of Medicine and 1
Practicing Pediatric Regional Anesthesiologist at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, 2
supported a dog park in the Barron Park neighborhood for the physical and mental health 3
benefits for both dogs and their owners. Dog ownership is associated with healthier, 4
functional individuals and communities. Isolation is not just a side effect of COVID but 5
a pervasive issue for communities and schools. Many studies document the mental 6
health benefits of owning dogs for various groups, such as children, the elderly, and 7
populations with disability. In 2013, the American Heart Association concluded that pet 8
ownership, especially dog ownership, was associated with decrease in cardiovascular 9
risk factors and increased survival in individuals with established cardiovascular disease. 10
Dog parks may provide a safe place for older people or people with disabilities who 11
cannot walk their dogs and also offer area where dogs can exercise and run freely while 12
the owners socialize. 13
John King, resident of Barron Park and President of the Barron Park Association, stated 14
the Association became aware of the petition circulating and discussed it at their recent 15
board meeting with no decision made. He stated he is also a dog owner and knows the 16
importance of dog owners and dogs being able to get together. He was aware of 17
complications of this being at the elementary school. The playground is only available 18
after hours, usually after 6 p.m., but there is an involved group of dog owners who pick 19
up after the dogs in the mornings. The school has been very supportive, but there has to 20
be a better solution. 21
Christian Kalar, resident of Barron Park and Chair of the Creeks and Parks Committee of 22
the Barron Park Association, stated there was an interest in making Bol Park a dog park 23
a number of years ago and the people proposing it felt the creek was a great natural 24
barrier. He stated that it is actually private property halfway through the creek, and that 25
Bol Park has few established fence lines. 26
Arlene Sheehan, Barron Park resident, had no objections to a dog park but stated 27
residents whose properties border Briones Park, one proposed site for the dog park, 28
would be impacted by dogs running along the property line. She hoped there was room 29
for community input in the decision of where to place the dog park. 30
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 31
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 25, 2022, Parks and Recreation 33
Commission Meeting 34
Commissioner Cribbs moved to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2022, Parks and 35
Recreation Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oche, the motion passed, 36
2
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFT
DRAFT 3
7-0 by roll call vote. 1
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 2
3. Department Report 3
Assistant Director Daren Anderson gave an update on the recruitment status. The Senior 4
Management Analyst position has been filled, and the Budget Analyst position is still 5
vacant. Staff is still recruiting for several hourly Open Space Technicians. He described 6
upcoming events, including a holiday tree lighting event at Litten Plaza, a toy drive for 7
local youth in need, and a holiday decorating contest. There is a contract in place to do 8
the work on the infill at Mayfield Soccer Complex, beginning the week of November 28 9
and taking about 12 days, pending weather. The work will start in the north field, 10
keeping the south field open for play, and then switching fields with a potential 1- to 2-11
day overlap when both fields are temporarily not available. The Foothills Nature 12
Preserve weekday entrance fee is still on hold, waiting for the contract to be completed 13
and expected to be in place fairly soon. The Magical Bridge Playground improvement 14
project was delayed due to equipment and materials being delayed in delivery. The 15
playground is scheduled to reopen on December 1. 16
Commissioner Freeman asked to let people know as far in advance as possible when 17
both fields will be closed at the same time. 18
BUSINESS 19
4. Racquet Court Policy – Adam Howard - Action 20
Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, discussed the multiuse courts in 21
Mitchell Park, specifically the priority hours between pickleball and tennis. He gave 22
background on the courts and policy. Currently, there are 8 designated pickleball courts, 23
all located in Mitchell Park; 51 public tennis courts, some of which are on school 24
grounds and only available after 4 p.m. and on weekends, with 17 lit courts at 3 different 25
locations; and 2 multiuse courts in Mitchell Park, 2 courts when used for tennis and 7 26
when used for pickleball, all lit. On the multiuse courts, pickleball has priority 8 a.m. to 27
2:30 p.m. and tennis 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. Pickleball feedback was that there is a need for 28
either additional space or evening priority, grouping of courts is important, and there is 29
frustration when tennis players displace up to 16 players. Tennis feedback was that lit 30
courts are in high demand and hard to come by; Mitchell Park tennis courts are the only 31
courts available in South Palo Alto; wait time for tennis is substantially different than 32
with pickleball, potentially up to an hour; driving to different locations is burdensome, 33
not good for the environment, and uneconomical; and it is difficult to remove a large 34
crowd of pickleball players or to play tennis there with a large grouping. There is joint 35
frustration around those courts. Staff and the ad hoc did spot checks over a couple-36
2
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFT
DRAFT 4
month period. Of the 15 dates that checks were performed, pickleball courts were full 14 1
times and tennis 4 times. 2
Given the feedback and the observations, Staff felt the policy needed to be updated. The 3
recommendation was a policy change to provide pickleball priority 7 days a week, 8 a.m. 4
to 10 p.m., with continued dual-striping and no physical changes to the court. This 5
would allow flexibility to see how these changes impact the courts in Palo Alto. By 6
changing priority, Staff believed a majority of time would be used for pickleball, but this 7
would allow flexibility in the future. Staff also looked at a tiered approach of several 8
nights of pickleball but ultimately steered away from that to remove, rather than 9
potentially increase, some of the conflict and frustration at the courts. There was a 10
suggestion to change priority on only 1 of the 2 multiuse courts. The overlapping of 11
courts was a problem, and that change would not help either group. There was a 12
suggestion to dual stripe more courts and spread it out to other parks. Staff again felt this 13
would create more conflict and also would require moveable nets, storage for those nets, 14
and people willing to set up and take down those nets. 15
Another suggestion Staff will continue to look into was adding lights to existing courts. 16
There are a large number of courts at Cubberley but the cost to bring in an additional 17
electrical source would be in the range of $½M to $1M. Mr. Howard also spoke to 2 18
solar companies who did not feel solar lights would be able to accommodate side-by-side 19
courts. He felt that was not a solution to wait for before making policy changes. 20
Another suggestion was to build additional courts, which is the ideal solution moving 21
forward. Financing those projects is difficult, but finding the adequate space will be key. 22
Both communities have stressed the importance of grouping of courts together, so 23
building 1 or 2 courts in a park is not what either community thinks is necessary. 24
Groupings require space, and Staff will continue to look at ways to do that. That was not 25
in the immediate future. 26
If this change were made, there would be 8 designated pickleball courts and 7 pickleball 27
courts that have continued priority, 15 total courts, all lit, and 51 public tennis courts 28
with 17 lit courts spread over 3 different locations. If this court policy was suggested to 29
move forward, it would go to City Council in December or January. If City Council 30
approves the court use policy update, Staff would begin evaluating in about 6 months' 31
time to see how it is impacting the rest of the courts, how the courts are being used, and 32
if there are other changes that could be made. Mr. Howard stated the creation of a 33
community courts group, made up of both tennis and pickleball community members, 34
would be important to make sure the City is best utilizing its courts. He wanted to see 35
that happen in February and acknowledged this conflict needs to be removed before a 36
group like that could work. Staff will continue to look into better utilizing the courts, 37
look for new court locations, and look at the idea of lighting existing courts. 38
2
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFT
DRAFT 5
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if Staff would come back to the Commission after the 6-1
month evaluation to discuss findings and how the community group is working. 2
Mr. Howard stated that is the plan and clarified that the data and information would 3
begin to be collected at 6 months. 4
Commissioner Freeman stated this is a 6-month trial to continue to look at what is 5
working and refining it, a temporary plan to see how everything works. 6
Commissioner Oche asked how many people will be part of the committee. 7
Mr. Howard wished to keep it relatively small, around 8 people. He was open to 8
opinions. 9
Chair Greenfield invited comments from the public. 10
Rich Pearson, pickleball board member and 16-year Palo Alto resident, described a 11
petition requesting the City shift its resources to support pickleball's skyrocketing growth 12
amongst Palo Alto residents. He felt the 600+ signatures of only Palo Alto residents 13
represented the tip of the iceberg in the support that pickleball has in Palo Alto. He 14
appreciated the support the Commission and urged them to approve the recommendation 15
from Mr. Howard and ad hoc committee. He stated the data and the personal stories 16
make shifting resources to support pickleball the right choice for Palo Alto. 17
Kevin Chen, Palo Alto resident living 3 blocks from Mitchell Park, agreed with creating 18
more tennis or pickleball courts but asked not to take away the existing tennis courts. 19
While walking his dog every night, he sees the parking lot is full, including cars parked 20
around the fire lane, which is a hazard. He stated the noise of the pickleball hitting the 21
ground is becoming an issue for the neighborhood. He stated there will never be enough 22
space for pickleball in Mitchell Park because it is becoming a hub for pickleball fans. He 23
did not want Mitchell Park to become too crowded and stated Palo Alto already has the 24
highest pickleball court per person, almost double or triple the other cities in the Bay 25
Area. 26
Jing Huang described that her 14-year-old son plays tennis in Mitchell Park with kids of 27
the same age. She described that one boy ranked #1 in North California and #7 in the 28
country; another boy ranked #4 in North California; and her son ranked #14. They have 29
all played in Mitchell Park for years with great achievements. She did not want kids to 30
feel that tennis is in competition with pickleball and asked for a solution for both to play 31
there. She stated one of these kids may someday play in the U.S. Open, and when they 32
win the championship, they will be able to say they played in Mitchell Park for years. 33
2
Packet Pg. 12
DRAFT
DRAFT 6
Yuanye Ma stated he has been playing tennis for around 7 years and supported keeping 1
courts 5 and 6 for tennis only. He has played tennis at Mitchell Park with a friend every 2
weekend for the past 3 years and has also gotten to know countless people from kids to 3
adults, with interactions leading him to feel that the tennis community was a family. He 4
stated taking away these courts would be like taking away their home. 5
Greg Xiong, tennis player and Palo Alto resident, stated he was not against pickleball, 6
yet pickleball players are taking tennis courts and time away from the tennis players, 7
creating tension between the 2 groups. He felt the City should help resolve this problem 8
proactively and suggested finding find a piece of land with a good public access, for 9
example a land parcel near Palo Alto Regional Airport, to dedicate to a new pickleball 10
court development. He stated $1.5M to $3M could deliver 15 to 20 new pickleball 11
courts with lights. 12
Bryan Chan was present to support tennis. He stated he tries to take his kids to play 13
tennis after school and oftentimes drives 45 minutes to find a court or cannot find one. 14
He stated that after 3 p.m. is a priority time for kids to play tennis and that youth tennis is 15
in huge demand. He opposed changing the priority times for courts 5 and 6 at Mitchell 16
Park to pickleball. He stated he has observed that some pickleball players choose to play 17
on the dual courts even when the dedicated pickleball courts are not being used. Giving 18
priority completely to pickleball gives a tennis payer no recourse to ask them to move 19
even if there are open pickleball courts. He proposed 2 solutions: giving pickleball 20
courts priority to residents of Palo Alto and allocating space in the Cubberley Gym for 21
evening use for pickleball. It is a huge, underutilized space that could create many more 22
temporary courts than at Mitchell Park and players could still gather when it is cold or 23
raining. 24
Wenxin He, 22-year Palo Alto resident and USTA tennis captain for multiple teams in 25
Palo Alto, stated that he used to captain a team out of Mitchell Park for mixed doubles 26
but cannot do so anymore with the pickleball courts taking over the tennis courts. Most 27
of the USTA teams in Palo Alto play in Rinconada Park, but almost nobody is hosting at 28
Mitchell Park because the double-striped courts are taken and cannot be used for 29
matches. There are no lights at Cubberley, and usage is limited. He also stated many of 30
the pickleball players come from other cities and that giving them full court access will 31
attract more pickleball players from other cities. He asked the City to find a better 32
solution for both groups of people. 33
Monica Williams, President of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club and past Board Member of 34
the Palo Alto Tennis Club, supported the court usage policy recommendation to provide 35
pickleball priority at Mitchell Park from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. 7 days a week. When the 36
current pickleball priority time of 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. was set, it made sense because most of 37
the players were seniors. With the explosive growth of pickleball by younger people and 38
2
Packet Pg. 13
DRAFT
DRAFT 7
working people, the new recommendation of court usage availability will give families 1
and children an opportunity to use the courts. She was excited that the extended time 2
would allow youth clinics after school and family tournaments and that working people 3
would no longer be bumped from the pickleball courts in the evenings. She hoped in the 4
future to forge a partnership with the Palo Alto Tennis Club to work together to help 5
improve the courts and embrace both spots. 6
Paige Cook, Palo Alto Pickleball Club Member, mother and spouse of pickleball players, 7
and volunteer of the City of Palo Alto Middle School Athletics Program, stated she 8
intended to offer free lessons and get elementary, middle, and high school kids on the 9
pickleball court. She stated she and her family have been displaced in the evenings, and 10
with daylight hours becoming shorter, having court priority after 3 p.m. will allow her to 11
teach. Pickleball is the fastest growing sport in America, and each week new Palo Alto 12
residents come out for free introductory lessons that are a gift from the Palo Alto 13
Pickleball Club to residents. She asked the Commission to test out the court use policy 14
giving priority for the courts in the afternoons for 7 days a week. 15
Joy Zhang, resident of Palo Alto and pickleball player, stated the community is 16
exploding with new pickleball players in Palo Alto and it is now a popular social activity 17
among young people. She stated her 7th-grade son had pickleball lessons during PE at 18
JLS Middle School and enjoyed playing with his friends in the pickleball round robin. 19
She stated kids would love to play more pickleball at Mitchell Park if courts were 20
available after school, but they are often packed on weeknights and weekends. She did 21
not agree with a previous speaker that players choose to play on the mixed-use courts 22
when pickleball courts are available because the pickleball courts are often full. She 23
hoped the Commission would give pickleball priority 7 days a week for the shared courts 24
so that more people can enjoy pickleball at Mitchell Park. 25
Jocelyn Tseng stated the pickleball courts at Mitchell Park were designed to be a 26
community place with large, shaded picnic tables and benches. She listed some of Palo 27
Alto's pickleball events in the past 4 weeks, including a brown bag luncheon, a 28
Thanksgiving round robin mixer, multiple weekly free skills clinics and getting started 29
classes for those who have never tried pickleball. In the same period, the club would 30
also have hosted a citywide pickleball youth day in late October, but the event was 31
cancelled because court time was not secured due to the priority hours. She stated that 32
by changing the priority, the Commission will allow many more opportunities for 33
community and public enrichment and requested they vote to change the priority hours. 34
Juan Jaysingh, Palo Alto resident for the last the 3 years, related his background of 35
moving to the United States at age 13 to start a career in tennis and his professional 36
accomplishments achieved through connections with fellow tennis players. He now 37
plays both tennis and pickleball and sees the pickleball community growing. He was 38
2
Packet Pg. 14
DRAFT
DRAFT 8
here to support pickleball because of the amazing team behind Palo Alto Pickleball 1
Foundation. He stated Ms. Williams has brought the community together with her 2
energy and passion and has brought pickleball to everyone in the Palo Alto community. 3
He recommended supporting the needs of pickleball in Palo Alto. 4
Chair Greenfield thanked the speakers and appreciated hearing from both the tennis and 5
pickleball communities. 6
Commissioner Cribbs restated that she was in full support of the 6-month trial period. 7
She encouraged joining the joint group to have a discussion about how to utilize all of 8
the courts and make them better for the future. She stated it is important for the 9
community to work together for the benefit of the children. She thanked the Staff for 10
trying to avoid tension and bad feeling when people are trying to get exercise and have a 11
good time. 12
Commissioner Freeman also thanked the community for coming out and being 13
passionate about both tennis and pickleball. The ad hoc had spent a lot of time with Mr. 14
Howard and his team for the last 2 months listening to both sides. Just like pickleball, 15
this policy is evolving quickly and is worth trying. He encouraged his fellow 16
commissioners to approve this. It will give the opportunity to look at other options. He 17
stated a pickleball court can be set up nearly anywhere, even on top of garages and 18
buildings, which is not true of tennis. He also stated it can take 90 minutes to play a 19
game of tennis, whereas it takes 15 to 20 minutes for 4 people to play pickleball. He 20
encouraged the tennis and pickleball communities to work together to help develop this 21
plan going forward. 22
Commissioner Brown felt this was an example of the City being responsive to the 23
evolving needs in the City and determining whether a policy is still working for the 24
users. She pointed out the accessibility and comments about injured tennis players 25
picking up pickleball. The interest in creating youth programming around pickleball 26
with more guaranteed court time was also factored into this decision. She stated data-27
informed decision-making was important to the Commission and felt Mr. Howard did a 28
great job in that area. She did not think it was a bad thing for Palo Alto to be a regional 29
hub for pickleball and did not like the suggestion of a resident requirement or preference, 30
which does not fit with the goals and objectives of the Park Master Plan. A goal of this 31
policy was to improve simplicity and make it easier for people to understand. 32
Establishing a feedback loop to continue to work with Staff is important to evaluate 33
changes and continue the strong record of being responsive. She asked how someone 34
would volunteer or serve on the joint group. 35
Mr. Howard requested they contact him at adam.howard@cityofpaloalto.org. 36
2
Packet Pg. 15
DRAFT
DRAFT 9
Commissioner Kleinhaus requested that Staff include in the community group some 1
neighbors in the area, from Stevenson House or across Charleston, to make sure they are 2
okay with the changes. 3
Mr. Howard stated the group would not focus on that neighborhood alone but he would 4
try to involve neighborhood associations around the larger parks where the opportunity 5
exists. 6
Commission Kleinhaus stated noise is troublesome to people. She did not feel the noise 7
was excessive but wanted to know what people who live there had to say. She suggested 8
checking with residents nearby to see that there are no environmental concerns or impact 9
on their lives. 10
Commissioner Oche stated the temporary resolution might help resolve what is on hand 11
at the moment. She hoped for more information about the committee and what the next 12
steps would be. She wanted residents to know they were heard and the Commission 13
wants to make the right decision to fit both parties. 14
Vice Chair LaMere stated these issues point to broader issues of continuing to engage 15
with sports in the winter, the relationship with the school district about Cubberley, and 16
the land by the Baylands Athletic Facility that was designated when the golf course was 17
redone, looking at use of space and trying to find win-win solutions for everyone. He 18
was excited to see how this 6-month trial works out. 19
Chair Greenfield stated it is a complicated issue that a lot of people care about. He 20
wanted to ensure that parking impacts would be monitored during the trial. He asked to 21
include a policy guideline that usage should go to the dedicated courts first. 22
Mr. Howard stated the language would be included that for pickleball priority, the 23
permanent courts should be used first before moving on to the joint-use space. 24
Chair Greenfield asked to come up with a better name for the community courts group 25
and suggested Racquet Court Advisory Group. He found the slide showing the 26
allocation of the courts to be compelling in terms of the numbers if the trial went ahead. 27
There are a lot of other variables, but he stated the numbers felt fair and reasonable in 28
considering the number of people using the pickleball courts. Living near Mitchell Park, 29
Chair Greenfield agreed that there seems to be more demand at the pickleball courts than 30
the tennis courts and supported the trial. He did not take lightly taking courts away from 31
the tennis community and was hopeful this would be temporary. He hoped this issue 32
would push the envelope in the need for change, with Cubberley potentially being a site 33
where lighted tennis courts could be increased. 34
Vice Chair LaMere asked how big the Racquet Court Advisory Group would be. 35
2
Packet Pg. 16
DRAFT
DRAFT 10
Mr. Howard stated 8 to 10 people would keep it manageable so good communication 1
could take place. Those people would go back to a larger audience and gather 2
information and would be a mix of court users and neighbors. 3
Chair Greenfield stated it would potentially become an application process. 4
Mr. Howard stated if there was a larger audience that wanted to be included, there could 5
be a selection or making sure everybody has an opportunity to participate. He would 6
like to see the process resolve the conflict and then get the group together, potentially by 7
February, to have a positive path forward. People may contact him about this starting 8
immediately. 9
Mr. Anderson clarified that Staff would begin evaluating the usage in 6 months. He 10
wanted to ensure there was no miscommunication on when this would come back to the 11
Commission and what happens in 6 months. He suggested having the time frame be part 12
of the motion. 13
Mr. Howard stated that the policy would be updated to reflect this change and Staff will 14
begin investigating whether that is working in 6 months. There is no expiration date. He 15
stated 6 months will to give it time to change and see how things are going to be 16
impacted before looking at it. 17
Chair Greenfield asked if this is a trial or a policy change. 18
Mr. Howard stated it is a policy change with no permanent structural changes to the 19
courts. Like any other policy, it could be changed in the future. The intention is not to 20
make a policy change and leave it; whether it is working and/or additional changes need 21
to be made will continue to be investigated. The policy change could happen as soon as 22
next month, and it would be in effect for around 6 months before Staff started evaluating 23
how it has impacted the courts and the community. 24
Commissioner Kleinhaus stated she believed a policy change with change of use needed 25
SEQA associated whereas a pilot would not. She asked if it would be better to have a 26
pilot for 6 months to evaluate how effective it is and how well it serves the population 27
and then change the policy. 28
Mr. Howard stated that was not necessary because the use of the courts would not be 29
changed. It would still be a joint-use policy for both courts with no physical changes to 30
how the courts are being used, only the time of the priority use. He was not sure how to 31
allow the change to take place without changing the policy. 32
Commissioner Cribbs asked Mr. Howard to review again where the tennis and pickleball 33
courts are. 34
2
Packet Pg. 17
DRAFT
DRAFT 11
Mr. Howard did so, showing the tennis courts, the designated pickleball courts, and the 1
joint-use courts lined for both sports. On the joint-use courts, priority is currently given 2
7 days a week to pickleball from 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and tennis from 2:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. 3
The change proposed is that the priority on these 2 courts would go to pickleball 8 a.m. 4
to 10 p.m. 7 days a week but the courts would not physically change and would remain 5
dual striped and available to tennis if pickleball players were not on them. 6
Chair Greenfield asked if the temporary nets on the joint-use pickleball courts would be 7
put away each night and set up each morning. 8
Mr. Howard stated that was the expectation. 9
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if someone may finish a game while playing or must 10
leave right away. 11
Mr. Howard asked that the community allow people to finish their play. 12
MOTION 13
Commissioner Brown moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend the 14
City Council adopt the update to the Court Usage Policy with changes to the priority 15
hours on the joint-use courts in Mitchell Park to provide pickleball priority 7 days a 16
week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., with reevaluation to begin in 6 months. 17
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freeman, who encouraged the tennis and 18
pickleball communities to work toward supporting a solution that will work for both 19
parties. 20
Information about creation of the Racquet Court Advisory Group would be included in 21
the staff report that goes to City Council when considering the motion. 22
The motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote. 23
5. E-Bike Ordinance – Daren Anderson – Action 24
Mr. Anderson presented an action item on the Open Spaces and Parks Electric Bicycle 25
and Electric Conveyances policy. The ad hoc and Staff met with the Pedestrian and 26
Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to get feedback on the draft policy on E-bikes 27
and other electric conveyances, and PABAC passed a motion stating they do not support 28
the draft E-bike guidelines. They recognized E-bikes are becoming more popular and 29
there is a need to create some guidelines but urged the PRC to wait until completion of 30
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update, scheduled to begin in early 2023 31
and take between 18 and 24 months to complete, before submitting any 32
recommendations to Council. Some of the comments from PABAC regarding the status 33
2
Packet Pg. 18
DRAFT
DRAFT 12
of the current E-bike laws prompted Staff to review existing regulation R1-37 and 1
current and pending California Vehicle Code legislation with the City Attorney's office. 2
The attorney's office explained that CSD Staff had misinterpreted the status of the 3
existing regulation, R1-37. The regulation, which Staff thought prohibited E-bikes on 4
trails, became obsolete when California Vehicle Code 21207 took effect. Additionally, 5
AB 1909, which takes effect on January 1, 2023, will remove the prohibition of class 3 6
E-bikes on trails unless prohibited specifically by ordinance. That means class 1 and 2 7
E-bikes are currently allowed on open space and park trails, except Foothills Park where 8
no bikes are allowed on trails, and on January 1, 2023, class 3 E-bikes will be allowed on 9
those same trails. 10
The ad hoc committee supported a common policy for all E-bikes without differentiating 11
between classes, a change from the previous draft. Transportation Staff had advocated 12
for an E-bike policy that promotes safe speed behavior rather than one based on 13
classification as distinguishing between the different classes of E-bikes is difficult if not 14
impossible. He reviewed the ad hoc's proposal for the draft Open Space Policy: all 15
classes of E-bikes would be allowed on paved roads and trails and prohibited elsewhere, 16
including unpaved roads and trails; all E-bikes would be allowed for city staff in open 17
space and parks for maintenance and enforcement purposes; and other electric powered 18
mobility devices would be allowed on paved roads and trails in the Baylands Nature 19
Preserve and prohibited in other open space preserves. For urban parks, all E-bikes and 20
other electric-powered mobility devices would be allowed on paved and unpaved trails in 21
parks and prohibited elsewhere. On the previous draft, class 3 E-bikes were not going to 22
be allowed in urban parks. There was feedback from Transportation Staff that 23
prohibiting that would cause problems for parents taking their kids to school. The ad hoc 24
felt it was a good compromise and did not want to interfere with that activity. The ad 25
hoc recommended City Council adopt an update to Ordinance 22.04.220 and the City 26
Manager approve an update to the parks and open space regulations R1-18 and R1-37. 27
If the Commission chose to make this recommendation and City Council were to adopt 28
the change, the ordinance would become effective 31 days after the second reading. If it 29
were an emergency ordinance, it would take effect immediately upon adoption. The 30
update to the parks and open space regulations would become effective at the same time 31
as the ordinance, upon adoption by the City Manager. Some of the ad hoc was able to 32
meet with PABAC, and the Chair would share that conversation. Staff also wished to 33
meet with the City/School Transportation Committee. This is an evolving policy 34
because it is an evolving recreational activity. E-bikes will continue to adapt and 35
change, and Staff will need to track those changes and come back to the Commission 36
with updates and feedback. 37
Chair Greenfield stated that after discussing this item at the October meeting, the 38
intention had been to return to the Commission with an action recommendation in 39
2
Packet Pg. 19
DRAFT
DRAFT 13
December. Instead it is back today based on feedback from PABAC regarding the 1
applicability of the current regulations. As of 2 weeks ago, E-bikes would not have been 2
permitted at Arastradero Preserve or Baylands because there was a regulation in place 3
that motorized vehicles were not permitted. It is now understood that class 1 and 2 E-4
bikes are not considered motorized vehicles; therefore, class 1 and 2 E-bikes are now 5
permitted everywhere that bicycles are permitted. Beginning January 1, new legislation 6
also reclassifies class 3 E-bikes as not motorized vehicles, making them similar to class 1 7
and 2. That was the reason for coming forward more quickly. He appreciated the need 8
to work in conjunction with other pertinent efforts going on in the City but did not feel it 9
was realistic to wait 18 to 24 months for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 10
update before coming back with a recommendation. The proposal is meant to be simple, 11
straightforward, and easy to understand. There is no enforcement available for this, so 12
the focus is on encouraging compliance and community support. 13
Chair Greenfield stated the ad hoc met with Transportation Staff prior to putting the 14
packets up, and he and Commissioner Freeman were able to join the PABAC meeting 15
this afternoon. Chair Greenfield appreciated the expertise PABAC offers and takes 16
seriously their motion that they were not in support of the previous proposal. He looked 17
forward to hearing from PABAC members as part of public speaking on this item. He 18
added the recommendation is focused on simplicity. To move forward with opening 19
unpaved trails at open space areas to E-bikes, there is still work to do. The open space 20
areas do not all need to be considered the same, but there needs to be improved signage, 21
opportunities for education, and time for Staff to get things set up. He stated it was 22
similar to how Foothills Nature Preserve was opened up very quickly and was a 23
significant burden for Staff to deal with at the time based on the timeline associated with 24
the change. 25
Paul Goldstein, member of PABAC, stated there has been discussion about the need for 26
speed in passing this ordinance. In the Baylands, bicycles and class 1 and 2 E-bikes are 27
allowed but class 3's are currently not; as of January 1, class 3 E-bikes will be legal. 28
This minor change is not deserving of the rushed process. His main disagreement with 29
the proposed policy was the prohibition of E-bikes in the Baylands. Bikes and E-bikes 30
are currently allowed, and he suggest continuing to allow them and monitor the use for 31
any problems. He stated the process to update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 32
Plan is beginning and suggested delaying any bicycle prohibitions until the update is 33
completed and usage is monitored, using that information to form a policy in due course. 34
Rani Fischer, Environmental Advocacy Assistant for Santa Clara Valley Audubon 35
Society, urged the Commission to oppose the ad hoc committee's recommendation and to 36
prohibit all electronic bicycles on unpaved trails in Palo Alto's nature preserves. She 37
gave information that birds will fly 145 feet from their nests after sensing a perceived 38
threat, wasting energy and body heat and subjecting them to predation, and that fast-39
2
Packet Pg. 20
DRAFT
DRAFT 14
moving objects like E-bikes are more threatening to birds than slower-moving 1
pedestrians are. She encouraged reading a recent story by Ed Young in the Altantic 2
titled How Animals Perceive the World, which provides examples of how "every 3
creature lives in its own sensory bubble" and how humans are discovering how impactful 4
their sensory comfort bubble is on other species. People encroaching into animals' 5
habitats may cause displacement, disconnect movement patterns, and increase habitat 6
segmentation. E-bikes erect a wall of sound along trials in the preserves that create 7
obstacles to animal connectivity, reproduction, and safety. She requested the 8
Commission prohibit electronic bicycles on all unpaved trails and provide opportunities 9
for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. 10
Susan DesJardin, Chair of Sierra Club's Bay Alive Campaign, stated the San Francisco 11
Bay is a critical habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife, but urban and industrial growth 12
have put pressure on the Bay's environmental health. Climate change, including sea 13
level rise and groundwater rise, poses a threat to ecosystems all around the Bay. These 14
ecosystems need to remain a vibrant place for wildlife and a buffer against climate 15
change. She requested the Commission limit the E-bike use to only paved trails in open 16
space areas, prohibiting E-bikes on unpaved trails. This policy provides simplicity for 17
bike riders and pedestrians and is consistent with neighboring agencies. These areas are 18
habitats of endangered species and provide high-tide refuge for many other species of 19
birds and animals. It is critical not to degrade these habitats with high-speed and/or 20
noisy vehicles on trails. It is unfortunate that no funding is available for enforcement, so 21
it is doubly important that adequate signage for E-bike restriction and speed limitations 22
be provided both in the Baylands and on the City's website. 23
Penny Ellson, PABAC Chair, speaking as an individual, thanked Staff for revising the 24
draft policy to allow bikes and E-bikes on all park trails and strongly supported the 25
policy. These trails are important, providing safe off-road routes to PAUSD schools, 26
playing fields, libraries, community centers, and other city facilities for less experienced 27
and confident bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Regarding E-bikes in open spaces, she 28
stated all Palo Alto open spaces are not equal and terrain is an important factor to 29
consider. She understand prohibiting E-bikes from hilly areas of open space but asked 30
the Commission to consider the mostly flat Bay Trails open space differently. Because 31
the Bay Trails connect to trails in neighboring communities that allow E-bikes and many 32
of the trails are wide enough to be considered roads, it would be very difficult to enforce 33
a prohibition of E-bikes on the Bay Trails. She encouraged defining and enforcing rules 34
for behavior related to speed and behavior around equestrians, pedestrians, and wildlife. 35
She felt the December City Council action item was premature, with sufficient outreach 36
not having been done. 37
Arthur Liberman, member of PABAC, stated there are 2 key features behind the Staff 38
recommendation. The first is the wish to treat all the open space preserves the same 39
2
Packet Pg. 21
DRAFT
DRAFT 15
way. The Baylands is different from the other Palo Alto open space preserves with flat 1
terrain and trails that are wide gravel roadways. The Midpen District treats its open 2
space preserves differently when it comes to allowing dogs off leash and E-bikes, and 3
the half-mile unpaved trail in the Ravenswood Preserve where E-bikes are allowed is 4
essentially identical to the Adobe Creek trail or the unpaved section of the San 5
Francisquito Creek Trail in the Baylands. The second feature of the Staff 6
recommendation is its desire to be consistent with the Midpen Open Space District's 7
policies, but prohibiting access of E-bikes in the Baylands is not consistent with that 8
policy. At the Midpen Directors' Meeting in June, in the discussion of a motion to 9
continue E-bike access in Ravenswood, there was no mention of any environmental or 10
ecological damage caused by E-bike riders. He asked the Commission to reconsider the 11
Draft Open Space E-bike Policy to allow E-bikes on the Baylands unpaved trails or to 12
create a pilot program that would allow E-bikes there for an evaluation period. 13
Eileen McLaughlin, representing the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, 14
supported the recommendation of the ad hoc committee regarding E-bikes. She stated 15
she attended a Palo Alto webinar called Balancing Public Access and Habitat 16
Enhancement at the Baylands in which speakers highlighted local scientific studies of the 17
reaction of wildlife to human activity on trails. There is a direct relationship between 18
human presence and avoidance behavior by wildlife in the vicinity, with a need to take 19
all due precautions for both people and wildlife sharing these spaces, including limiting 20
E-bikes to paved roads and trails. She had accompanied a person in a wheelchair on 21
trails and stated it can be uncomfortable when a rude bicyclist flies by. She stated there 22
needs to be greater emphasis on safe speed requirements rather than a specific speed. 23
She stated keeping bikes on paved trails may not be in the best interest of individuals 24
covered by ADA regulations or others casually enjoying the open space and questioned 25
if the recommendations were adequate for those situations. 26
Mike Ferreira, who is on the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club, stated he was in 27
attendance at the MROSD meeting referenced by an earlier speaker. He felt it was wise 28
that MROSD, with the exception of 1 trail, limited E-bikes to paved trails. He stated it 29
was irritating to deal with speeding bikes or to be shouted at to get out of the way of 30
speeding bikes on the Bay Trail and hated to think of how fast electric bikes would run 31
on that trail. He envisioned different trails for pedestrians and bicycles. MROSD did a 32
lot of environmental studies prior, which prompted them to have caution, and he stated 33
there had not been analysis of that impact for electric bikes on the trails the Commission 34
is thinking about. He suggested proceeding as previously decided and obtaining credible 35
environmental data before going any further. 36
Dashiell Leeds, Conservation Organizer for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, agreed 37
with the previous comments in support of protecting ecosystems. He stated these 38
policies present a good balance between ecological protection and recreational access 39
2
Packet Pg. 22
DRAFT
DRAFT 16
and allow commuters to use the Bay Trail. He supported the recommendation of the 1
PRC Electric Conveyances Policy Ad Hoc Committee and asked the Commission to 2
recommend that Council adopt the ordinance and regulation on electric bicycles and 3
electric coasting devices. He stated habitat monitoring is important and Palo Alto should 4
maintain a science-based approach to trail policy management to ensure ecosystems are 5
protected. 6
Vice Chair LaMere asked if bicycles have always been allowed in Baylands. 7
Mr. Anderson stated regular bicycles have been allowed. 8
Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Anderson to comment regarding the urgency and particularly 9
impacts to Staff now that E-bike are permitted at 3 open space areas. 10
Mr. Anderson has discussed with the rangers the concerns they have enforcing this. For 11
example, rangers have increasingly seen one-wheel users migrate off the trail and onto 12
natural areas. The ranger staff fears this is going to grow and become an entrenched 13
habit. A lot of the trails in the Baylands are very road-like but happen to go through 14
habitats filled with endangered species. There are unpaved trails across from the ranger 15
station and the Environmental Volunteer Center that are only 4 feet wide and made of 16
oyster shells. Allowing E-bikes on unpaved trails would include those as well. 17
Commissioner Freeman asked if telling the difference visually between an electric and 18
peddle bikes when regular bikes are allowed on the Baylands Trails would be an extra 19
burden on the rangers. 20
Mr. Anderson stated it would be a challenge. The ad hoc recommended having good 21
signage and education. If this policy moves forward, Staff would concurrently work on 22
the signage plan and website updates for education. The biggest part would be through 23
voluntary compliance. If this policy were to go forward, the rangers would be able to 24
articulate the policy to people who ask. They do not have radar guns, but when they see 25
gross violations of speed, they will stop the rider and speak with them. There would then 26
be a conversation about where electric bikes are allowed. 27
Commissioner Kleinhaus stated science-based decisions are important. In the previously 28
mentioned webinar Palo Alto hosted, one of the first things that came up was that people 29
do not understand their own impacts. There were talks about how difficult it is to keep 30
people from interfering with endangered species, and many impacts are not noticeable to 31
people but very noticeable to the animals. There are a lot of endangered species in the 32
Baylands, and Palo Alto needs to protect that. She felt it was important to study impacts 33
of faster movement with associated sounds before making a decision and wanted to be 34
precautionary rather than do something and find out the impact when it was too late. 35
The ad hoc discussed that if the rules are changing and rangers cannot catch up, there 36
2
Packet Pg. 23
DRAFT
DRAFT 17
will be another situation like what happened with Foothills Park, this time involving 1
quite a lot of endangered species, which is of great concern. She supported the ad hoc 2
recommendations. Parks and Rec has responsibilities other groups do not, recreation and 3
also nature. There is no one else watching for those endangered species. She wanted to 4
strike the balance that allows commuters to use the Bay Trail where it is paved and allow 5
non-motorized bicycles to continue to use some of the facilities. 6
Commissioner Freeman stated this was a difficult decision, coming down to people 7
being responsible, which is where safety concerns come into play. One challenge is 8
trying to make it easy on the rangers and Staff, but there is a big growth in electric 9
conveyance vehicles that will get bigger over time. This is a recreational technology that 10
is changing quickly, so having something evolving in place might be the best way to go. 11
The biggest things are the right documentation and signage and protecting the 12
environment. He fully supported the way the policy is laid out but thought it was 13
something that will evolve over time. 14
Chair Greenfield reviewed the policy again. Education and signage is very important, 15
and the need for improved parking for bicycles at the open space areas should be 16
prioritized and specific locations to add parking identified. Bixby Park is part of the 17
Baylands Open Space, so the open space guidelines apply there. As far as the Midpen 18
policy, E-bikes are allowed at Ravenswood and limited portions of Rancho San Antonio, 19
but Ravenswood is essentially an outlier within the Midpen policy. E-bikes are not 20
permitted on paved roads at most Midpen sites, so he believed this policy was consistent 21
with that of Midpen. He believed this policy recommendation struck a good balance 22
between the transportation and recreation needs of the community and preservation. 23
Transportation through the Baylands on the Bay Trail and through parks used as safe 24
routes to school and other destinations has been prioritized. In the open space preserves, 25
the policy recommends prioritizing environmental and ecological protection over the 26
recreational desires of the community. 27
Commissioner Oche asked about the plan in terms of awareness and signage and also 28
speed. As this subject will be evolving, she asked how often it should be reviewed to 29
address balance and respond to community needs. 30
Mr. Anderson stated there is not yet a plan regarding the signage. Most signage is at the 31
trailheads to catch people coming into the preserve or at a trail, so that is where it would 32
be added to reflect any policy, clarifying which bikes are allowed. There are trail 33
etiquette signs in some areas, and more of them are needed to make it clearer. That will 34
help cut down on conflict between equestrians, bicyclists, and hikers. Speed is also a 35
part of that. Staff will work with the ranger staff to come up with layout and messaging. 36
Commissioner Cribbs asked if there is a lot of conflict right now or if the concern is 37
anticipation of conflict. 38
2
Packet Pg. 24
DRAFT
DRAFT 18
Mr. Anderson stated there is some conflict right now but not a lot. The rangers have met 1
with the ad hoc, shared their perspectives, and noted where they have seen an increase in 2
things. The rangers at Palo Alto are multifaceted and not spending the majority of their 3
day watching for those things. Rangers get complaints on both sides of the argument, 4
people who want to be able to use their E-bikes and those who do not want E-bikes in 5
open spaces. 6
Commissioner Brown stated this was not unlike the general principal of the sidewalk 7
policy in which there was blanket state legislation to fit into the policy for Palo Alto's 8
specific parks and open space areas. She appreciated the outreach done to PABAC as 9
well as the environmental groups but was disappointed there was not more in terms of 10
connectivity and transportation planning efforts. MTC, the regional planning agency, 11
has a Bay Trail Gap Closure Plan to connect 500 miles of trail in the Bay Area, which 12
this trail is part of, and that was not referenced. Being involved in their public 13
engagement process would be essential, and the Baylands needs to be reevaluated. She 14
was in favor of the recommendation and keeping it more restrictive right now but also 15
being mindful of what other agencies on the trail are doing, not just Midpen or other 16
open space areas, and the transportation aspect. She would like to see more about the 17
equity component moving forward. 18
Vice Chair LaMere also realized a policy was needed with the action being taken at the 19
state level but wanted to revisit the policy in the Baylands at some point. He understood 20
the difficulty in identifying different classes of E-bikes but thought that allowing class 1 21
peddle-assist in the Baylands where regular bicycles are allowed was reasonable. He 22
supported the policy as is. 23
Mr. Anderson stated the Bay Trail aspect was a good note to see what is going on around 24
the Bay. The ad hoc made sure there was connectivity on the part of the Bay Trail most 25
frequently used. He noted that Midpen had commissioned a report entitled E-bikes and 26
Open Space, The Current State of Research and Management Recommendations, 27
prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. In the executive summary, almost all of 28
the takeaways noted the dearth of information and more research needed. That will be 29
coming soon. The impacts to the Baylands should be reevaluated based on the research 30
coming and following the broader Bay Area and leaders like Midpen. He hoped Staff, 31
the ad hoc, and the Commission could track what is happening and make adjustments, 32
having an adaptive management technique. 33
Chair Greenfield stated he would expect to revisit this before the Bicycle and Pedestrian 34
Transportation Plan is completed 18 to 24 months from now. The usage and impacts of 35
E-bikes in the parks, on the paved trails in the Baylands, and on the unpaved trails in the 36
Baylands even if they are prohibited need be evaluated. An E-bike ad hoc needs to be 37
continued in the coming years. 38
2
Packet Pg. 25
DRAFT
DRAFT 19
Commissioner Freeman asked if there is a way to monitor traffic over the next several 1
months to see whether there has been an increase in bicycles and whether rangers might 2
be able to tell how many of those were E-bikes or other electric conveyances. 3
Mr. Anderson stated it is challenging. Having 14 entrances to the Baylands makes it 4
difficult to adequately monitor 1 spot without an unfeasible endeavor. Spot checks and 5
trying to extrapolate information from smaller bits of analysis is possible but of uncertain 6
value. The rangers will be directed to make anecdotal observations and notes to the best 7
they can and possibly do an intercept to ask people questions or try to monitor. 8
There was discussion of wording of the motion to be proposed. 9
MOTION 10
Chair Greenfield moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that: 11
1. City Council adopt an update to Ordinance 22.04.220 to include electric bicycles 12
and electric coasting devices; 13
2. City Manager adopt the updated Park and Open Space Regulations R1-18 and R1-14
37 to regulate electric bicycles and electric coasting devices. 15
Seconded by Commissioner Kleinhaus, the motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote. 16
6. CIP Review – Lam Do – Discussion 17
Lam Do, Superintendent with Community Services, presented a preliminary list of 18
Capital Improvement Projects under consideration. Staff sought the Commission's 19
feedback on projects presented, prioritization of these projects, and an assessment for 20
any missing projects not listed that should be considered. He reviewed the CIP criteria 21
and prioritization criteria and presented a list of the CIPs the Department is considering 22
for fiscal year '24, ongoing CIPs proposed annually, and CIPs for years 2 through 5 for 23
planning purposes, primarily projects under Parks and Recreation. He also presented 24
CIP needs identified that are not yet formalized because some need further vetting or 25
more scope and others need more exploration of the cost and/or funding source. He 26
spoke about the CIP process timeline and how projects get from discussion to proposal to 27
adoption. 28
Chair Greenfield stated it would be helpful for Staff to clarify what they need from the 29
Parks Commission. He also thanked Staff for getting this to the Commission early 30
enough to make recommendations and wanted to make sure to get this on the agenda 31
every November. 32
2
Packet Pg. 26
DRAFT
DRAFT 20
Mr. Do asked the Commission to consider whether to proceed with the preliminary list 1
presented and what has been prioritized for fiscal year '24 versus the other fiscal years. 2
He also asked if there were any projects the Commission thought the Department should 3
consider that is not on the above lists. It is an open discussion of prioritization, 4
omissions, and whether what the Commission wants the Department to focus on. 5
Commissioner Kleinhaus stated the Parks Master Plan included pollinator corridors and 6
ways to connect parks, either along streets or asking homeowners to plant if they have a 7
creek in the backyard, and there was no follow-up. There was a map of butterfly 8
corridors connecting the parks with a biodiversity overlay, looking at creating ways for 9
birds and butterflies to get through the urban landscape, which are important to prevent 10
the loss of biodiversity. Palo Alto plants native trees but could do more than that. Some 11
of the mitigations that have been discussed and not done may need to come into 12
budgeting. She worried about extra lighting in parks in general. People wanted lights 13
installed at Ramos Park, and it has not increased use but caused a tree to be trimmed 14
severely. She mentioned a webinar discussing the impacts of lighting and did not 15
consider lighting an improvement. 16
Mr. Do stated Staff could talk to the Park Architect in Public Works to implement these 17
aspects and could also address some of them separately, not necessarily through a CIP. 18
The pollinator corridors could be addressed through the operating budget as not 19
necessarily a large project but implemented collectively at different locations. 20
Mr. Anderson stated there has been some headway on that in partnership with Juanita 21
Salisbury, adding 8 pollinator gardens and partnering with churches and other people 22
along the corridor and Embarcadero Road. They are taking passive turf or ineffectual 23
habitat areas, either dirt or nonnative shrubs, and converting them to diverse, well-24
functioning habitat areas that support pollinators. That endeavor was supported through 25
operating funds. He echoed the idea of making sure to have mitigation funding. For 26
plantings in the $50,000 range, it has to be a CIP. He stated he would work with Mr. Do 27
to find a place to put that in. 28
Chair Greenfield stated the Master Plan is an aspirational document that is an unfunded 29
mandate. CIPs are a potential way to get funding, but things have to fit into priority. He 30
stated the process is to suggest ideas to Staff, who can then guide the Commission. 31
Commissioner Brown thought a lot of what has been proposed had come up previously. 32
She was happy to see park restrooms and Magical Bridge. She asked about the cost of 33
the Foothills Park bathroom, which was originally slated earlier. 34
Mr. Anderson stated there are 3 aging restrooms at Foothills where the structure and 35
supporting infrastructure need to be replaced. The water and sewer lines also need work, 36
which is part of why the prices are so high. Staff wants to be empathetic to concerns 37
2
Packet Pg. 27
DRAFT
DRAFT 21
about the expense for a restroom project being so high and wants to be judicial with city 1
funds. The large prices were recently vetted by the Facilities Team in Public Works who 2
said they are steep but accurate. Staff is looking into cost savings elements, such as a 3
prefab that would fit with the Foothills aesthetic. Costs are dynamic and frequently 4
change. Staff will keep the feedback in mind when deciding where different projects end 5
up on the final list. 6
Commissioner Brown asked if there is a process to take advantage of a low bidding 7
environment and move things up in the CIP if the price goes down. 8
Mr. Anderson stated things can move up on the list for a number of reasons, such as 9
favorable bidding, grant funding, or a change in the status of the infrastructure itself. 10
Commissioner Oche asked what the ongoing CIPs covers. 11
Mr. Do stated there are 6 ongoing CIPs, and they are not specific to any location. For 12
example, athletic courts resurfacing could be in any park based on the age of the tennis 13
or basketball courts. Of the 6 items, the only one that is location specific is open space 14
lake and pond maintenance, to remove aquatic plant life from Boronda Lake annually. 15
Commissioner Oche asked if this is the final time to give feedback. 16
Mr. Do stated feedback can be given tonight or through the ad hoc within the next month 17
before the proposal is submitted. 18
Chair Greenfield asked that feedback not go through the ad hoc but directly to Staff. 19
Commissioner Cribbs asked if something like an emergency for the soccer fields skews 20
the priorities. 21
Mr. Anderson stated the park emergency CIP was $125,000, which was not enough, and 22
there was not a CIP in place already. In that situation, Staff consults with the Office of 23
Management and Budget for recommendations and looks at other CIPs where savings 24
may be anticipated and the budget may be adjusted. The infill at Mayfield is a prime 25
example of that. 26
Commissioner Cribbs asked if the location of the restroom listed as TBD on the 27
proposed CIPs for 2024 is the Magical Bridge. 28
Mr. Anderson stated it is. He stated the funding is an important element but without the 29
staff to implement it, it is very difficult to make it happen. Staff has met with Public 30
Works Engineering twice, and each time they have asked to push something out. The 31
first reaction to adding another project on top of upcoming ones is to push the Magical 32
Bridge out, but that is critical to the community. One option is to see if another group 33
2
Packet Pg. 28
DRAFT
DRAFT 22
within Public Works Engineering can manage it because the typical group is taxed. 1
Hiring a project manager can help, but staff would still need to be involved. That will be 2
something to explore in order to stay on top of everything, assuming the money is 3
available. 4
Commissioner Freeman stated this gives a good picture of the projects. He asked if 5
priority can change over time if something becomes more important. 6
Mr. Anderson stated changes take place as priorities shift. For example, the sailing 7
station at the Baylands is old with not a lot of life left on it. Using $30,000 from the park 8
emergency fund toward that when the 2 docks separated added another decade to the 9
lifespan, rather than replacing it for $1M. Instead of being in the 1- to 3-year time frame, 10
it is not even on the plan right now. 11
Commissioner Freeman stated when Staff put together the budget list for '23, '24, '25, 12
they likely did not anticipate pickleball becoming a big thing. He asked if it would get 13
factored into the budget going forward if there is a decision to build additional pickleball 14
courts and if the price associated with that is under ongoing CIPs or would be a 15
completely new project. 16
Mr. Anderson stated it would likely be a standalone because the ongoing CIPs would not 17
have that amount of money. Rather than earmarking $1M for a pickleball court in '25, it 18
would likely be the other way around, doing some planning and community outreach and 19
then creating a CIP. 20
Chair Greenfield asked if there is an annual increase typically added to the ongoing CIPs 21
and if it is needed this year. 22
Mr. Do stated there have been increases to the ongoing CIPs, but it is not annual. After a 23
number of years without any increases and exhausting of the budget, the Office of 24
Management and Budget gave a one-time bump that is ongoing. At present, there is not 25
another acceleration percentage annually. 26
Chair Greenfield asked if it should be considered differently this year due to 27
unprecedented inflation. 28
Mr. Do stated the Office of Management and Budget is aware of bids for projects 29
coming in much higher than anticipated. Staff has gone back to ask for more funding for 30
both ongoing and existing projects, and that is always on the table as an ask. 31
Commissioner Kleinhaus did not understand why $175,000 was budgeted for improving 32
trails and did not include planting native plants next to them. She stated it was not less 33
important than maintaining or building a trail and wanted to see green infrastructure as 34
2
Packet Pg. 29
DRAFT
DRAFT 23
part of the picture. She stated Mountain View has a biodiversity overlay on their 1
programs now with a priority of biodiversity in the city. She wanted to see a wildlife 2
preservation plan with improvements focusing on wildlife rather than things like 3
increasing parking. She suggested looking for a project that actually does something for 4
wildlife and not just removing weeds and fixing trails. 5
Mr. Anderson stated 10,000 native plants are planted every year for almost the last 20 6
years, but there can always be more because these areas are so big. It is also built into 7
CIPs for parks projects and is happening, sometimes via partnerships, operating funds, or 8
capital embedded in ongoing projects. He mentioned a standalone CIP for $100K for 9
habitat improvements to be used wherever it is needed. 10
Chair Greenfield stated once something is on the list, it gains some inertia and gets 11
funded. He stated it was reasonable to ask how to get more established regular funding 12
for some of the natural environment initiatives. 13
Commissioner Kleinhaus stated quite a few projects done in recent years need to be 14
upgraded because of use and asked about the impacts of adding more improvements 15
because they need to be maintained. She questioned why they need to be done so 16
frequently. 17
Mr. Anderson gave the example that the boardwalk is far too new to require a big repair 18
project, but unfortunately due to regulations requiring natural wood to be used, 19
shipworms and wood boring isopods have gotten into some of the pilings. The CIP will 20
probably be to prevent future damage to the natural wood pilings. Some playgrounds 21
have a lifespan of 20 years, but some older ones have wood bases that rot out faster and 22
have a lifespan of 10 years. That changes the typical cycle. The Magical Bridge is 23
interesting because it has 30,000 kids per month rather than the usual 1,000 or 2,000, 24
with more wear. He stated that more assets making it more of a burden can be true. 25
While every playground deserves to be as amazing as the Magical Bridge, bearing the 26
financial burden of replacing it quickly needs to be considered. Staff tries to pool 27
projects together so there would be a bigger time gap before the disruptive project; 28
however, some assets do not age out at the same time. It is multifaceted. 29
Chair Greenfield thanked Staff for the detail on this item. 30
7. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Discussion 31
Chair Greenfield stated next month there is a fairly light agenda and encouraged detailed 32
ad hoc and liaison updates. 33
Commissioner Brown stated she is working with Staff and the dog owners group on 34
exploring a possible location in North Palo Alto area along Palo Alto Avenue for a dog 35
2
Packet Pg. 30
DRAFT
DRAFT 24
park. She will also continue discussions with the Barron Park group. She thanked Mr. 1
Ghods for the timely updates to the agenda website. 2
Commissioner Cribbs also thanked Mr. Ghods that the fundraising ad hoc now has a 3
page about how to give money to the Park and Recreation Commission. 4
Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Ghods to send out a link to commission members when 5
adding new pages of interest to the Commission. 6
Commissioner Cribbs mentioned that the golf course tour with Chair Greenfield and 7
Commissioner Kleinhaus to look at trees was incredibly interesting and hoped to 8
continue to look at that. The recreational opportunities ad hoc had a good session with 9
Chase and Adam about middle school athletics and learned about the program, which is 10
serving a lot of middle school kids. There was idea about adding opportunity for 11
fundraising for middle school athletics, and Mr. Anderson has talked with the City 12
Attorney about what can be done. More work will be done on that. Regarding 13
recreational opportunities, a presentation will be brought to the Commission in January 14
to talk about the Recreation/Wellness Center and the status. 15
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR 16
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 17
Chair Greenfield stated all that is on the agenda next month is the urban forestry annual update and the 18
AWPS. In January is the Wellness/Rec Center update, most likely a golf update to include First Tee, 19
an aquatics update, and Cubberley restroom discussion. 20
Commissioner Kleinhaus requested an update on the tree part of the mitigations for the golf course. 21
She stated there is still a lot of work being done on the wetlands but wanted a discussion for the trees. 22
Mr. Anderson stated Staff is behind on that and not prepared to bring a meaningful discussion. 23
Starting with the ad hoc liaison would be helpful. That effort has been prioritized toward the wetland 24
mitigation. Staff was supposed to have been monitoring that for quite some time, and for reasons 25
including COVID and funding, it was not done. The primary push is to get with the Water Board, 26
monitoring and managing those wetlands to reach a certain level of native cover. In addition to having 27
Grassroots Ecology cage many naturally occurring oaks up in Arastradero Preserve as part of the 28
mitigation for the tree loss at the golf course project, there was also other acreage that was supposed to 29
be restored. It is unclear exactly where that is, if it happened, what was promised. 30
ADJOURNMENT 31
Meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m. 32
2
Packet Pg. 31
DRAFT
DRAFT 1
1
2
3
MINUTES 4
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5
SPECIAL MEETING 6
DECEMBER 13, 2022 7
In-Person & Virtual Conference 8
Palo Alto, California 9
10
Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Commissioners Amanda Brown, Anne Cribbs, 11
Nellis Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, and Joy Oche 12
Commissioners Absent: 13
Others Present: 14
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Javod Ghods 15
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 16
BUSINESS 17
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 18
Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency 19
Commissioner Freeman moved to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Commissioner 20
Cribbs, the motion passed, 5-0, by roll call vote. 21
PUBLIC COMMENT 22
Nate Blair, volunteer coach for Palo Alto Little League, called in to comment about the 23
poor condition of the field at Hoover Park. He believes there is confusion about whether 24
Palo Alto Little League or the city is responsible for the cost of maintenance of the field. 25
He asked the Commission to see if there is a way to facilitate keeping the baseball field 26
in better condition for the city’s residents. One impediment to the field remaining in 27
good condition has been dog owners using it as a dog park despite there being a dog park 28
nearby. Mr. Blair asked the Commission to advocate for better enforcement of the 29
ordinance that calls for no dogs off leash in that area. 30
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 31
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32
3
Packet Pg. 32
DRAFT
DRAFT 2
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the November 22, 2022, Parks and Recreation 1
Commission Meeting 2
Chair Greenfield recommended delaying the approval of the draft minutes from the 3
November 22, 2022, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting given they were 4
presented to the Commission the morning of the meeting. 5
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 6
3. Department Report 7
Daren Anderson, Community Services Department, gave an update on the recruitment 8
status. Staff is still recruiting for a Park Maintenance position, the hourly Open Space 9
Technician positions and Budget Analyst. The daily flamingo feedings at the JMZ have 10
resumed at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. Donations for the yearly Holiday Toy Drive can be 11
dropped off at the fire stations, libraries and community center in Mitchell Park. The day 12
after the meeting will be the last day for that and also for registering for the Holiday 13
Decorating Contest. Judging will take place December 16 through 20. More information 14
for that can be found at cityofpaloalto.org/decoratingcontest. He provided an update on 15
the infill at Mayfield Soccer Complex. The contractor completed all work on the north 16
field. It is now open and they will start work on the south field. They had to stop due to 17
rain and will resume Thursday. There is no firm date for when the project will be 18
completed because of the weather but it is anticipated to be reopened by the end of next 19
week. The Magical Bridge Playground improvement project has been completed and the 20
playground opened on December 1. 21
Commissioner Kleinhaus reported that an email was received about an arts installation 22
on sea level rise and questioned whether the public will be informed about it. 23
Mr. Anderson explained that this is being led by Karen Kienzle with the Art Division 24
from Community Services who will post signs at the park and the city manager will 25
announce it on the website. He explained what the exhibition and that it will be placed 26
just off the banks in front of the Nature Interpretive Center. 27
Commissioner Brown asked for an update on the Foothills entrance fees from the last 28
meeting. 29
Mr. Anderson answered they were waiting on the purchasing department to finalize the 30
contract. The IT department stated the contractor will be required to provide $2M worth 31
of insurance liability as opposed to the typical $1M because of a cybersecurity element. 32
The contractor agreed but is not able to right now. A temporary exception is being 33
sought and when the risk management department reviews that and gives their ruling the 34
work can be started. 35
3
Packet Pg. 33
DRAFT
DRAFT 3
BUSINESS 1
4. Advanced Water Purification System (AWPS) – Diego Martinez Garcia – 2
Discussion 3
Tom Kapushinski, Senior Engineer with Public Works, presented an agenda of what was 4
to be discussed and presented a slide show outlining the details and purpose of the 5
project to include the tree removal, planting palette, irrigation plans and lighting 6
considerations. 7
Mr. Martinez Garcia added to the presentation discussing the proposed sound wall and 8
tree removal and replacement. He detailed how recycled water will be used for irrigation 9
purposes. 10
Mr. Kapushinski discussed the lighting considerations including using timers. 11
Mr. Martinez Garcia added further details on the lighting considerations and outlined the 12
next steps for the project stating they continue to undergo a finance evaluation with their 13
partner, The City of Mountainview. The plan will be to complete the design in January 14
2023. 15
Mr. Kapushinski mentioned that the planning department has been reviewing this and 16
once their input is received, they will go through permitting. The construction is 17
estimated to start near the end of 2023 and will take about two years to complete the 18
project. 19
Commissioner Oche questioned if the amount of potable water demand they are saving 20
will be communicated. 21
Mr. Kapushinski answered they are not adding any recycled water at this point, just 22
improving the quality. They are monitoring the flow going out. Mountain View is 23
interested in getting more recycled water but need higher quality. 24
Commissioner Oche asked what the frequency will be for the stated gallons of water 25
needed. 26
Mr. Martinez Garcia answered that number was the volume of the container of the plants 27
when they were purchased. 28
Bob Norbutas from Siegfried explained that using water efficient planting and drought 29
tolerant, indigenous plants, the expectation is to establish them with a low water amount 30
and eventually shut off the system in 3 to 5 years when they are acclimated to the area. It 31
will educate the community that using plants like these will save water whether using 32
potable or recycled water. 33
3
Packet Pg. 34
DRAFT
DRAFT 4
Commissioner Freeman asked when the removal and replacement of plants will start and 1
what the growth rate will be. 2
Mr. Martinez Garcia said the removal will be at the beginning of the construction. The 3
replacement will take place a year and a half after starting the project. 4
Commissioner Freeman asked if the selection of plants was an attempt to duplicate the 5
current plants. 6
Mr. Norbutas explained how they determined the selection of plants and trees. 7
Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if they plan to clear the shrubbery and undergrowth in 8
the area between the other property and the plant where they plan to leave the existing 9
trees. 10
Mr. Kapushinski answered they will try to minimize that area as much as possible. 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if something can be added to the specs, so people know 12
not to clean that area. 13
Mr. Martinez Garcia showed the trees to be cleared and the ones to remain were marked 14
in the plans. 15
Commissioner Kleinhaus added that does not mean somebody that comes in will not 16
decide to just clean the area. She expressed concern for the 4000k blue light being 17
provided and asked them to provide the code requiring it. She felt 2700K would be 18
sufficient. 19
Mr. Kapushinski said they would provide that code. He stated that Black & Veatch felt 20
2700K would not be adequate. 21
Commissioner Brown asked for signage to incorporate education of the beautification of 22
the site. 23
Mr. Kapushinski stated there is an educational placard proposed into the design about 24
what the system entails and how it treats the water. 25
Commissioner Kleinhaus expressed concern about the melaleuca trees because they have 26
been shown to be invasive in Florida and may not belong near the bay as they are not 27
native to California. She suggested looking at the plants the Public Works planted on the 28
other side of the water facility. 29
Mr. Martinez Garcia said that in 2013, this portion of the plant was landscaped with 30
feedback from experts and species will be the same. 31
3
Packet Pg. 35
DRAFT
DRAFT 5
Mr. Norbutas stated during that project, it was important to establish a plant palette that 1
would work with recycled water, which were not common, and they had to guess what 2
would work best at that time. 3
Commissioner Kleinhaus commented that it is good the recycled water will be used 4
because the plant produces more than the customers absorb, which means a lot of it ends 5
up in the bay introducing chemicals in the bay. 6
Chair Greenfield asked why construction will take two years. 7
Mr. Kapushinski stated they were originally looking at an 18-month schedule but supply 8
chain issues and permitting have caused them to need more time. 9
Chair Greenfield asked for explanation on the various approvals that City Council has to 10
provide before moving forward. 11
Mr. Kapushinski answered they need recommendations from the Architectural Review 12
Board then will go to Council. They will not be ready to go to construction until the 13
financing aspect has been worked out involving Palo Alto and Mountain View. He 14
estimated near the end of next year they might be ready to go to construction. 15
Chair Greenfield asked what approvals City Council will need to give. 16
Mr. Kapushinski stated City Council will have to approve the construction contract after 17
the financing has been agreed on. The construction costs have gone up from the initial 18
estimate. Funding arrangements have to be worked out between all parties in the project 19
before presenting the construction contract to City Council. 20
Chair Greenfield asked if there will be motion-sensors used for the lighting. 21
Mr. Kapushinski stated they are working on delay-timers for the lighting. 22
Chair Greenfield emphasized he wants to make sure there continues to be a green border 23
between the plant and the street and that the sound wall will be hidden with plants. He 24
inquired whether the tree replacement ratio of 75% is this the number of trees or the net 25
canopy being changed and why it is not 100%. 26
Peter Gollinger, Urban Forestry, explained that based on the species, composition and 27
condition of the trees that were there, a 75% replacement ratio would be acceptable. This 28
was number of trees, not canopy replacement. 29
Chair Greenfield asked if the updated tree production ordinance would have changed that 30
number. 31
3
Packet Pg. 36
DRAFT
DRAFT 6
Mr. Gollinger answered if the project had started after that ordinance was put in place 1
they would have pushed for a minimum of 1:1. 2
Chair Greenfield asked what the net loss of the canopy would be after 15 years given the 3
species being removed and the species and sizes that are being planted. 4
Mr. Gollinger said based on the density of the plantings, they are not losing that large a 5
percentage of the canopy because they will be planted close together and higher quality 6
species. 7
Mr. Martinez Garcia commented there is a sun filter in the middle of the wooded area 8
that is not covered by any sort of vegetation. 9
Chair Greenfield asked how the Commission will respond to the questions that were not 10
answered at the meeting. 11
Mr. Anderson stated the comments shared will be passed on to the remaining boards, 12
commissions or councils that will do the review. During the permitting process, it will be 13
conveyed that the Parks and Recreation Commission have expressed concerned about the 14
lights and the ARB will give the findings. 15
Commissioner Kleinhaus questioned where it will go in Mountain View for approval. 16
Mr. Martinez Garcia answered Mountain View’s City Council will approve the 17
construction part of the project. 18
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if they will pay for the water. 19
Mr. Martinez Garcia stated that is being discussed. 20
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked them to consider just having a switch to turn the lighting 21
on and off as opposed to permanent or motion-censored lighting. 22
Chair Greenfield asked for an explanation for why Mountain View is involved in the 23
project. 24
Mr. Martinez Garcia answered that Palo Alto has an agreement with Mountain View 25
entitling them to 75% of the recycled water. They have had more expansion in the North 26
Bayshore area increasing their usage which is why they are interested in the project. 27
They, along with 4 others, are partners in the sewage side of the waste water facility. 28
Commissioner Cribbs inquired how much the project is going to cost. 29
3
Packet Pg. 37
DRAFT
DRAFT 7
Mr. Kapushinski stated the project will cost around $56M at today’s cost, possibly more 1
in 2 years. They will do a cost update later next year as they get closer to construction. 2
5. Urban Forestry Annual Update – Peter Gollinger – Discussion 3
Mr. Gollinger gave an annual Urban Forest update presentation for FY22. He outlined 4
the benefits of the Urban Forest including increasing property values, reducing energy 5
consumption, reinvigorating neighborhoods, helping students, benefitting individual 6
health and more. He gave an estimate of how many trees make up the Urban Forest. He 7
outlined the responsibilities of the Urban Forestry to include the maintenance and 8
development plans of all public trees in the city. He gave an outline of the Urban 9
Forestry staff and their functions. He reported their accomplishments for FY22 including 10
updating the Tree Protection Ordinance and outlined those changes. He explained their 11
methods for staff development. He presented data and a graph of tasks completed by 12
Urban Forestry in FY22. He detailed some challenges for FY22 including COVID-19 13
restrictions, staff vacancies, reduced budget and drought. He reported the plans for FY23 14
including implementation of the new Tree Protection Ordinance and Urban Forest 15
Master Plan. He offered ways that the Urban Forestry can be helped and how to request 16
having a tree planted. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus questioned what the 600 construction inspections were for. 18
Mr. Gollinger stated they were for tree protection fencing inspections in advance of all 19
projects that require tree protection fencing. They were primarily residential but also 20
large projects. 21
Commissioner Freeman inquired if the tree protection on development and new 22
construction is part of the permitting process and if the fee is incorporated in that and 23
goes back to the Urban Forestry. 24
Mr. Gollinger answered the fencing is part of the approved plans. The inspection has to 25
happen before ground is broken and is part of the permitting process. 26
Commissioner Freeman asked if the Urban Forestry team is involved in the tree 27
trimming in the city as far as the landscapers getting permission, especially for a 28
protected tree. 29
Mr. Gollinger said if anyone is trimming a public or street tree, it should be either their 30
internal crew or contractors. They rarely issue permits for residents to trim their trees as 31
long as it is within city standards. 32
3
Packet Pg. 38
DRAFT
DRAFT 8
Wintergery@earthlink.net asked when the updated Tree Protection Ordinance will be 1
public knowledge in the community and if they keep data about how many phone calls 2
received with concerns for at-risk trees. 3
Commissioner Cribbs asked if there is opportunity to work with East Palo Alto in 4
improving their tree canopy or if it is all through Canopy. 5
Mr. Gollinger answered it is primarily through Canopy. 6
Commissioner Oche asked when the public tree inventory will be available and if it will 7
be shared with the public. 8
Mr. Gollinger stated the public tree inventory is available to the public on their website. 9
It is updated every 10 to 12 years. 10
Chair Greenfield requested Mr. Gollinger email a link to that information for the 11
Commission to place on the public record. 12
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there is a process to decide if a tree needs to be 13
trimmed and how much. She felt some trees have had limbs removed unnecessarily. 14
Mr. Gollinger answered when a request is made for limb removal, a legitimate reason by 15
city standards, including visibility or vehicular and pedestrian access, is required. 16
Commissioner Brown asked what requirements an arborist needs to meet for the city to 17
accept their report regarding the health of existing trees and if there is a standardized 18
report they need to submit. 19
Mr. Gollinger stated under the existing Tree Technical Manual, the minimum 20
requirements for submitting an arborist report is that the arborist is certified and either in 21
good standing with the International Society of Arboriculture or be an ASCA Consulting 22
Arborist. The guidelines needed in a tree preservation report are listed point-by-point in 23
the Tree Technical Manual and will be in the new Tree and Landscape Technical 24
Manual. 25
Commissioner Brown commented on the workload data graph provided and wanted to 26
see more performance measures incorporated into the report about efficiency, response 27
times or how many service calls were responded to in order to establish a goal on 28
effectiveness and how those targets were met. 29
Mr. Gollinger stated they were discussing finding better ways to track efficiency. 30
Commissioner Freeman asked if the 220,000 protected trees were all on public land. 31
3
Packet Pg. 39
DRAFT
DRAFT 9
Mr. Gollinger answered they were on both public and private land. All trees over 15 1
inches were protected under the Ordinance unless they are high-water users or invasive 2
and there was a selection of native species protected at 11½ inches and greater. The 3
inventory was an estimate based on sampling strategies. He detailed the process for 4
deciding if a tree needed to be removed. 5
Chair Greenfield asked for a link for the public to request tree removal or concern about 6
tree removal. 7
Mr. Gollinger agreed to include links to forms, phone numbers and emails for that 8
information. 9
Chair Greenfield asked for an elaboration about the evolution of the project managers on 10
his team and how it has changed with the update of the Tree Protection Ordinance. 11
Mr. Gollinger stated there were previously two project managers in the Urban Forestry 12
section. One focused primarily on the maintenance of street trees and the contract that 13
goes with that, tree fencing inspections and management of the in-house crew and the 14
other manager focused on electric line clearance and other projects such as the Canopy 15
contract or technology improvement. With the passing of the Tree Protection Ordinance 16
and expected workload, an additional project manager was recommended to focus on 17
implementation of the Tree Ordinance and Master Plan and to help with development 18
review and fencing inspections to take some load off the other two positions. They will 19
be cross-trained to share the load but will primarily focus on those three areas. He stated 20
there was content being reviewed to be placed on their website and sent to tree 21
contractors updating the changes. 22
Chair Greenfield asked if they expect an increase in calls about tree problems, how many 23
they have gotten in the past and if that has changed since the Tree Ordinance has been 24
updated. 25
Mr. Gollinger said there is not enough data to track that. They will begin to be included 26
in a separate call sheet due to the post card mailers for notification for protected tree 27
removals that allow them to track when feedback is received. That format will be used to 28
track requests for investigations for excessive pruning, tree removals, etc. A maintenance 29
form currently exists that meets the requirements of the new ordinance that a protected 30
tree owner will be required to fill out prior to tree maintenance. 31
Chair Greenfield inquired if there would be a benefit to including a tree pruning list if 32
there is a protected or city tree pruning that has been approved. 33
3
Packet Pg. 40
DRAFT
DRAFT 10
Mr. Gollinger answered they do update the public when they are entering a new area for 1
street tree maintenance or electric line clearance maintenance. They hope to have a more 2
centralized way to do that with their new system. 3
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there is any information to link how many trees were 4
trimmed in correlation to incidents. 5
Mr. Gollinger stated there is no data available on that. He suspected the higher numbers 6
reported in 2017 and 2018 were a combination of the area of the city in which they were 7
working and the contractor doing what they needed to do. They have fine-tuned 8
specifications as far as street-tree maintenance that will allow them to tighten 9
specifications, get better bids, and get more value out of their contracts. 10
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked for details for the experiment on Stone Lane mentioned 11
earlier. 12
Mr. Gollinger said an issue seen in the coming years was that previously trees were 13
planted in blocks, so entire neighborhoods were planted with the same street tree species 14
at the same time. Many of those trees have reached the end of their natural life. Stone 15
Lane has had three failures of those trees. They will be evaluating the health of the 16
remaining trees to come up with a plan for removal and replacement. The plan will be to 17
remove and replant the most hazardous trees in the first wave and in a few years remove 18
the next wave of trees and replant. Over the course of 10 or 15 years, they will have 19
removed all the trees reducing the risks to the residents and maintain canopy. If this 20
strategy works well, it will be expanded to larger neighborhoods. 21
Chair Greenfield asked for details about the philosophy in having a street tree versus 22
diversity. 23
Mr. Gollinger answered they have moved away from block planting. They prefer a 24
variety of species on a given street. The residents of Stone Lane enjoy their fall leaves. 25
They intend to replant with deciduous trees of a similar nature but various species to 26
maintain the character of the neighborhood but diversity. 27
Commissioner Kleinhaus commented it would be interesting to try planting trees 28
together to allow them to grow the way they would in nature. 29
Mr. Gollinger said they have looked into planting trees together but most yards do not 30
have capacity for two trees. They will be exploring the possibility of preplanting a 31
succession tree before removal of the existing tree in certain locations with a large 32
enough space. 33
6. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Discussion 34
3
Packet Pg. 41
DRAFT
DRAFT 11
Commissioner Freeman commented on the progress of the soccer fields and they will 1
hopefully be signed off on in the next 2 weeks. There has been no feedback on the 2
progress with pickleball and tennis. 3
Mr. Anderson stated he will check in with Adam Howard and have an update at the next 4
Commission meeting. 5
Chair Greenfield clarified there will be no policy update until City Council approves it. 6
There was a comment made earlier about the fields at Hoover Park that should be taken 7
to the field liaison. 8
Mr. Freeman stated he made a note to reach out on that. 9
Commissioner Cribbs said they talked about the fundraising development committee and 10
the ad in the Enjoy! catalog for the wintertime. She clarified with Mr. Anderson there 11
was an opportunity to do that on a quarterly basis and stated they should work on that 12
and the website in the near future. Regarding recreational opportunities, they had a good 13
meeting with the skatepark folks who requested information. The other recreational 14
opportunity is the Recreation/Wellness Center. Ad hoc hopes to make a presentation to 15
the Commission on January 24. In the area of aquatics, the pool is being drained in 16
March to replaster and do a couple things. 17
Chair Greenfield commented there will be an annual aquatics and golf report update in 18
January. 19
Commissioner Brown stated the dog park has continued to work with Staff on initial 20
feasibility and locations for a pocket dog park in North Palo Alto and meeting with those 21
stakeholders. She will also meet with a stakeholder from the Barron Park area to get 22
more information on their petition and thoughts for the future. There are no pertinent 23
updates from the school district. An idea for Commissioner Cribbs and the fundraising 24
group is to reach out or do a presentation at Los Altos Hills City Council meeting since 25
they are in close proximity to Foothills Park giving them information on the park with 26
the new entrance fees, policy changes and fundraising opportunities. 27
Commissioner Oche had a meeting with the Institute of Sustainable Infrastructure 28
Director of Education on December 5. Mr. Anderson, Lam Do, and Megha from Public 29
Works were in that meeting. The summary from that discussion was a presentation from 30
the director on using the benefits for the city. She shared the free access the city staff 31
could benefit from using the resources, not necessarily subscribing to anything yet but 32
using the free resources in terms of all the projects the city has planned. She shared the 33
applicability of the criteria that the infrastructure currently uses. The major outcome 34
from that will be for the city staff to go through the checklist, sign up for free and 35
3
Packet Pg. 42
DRAFT
DRAFT 12
determine interest in pursuing that in the future. She will be open to make a presentation 1
if it is wanted. 2
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 3
ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 4
5
Chair Greenfield commented on the future agenda to include the Wellness/Rec Center 6
discussion and update, aquatics and golf annual reports. First Tee will be folded in with 7
golf given the moderate status update. He asked if it will be good to include the 8
Commissions plans for attendance next month. He stated that is one of the items that was 9
discussed at the Board and Commission meeting training that preceded the current 10
meeting. A link to the presentation will be forwarded to all of the Commission members. 11
He recommended Staff watch that. 12
13
Mr. Anderson stated in addition to the items Chair Greenfield mentioned for January, 14
there is the Cubberley restroom that is going to come to the Commission and the city 15
attorney’s office has a representative expressing a willingness to present on the 16
attendance policy and guide them on forming their own at the February meeting. 17
18
Chair Greenfield confirmed covering Wellness Center, aquatics, golf and Cubberley in 19
January. 20
21
Mr. Anderson stated golf or aquatics would be willing to push out to the following 22
month if needed. 23
24
Chair Greenfield said they could project how many speakers they can expect for those 25
items to project how much time it will take. 26
27
Mr. Anderson commented that he needs to work on populating February and March and 28
they need to begin working on the work plan soon. 29
Chair Greenfield stated he has questions on the work plan and wants clarification from 30
the City Clerk’s office and also if City Council is looking to update the handbook. He 31
has concerns about the Commission working on a work plan before new members are 32
added at the end of March. He believes they should begin working on that in April when 33
there is a new Chair and Commission. He does not believe it is reasonable to set 34
priorities and establish a work plan before that is in place. 35
36
ADJOURNMENT 37
38
Meeting adjourned at 9:07 P.M. 39
3
Packet Pg. 43
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JANUARY 24, 2023
SUBJECT: CUBBERLEY FIELD RESTROOM PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff will present three potential locations for the proposed prefabricated restroom
building at Cubberley Fields to the Parks and Recreation Commission. No action will be
taken.
BACKGROUND
The Cubberley Field Restroom Project proposes to install a new prefabricated restroom
building at the play fields. The restroom is a much-needed facility for the heavily used
fields as there is currently only one portable restroom available onsite.
The proposed restroom will consist of two universal stalls and is approximately 20’x10’
in size, will automatically lock at 10pm, have security lighting, and be cleaned daily.
DISCUSSION
Staff has investigated a total of three potential locations for the restroom (Attachment
A).
Location 1 (Attachment A) was originally proposed and presented during a community
meeting in November 2018. This site was selected for access and visibility to all
adjacent fields. Staff investigated this location further and determined that a lift station
for pumping sewage would be required to connect to the sewer line on Nelson Drive
since gravity flow would not be feasible. Staff also looked into the possibility of
connecting to the sewer lines at the nearby buildings and found that gravity flow would
not be feasible. Since a lift station would result in higher installation costs, operations
and maintenance costs, and potential service interruption during power outages and
other system failures, staff investigated other potential locations for the restroom.
Location 2 (Attachment A) is the closest to Nelson Drive and allows for a gravity flow
connection to the sewer line, eliminating the cost and long-term maintenance of a pump
estimated at $100,000 over 15 years. On August 17, 2022, staff conducted a community
meeting to obtain input on having a restroom at this new location. Due to limited
attendance of the community meeting, staff conducted an online survey (Attachment B)
from September 9 through October 14, 2022 to obtain more community input. The
survey received 388 responses total. In general, the community is very supportive of
installing a restroom facility at the play fields. A majority of the adjacent neighbors were
not supportive of this location (Attachment C). This information is also available on the
project webpage www.cityofpaloalto.org/parkrestrooms.
5
Packet Pg. 44
Lastly, staff investigated Location 3 (Attachment A) since this location is on City-owned
property rather than Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)-owned property. Staff
found that this location was not ideal since there was no nearby sewer facility that would
allow for a gravity flow connection, it is a farther walk from the fields, and is not much
closer than the restrooms located in the community center building.
Staff is recommending site Location 1 and is seeking further input from the Commission
on which location they support. Staff is also seeking input from the Commission on
installing a larger 4-stall restroom to accommodate the heavily used fields. This would
provide more capacity when the fields are being heavily used on the weekends. The 4-
stall restroom option would increase the cost of the prefabricated structure by
approximately $250K.
Currently, the Cubberley Fields Restroom Capital Improvement Project (CB-17002)
does not include funding for design and installation of a lift station and a 4-stall restroom
building. Staff is requesting additional funds for a larger restroom and a lift station (if
Location 1 is determined the preferred location) and will go through the regular review
and approval process by City management and finance committee.
NEXT STEPS
•Design Development and Minor Architectural Review: Spring 2023
•Prefabricated Building Fabrication and Installation: Summer 2024 (Building
fabrication duration is approximately 9-12 months)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed recommendations are consistent with Policy C-3.2 of the Community
Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages investing in aging facilities
to improve their usefulness and appearance; and Policy C-4.1 that encourages
developing new community facilities as needed to meet the evolving needs of residents
and employees of Palo Alto. The proposed recommendations are consistent with the
Parks Master Plan Policy 2.E.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposed Restroom Locations
Attachment B: Community Survey Questions
Attachment C: Community Survey Results Summary
5
Packet Pg. 45
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Location 3
Location 1
Location 2
Attachment A - Proposed Restroom Locations 5
Packet Pg. 46
Cubberley Field Restroom Project -
Community Survey
The Cubberley Field Restroom Project proposes to
install a new prefabricated restroom building at the
Cubberley Sports Fields. The restroom is a much-
needed amenity to the heavily used fields, as there is
currently only one portable restroom available for
use onsite. Due to limitations with accessing the
sewer line on Nelson Drive, the restroom is being
proposed at the location shown in the map below.
This location will provide access and visibility to all
adjacent fields.
Attachment B - Community Survey Questions 5
Packet Pg. 47
The restroom will:
Consist of two universal stalls and is
approximately 20'x10' in size
Automatically lock at 10pm
Be cleaned daily
Have security lighting
5
Packet Pg. 48
1. Are you a Palo Alto resident?
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
2. Check all that apply:
Field User
Neighbor to Cubberley Community Center
Tenant at Cubberley Community Center
Palo Alto Resident
Why?
3. Do you support adding a new public restroom for
the Cubberley Sports Fields in the proposed location
(see diagrams below)?
Yes
No
5
Packet Pg. 49
5
Packet Pg. 50
5
Packet Pg. 51
Powered by
See how easy it is to create a survey.
Privacy & Cookie Notice
Done
5
Packet Pg. 52
Cubberley Field Restroom Project - Community Survey
Answer Choices
Yes 276 71.13%
No 112 28.87%
Total Respondents 388
Responses
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Q1 Are you a Palo Alto Resident?
5
Packet Pg. 53
Cubberley Field Restroom Project - Community Survey
Answer Choices
Field User 352 90.72%
Neighbor to Cubberley Community Center 145 37.37%
Tenant at Cubberley Community Center 7 1.80%
Palo Alto Resident 276 71.13%
Total Respondents 388
Responses
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Field User
Neighbor to Cubberley Community Center
Tenant at Cubberley Community Center
Palo Alto Resident
Q2 Check all that apply:
5
Packet Pg. 54
Cubberley Field Restroom Project - Community Survey
Answer Choices
Yes 284 73.20%
No 104 26.80%
Total Respondents 388
Responses
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Q3 Do you support adding a new public restroom for the
Cubberley Sports Fields in the proposed location (see
diagrams below)?
5
Packet Pg. 55
Do you support adding a new public restroom for the Cubberley Sports Fields in the proposed location (see diagrams below)?
Response Why?
No
Many soccer players and parents using the fields every day without a bathroom seems unacceptable. The portapotty is always filthy. It’s just not acceptable for
those who work on the fields for many hours at a time.
Yes
Yes
The portapotty is quite... fragrent and the Cubberly restrooms are quite a long ways away. Hard to walk that distance without removing cleats or risking injury
(they are slippery when walking on smooth surface)
Yes Because as a soccer player that plays at cubberley field the port-a potty’s are awful and stink up the area when your walking by.
Yes
Yes
No
Placing a bathroom along a residential street is a bad idea. This restroom should instead be located about 100 meters to the northeast, where a temporary toilet
had been located. The location of the temporary toilet worked well for all the Cubberley fields and was only convenient to those using the fields. The location
under the new proposal will serve as a Palo Alto "drive-to toilet", and will be convenient for drivers. Instead make it easy for those using the fields to access the
bathroom not easy access for automobile drivers.
Yes
Yes Current restroom is smelly and inadequate for the usage of the area.
Yes Otherwise the only clean bathrooms would be really far away.
Yes My son plays soccer at Cubberley and he as well as the other kids would appreciate this facility.
No
Two main problems with this location. First, it is a very ugly design. I understand the desire to save money, but such an ugly (cheap) building so close to my
house (less than 100 ft) is definitely a big "no" for me. Second, it is not the best location to serve all field and court users. A much better location would be the
old Cubberley Women's Locker room which used to have bathrooms. It is very easily accessed by all users and may have plumbing that can be used if it is still in
decent shape. If this is not an option, just use one of the bathrooms the main pavilion and provide the same locking and cleaning service proposed for the new
bathroom. Please don't build an ugly facility like is being proposed where I will see it every day when I garden. The fields are a great resource to everyone, but
don't ruin them with this bathroom.
No
I support the construction of a restroom but not at the proposed location. It should be located more conveniently for its intended users approximately where the
portable restroom is now located. Its location should not direct more traffic into the neighborhood but instead encourage field users to use the parking lots on
the property.
Yes
My child often plays soccer in the area, and the one portapotty is disgusting to use. When there are events, the poop can literally pile up where I have no idea
how someone used the facility - did they magically levitate to poop? And the smell... or the smell. It can be heinous. Having a newer facility that can
accommodate more than one person at a time would be well used, and therefore is needed.
Yes
Yes
Yes Sanitation needs
No
I think a bathroom would be fine but the location is too close to the homes on Nelson St where there have been campers parked there long term. A location
closer to the parking lot in the photo would be best.
Yes
No
The restroom should be located in proximity to the primary flow of field users, which is between the Cubberly parking lot and the NW entrance to the sports
fields. Far fewer users enter the park from Nelson Drive. Additionally, the proposed location is quite close to residential properties on Nelson Drive. This proposed
location could attract transient individuals, and create a nuisance for nearby homeowners.
No Too lose to neighborhood.
No Not in that location. I do support adding a new public restroom at another, better, useful, logical etc. location.
5
Packet Pg. 56
Yes because we need more clean public restrooms. the games are long and should be accessible to all ages and abilities
No
It is too close to Nelson Drive and during drop-off and pick-up of kids, which is already very dangerous with kids darting out in the road and poor driving on the
part of the parents. I do support one closer to the current porta potty. This would be more centrally located for all the fields. Also, could the old girls bathroom in
the corner of the building across from the current portapotty be opened? With the showers turned off of course. This bathroom is near the dance studio.
No
I live in Greenmeadow. The proposed location is too close to Nelson Drive. It will attract people that aren't field users and will increase usage and parking on
Nelson. It will be unsightly and may emit odors. A better location would be north end of the field near the library building where there is sewer, water and
electricity available.
Yes lower cost, and less noise (no pumps) its a more efficient design.
No Not convenient. May cause traffic that endangers kids walking on the sidewalk
No People access and exit the fields from the parking lots near Cubberley. That is where the restrooms should be placed
No
Yes
Yes Lots of people without facilities.....it just needs to be closer to where the people are and will be using it!
No
This location is not central to Cubberley activity and looks quite close to the Greenmeadow neighborhood. A better idea seems to be a location at the other end
of the track, closer to the fopal childrens room.
No
The proposal is not the right place. It is (a) inconvenient for the users (almost all the track users park in the parking lot, and while some field users park on Nelson,
many use other entrances); (b) unsightly for the neighborhood; and (c) bound to attract transients, which means the parking lot is the preferred location.
No
Yes Current porter potty has a very foul odor and people walk by it when they enter onto the field, unsanitary.
Yes Fields heavily used and need proper restrooms
Yes
No Too close to neighborhood
Yes Portapotty is nasty
Yes My children use the field for various sporting events, and this will be a useful addition in this active space
Yes It’s convenient and hygienic. Especially for vulnerable groups like kids and elders who might not be able to wait long before going to the bathroom.
Yes
Definitely needed! there are so many games and events at this field for both players and spectators, varying in age from small children to seniors and great
grandparents. A proper restroom is well overdue. The porta potty that is currently there often has long lines and with its heavy usage it gets incredibly dirty
where people would rather drive to a coffee shop or grocery store unless a complete emergency. One personal recommendation if there are 2 (due to difference
in physical attributes between genders) is to keep one 'all gender' and one dedicated to 'females'. If all gender for both then i'd request a urinal in both along
with the seat.
Yes Used frequently by players and field users; hygienic
Yes Seems like a no-brainer. Kids and coaches on the field every day with only a portable bathroom. Not fair!
Yes
Yes Young children at sports practices cannot walk unattended into the community centre to use the restroom.
Yes
The fields are heavily used, and those looking for a restroom often go to Cubberley community center or the Charleston shopping center, which can impact the
tenants in those centers.
Yes It gets a very high volume of traffic, which means people need a toilet - and the current outhouse is frankly ridiculous. No hand washing?
5
Packet Pg. 57
Yes
My kid is a member of the Palo Alto Soccer Club and uses the field 3x a week and many parents are there as well especially during games. It is much needed to
have a fully equipped bathrooms for not just the soccer families but all field users to have access to a bathroom and not just the portable. Another point is there
are many young kids using the field and portable is not safe especially during the evening hours.
Yes Better and cleaner than the portable potties that kids have to use
Yes
Yes Very much needed for kids in heavily used fields
Yes Essential to providing reasonable facilities where there are currently none.
Yes We use this field daily for soccer and exercising.
Yes
Much needed! As a regular soccer player who goes to Cubberly for practice and games multiple times a week, I think that this would be a wonderful and much
needed addition to Cubberly. However, and I understand that doing this would be more expensive, but if given the choice between fixing up the Mayfield fields
and doing this project, I would be 100% more supportive of the rennovation of Mayfield. It is an amazing place to play soccer, it would make things much more
convienient for me, my brother (who also plays soccer), and my mom because it is so close to my house and a place of community playing. Please consider
rennovating Mayfield. We don't want anyone else getting hurt.
Yes Many kids use the fields for sports and host other clubs. It is a necessity.
Yes Desperately needed!!
Yes Cubberley is a great community space and used by many individuals and teams and there are not adequate restrooms.
Yes
This is a no brainer. The field facilities are heavily used by various user groups and in my mind are essentially a field like El Camino or Mayfield. Those are much
smaller facilities than Cubberly and they have restroom facilities. A single portable restroom is completely in adequate for the use Cubberly gets.
Yes
Yes there are so many kids coming to the grass/turf fields and they do need the emergency bathroom in place.
Yes We often spend time at Cubberley with our family and restroom use is always a limitation. Thanks for considering this project.
Yes High useage
Yes
Yes There is no bathroom other than the one at cubb center school it’s not convenient especially for the players and the portable is awful.
Yes There is often a long line when people want to use restroom.
Yes My kids are playing soccer and I am running at Cubberly all the time. It would be much more convenient and pleasant if there were a nice restroom there.
Yes
My two kiddos play soccer there 3-5 times a week and they can hold it if needed but there is no restroom except across the parking lot in the cubberly center
which is dangerous for kids to cross alone. Seems like a fine and somewhat central location. I go to that corner all the time and it's heavily trafficked area most
days.
No
Not centrally located. It should be a the other end of the playing surface where there are currently port-a-potties. It is also close to housing and the
Greenmeadow Community. I am being a bot of a NIMBY but the location is also bad.
Yes i need to pee when i’m at practice
Yes
Bathrooms help keep the streets clean. When people need to "go", if there isn't something nearby, some people will just find a secluded space to go. Give them a
place with a connection to the sewer.
Yes Parks should have toilets available! It’s a no-brainer.
Yes
This field space is heavily used on a daily basis. Many young kids utilize the fields who are unable to safely navigate a port-a-potty, let alone walk through a
crowded parking lot to the bathrooms at cubberley school. Please consider adding the bathrooms.
Yes More restrooms are needed.
5
Packet Pg. 58
Yes My daughter plays soccer there, while I wait/watch, regularly, multiple times a week. Both of us would benefit from having proper restroom facilities
Yes It will be extremely useful to all the residents and children who use the field on a regular basis.
Yes
Very high daily/year round use of the field, track and tennis courts. The bathroom should be on the parking lot side, i.e on the Cubberley side. It would better
serve the crowds using fields (track, tennis, baseball, soccer, frisbee). It will be closer for people visiting the Palo Alto Friends of the library and for people waiting
to pick up someone having an activity at the Cubberley center. We need to avoid redirecting traffic towards Nelson which is very congested and dangerous
especially when there are events on the fields.
Yes The portable bathroom isn’t enough to support the activity there at the field.
No
It should be more centrally located, so access is not just for the baseball field but the track, the tennis courts, batting cages and the parking lot. There has been a
port-a-potty at the opposite end of the track on the walkway adjacent to the parking lot. That has afforded easy access for all. I believe that is where the new
bathrooms should go. In terms of sewer pipes, there must be more sewer lines available as there are multiple bathrooms within the Cubberley complex.
Yes
Yes
The portable toilet is unsanitary. There also is not a sink. The fields are used by different sports leagues and the general public and the city should provide a
bathroom and sink.
No This is a weird location. It should be near the parking lot at the rear not at the entrance near the residential area.
No
Please place at current location of portable unit near the parking lot. It's more convenient for the people arriving leaving from the parking lot (for using the
bathroom, as well as changing before/after activities). Placing close to Nelson Dr encourages parking on Nelson instead of the lot.
Yes Because that Porta potty is nasty
Yes
No Takes too much space
Yes since i drive 45 minutes to come to practise i usually need to use the restrooms and regardless the porta potty being clean it’s still just nicer to have privacy !
Yes
It is a highly used space and need public restroom access. Plus when my children are using the fields at a practice, it is safer to have them use a restroom near the
field than having to walk all the way into the halls at the community center.
No Would prefer it closer to the parking lot. The proposed location encourages users to park on Nelson, which is already congested.
No Location is inconvenient to most users and way too close to GM community on Nelson.
No This is the wrong side of the field
Yes Convenient for families to use
Yes The Porto Potties suck.
Yes Extremely needed during games and practices.
Yes
Cubberley fields are in much need of a public restroom, and an additional source of water (please add water refill station if possible). It would be good to evaluate
other locations for the bathroom if possible, somewhere less isolated/more in people's paths, for safety reasons. If there, it should have direct access from both
the turf and the field areas.
Yes way too many events for a single bathroom
Yes Because it's needed
Yes
Very much needed. Proposed location however makes it less convenient, especially for soccer players. Why not consider placing the bathroom at the intersection
of fields and parking lot?
Yes
Yes
Yes High traffic and need for kids using fields and adults utilizing the facilities
5
Packet Pg. 59
No
It would be fine if 1) it is placed closer to the portable location. The proposed site is too close to our neighbors on Diablo Court and surrounding homes on Nelson
Drive. It is visible from their homes. 2) Locked at 6-7pm. I live three blocks away and could tell you that the fields have emptied out by then. This would also
discourage any homeless people to stick around there - many already do - and also avoid any vandalism when there’s no one around.
Yes It is a much needed overdue amenity that will enhance the field usage
No
what a shortsighted plan! this proposed site is away from the entire Cubberley facility, and encroaching on Nelson Drive residential neighborhood.The correct site
for a public restroom should be on the OTHER side of the fields, near tennis courts or near the artificial field/track, and NEXT TO Cubberley PARKING LOT.
Yes
Yes
My children play soccer and tennis at Cubberley- a restroom would make the fields much more family friendly, enjoyable, and convenient for our family.
Accessible restrooms are also important for making our playing fields as welcoming and inclusive as possible for individuals who might require them for special
needs, which I support.
Yes
Yes
Very park/field has a restroom - Not sure why this field does given the fact the this field is used everyday. There is only one portable restroom. The restroom is a
much-needed amenity to the heavily used fields.
Yes My son and many others play soccer at the Cubberley fields very frequently. We need clean, accessible bathrooms there.
Yes
Yes
There are currently insufficient restrooms for the high volume of use these fields get. Especially for younger kids, it is hard to find the restrooms located within
the former high school facility. Having restrooms for these fields is long overdue.
Yes
Yes
Our kids play soccer at Cubberly 3x a week for 90-120 minutes. Not having a clean and convenient bathroom is a problem, especially when it is hot outside and
we are encouraging them to stay hydrated!
Yes
Yes
Yes These fields are heavily used by our youth and their families every single day. It’s really long overdue and quite urgent to add facilities in this space.
Yes Because there isn’t a good reason against it
Yes Much needed for the constant use of this field!
Yes The restroom is a much-needed amenity to the heavily used fields, as there is currently only one portable restroom available for use onsite.
Yes My family is a frequent user of Cubberly for soccer games and practices and currently there is only a single portable outhouse style toilet
Yes Kids taking soccer lessons or other activities in the field need a bathroom close by.
Yes
Yes Needed for kids during activites on the fields.
Yes Constant line up during the day. Borderline unsafe for small kids in the current portables.
Yes
Yes Many people are using these athletic fields (we are part of Palo Alto Soccer Club), and a restroom would be greatly appreciated.
Yes Restroom are must haves for the players, coaches and parents who are using the field.
Yes
5
Packet Pg. 60
No
The location needs to be reconsidered. The bathroom should be on the parking lot side, i.e on the Cubberley side. It would serve better the crowds using fields
(track, tennis, baseball, soccer, football, frisbee). It will be closer for people visiting the Palo Alto Friends of the library and for people waiting to pick up someone
having an activity at the Cubberley center. We need to avoid redirecting traffic towards Nelson which is very congested and dangerous especially when there are
events on the fields.
Yes Cubberly is a large park that hosts so many families and activities. The lack of bathrooms is an oversight that needs to be corrected.
Yes People using Cubberley need to have bathroom avaiable.
No
I definitely support having a public restroom, but I think it would be better to put it closer to the parking lot (near the current portapotty) and farther from the
neighbors.
Yes Current facilities (single portable toilet) given the extensive use of the Sports Fields, including opposing teams and their families are inadequate.
Yes not happy about the location near Greenmeadow, but understand the need for the greater community! I'm not a NIMBY
Yes
Yes Child is a member of PASC and utilizes these facilities for practices and games. Access to a restroom is critical.
Yes
Yes Our family is at this park many times during the week. When your kids need to go it would be nice to have a clean bathroom to use at the park!
Yes
My children make use of the fields up to six days a week, every week and I often excercise there too. The current Port a potty is insufficient and often unsanitary
for the hundreds of children and adults that use that space each day.
Yes My kids frequently have sports activities at Cubberly, often on weekends, and there are no bathrooms to use.
Yes
Yes It gets lots of use and needs access to bathrooms.
Yes So we don't have to use a porta potty.
Yes Kids are there for after-school activities that last 1 or 2 hours. They need the bathroom!
Yes The current facilities are inadequate based on number of field users.
Yes Portable one we have now by the entrance of the field is disgusting.
Yes The existing portapotty is disgusting, unsanitary and over-used.
Yes
Yes
Yes We spend so much time here and would like to have a place to use the restroom.
Yes Kids who use the field need a safe, clean place to go to the bathroom.
Yes
I am a Menlo Park resident, but me and my family use Cubberly fields at least 3x/week. A city like Palo Alto should not have parks without restrooms. Cubberly
fields are used by multiple people of different ages for whom looking for a restroom is difficult. Make Palo Alto better by building this restroom.
Yes Kids and adults need nicer facilities closer to the fields.
Yes this is a popular location for soccer events. Kids deserve a good bathroom there.
Yes Much needed for those who use the fields
Yes I have children and when we use the fields for practice etc. we consume lots of fluids and need bathrooms urgently sometimes.
Yes
I support the notion to add a new public restroom in the proposed location because it would provide cleaner and easier access to restroom for anyone using the
field.
Yes A lot of people use the fields at Cubberley, and they all sometimes need a bathroom!
Yes
Yes ease us when needed
Yes
5
Packet Pg. 61
Yes Massively used area
Yes The current single portopotty is untenable.
Yes My daughter plays soccer at the field. It'd be really great to have a restroom for her to use there!
Yes The kids need it when they use the fields
Yes
It is critical to have bathrooms available for all field and tenant users. We have programs year round that will benefit from having on-site bathroom. This is a
fantastic idea!
Yes Kids spend a lot time there doing sports need facilities.. some of them bike directly after school don have time to go to the bathroom or change …
Yes
As a parent who is frequently at the field for sports, it is very frustrating not to have an a clean, available bathroom, especially for children who cannot always
wait. There is overwhelming demand on the single port a potty and it doesn’t have the hand washing facilities.
Yes
Yes Cubberley field is used by a lot of people, so having a new restroom would be very beneficial
Yes Most other fields in Palo Alto have proper rest rooms. Cubberly should have one too. It's more sanitary than a portable stall.
Yes
Yes
Yes
My daughter plays soccer there 2x or 3x per week and often goes directly from school or another practice. Sometimes when she returns home she runs directly
to the bathroom because she was holding it in during soccer practice.
Yes It is very much needed in the area to accommodate children that use the Cubberly fields for sports
Yes only one Porta potty right now, which frankly is a disgrace
Yes
Many people are using the field, so there is a nature need to have a public restroom. This is much better than when people have to go in some unknown hidden
location. I am very supportive of have a water bottle refilling station, as long as the filters are replaced regularly.
Yes
Yes The current portable bathroom is often over used and not very clean
Yes
The current port-a-potty is overused and unsanitary. Walking across the parking lot to Cubberley is an option but a long distance especially for small children so a
better facility nearby would be helpful.
Yes Many adult and children sporting events at the fields with very limited restroom facilities. It’s very needed.
Yes
My daughters play soccer with PASC. I also walk my dog at Cubberley. It's quite surprising that there are no public restrooms! Looks like the city is catering only to
the school and neighbors without any consideration for other Palo Alto residents who use Cubberley. An oversight in city planning needs to be addressed quickly.
Yes Matches can be long and it could take half an hour for us to get home (we are not from Palo Alto).
Yes
These fields are heavily used by children, young adults and adults. Having a restroom is a basic necessity. The current portable toilet is not a solution (and super
stinky in the summer months)
Yes
It’s much needed. It happened to me a couple of times when I had to use the restroom while on the field. I had to hold and wait until I got home. Not a good
experience at all.
Yes
Yes Because we need a restroom near the fields.
Yes
Frequent user of the field for personal recreation and children play in Palo Alto soccer league. Would be a major improvement to the facilities and quality of life
for the surrounding neighborhood to have a dedicated restroom.
Yes necessary upgrade !
Yes cubberly is a high used facility that users would really benefit from a public restroom
Yes It is much needed for kids and other field users from Palo Alto.
Yes It will be useful for all the kids using those fields (and parents picking them up)
5
Packet Pg. 62
Yes
Myself and my children use the athletic fields. It is sanitary to provide centralized bathrooms. People are often left going to the bathroom in the ivy bushes which
is also where kids are retrieving stray balls.
Yes This is an absolute necessary. So many kids use the fields on a day to day basis. Lack of a proper restroom is one of the biggest pains. Thank you.
Yes It feels like 3rd world NOT having a public restroom in a Sports location with so many fields and so many people accessing it.
Yes better hygiene for the players and patrons
Yes Public places where people spend a few hours at a time need basic facilities. Great initiate
Yes
Yes Kids play and practice here and there are no nearby restrooms (have to walk a long way to the restrooms at Cubberly)
Yes
currently there is no fixed and clean public restroom around the area. There is one temporialy mobile restroom which is very disgusting. Sometime, I see kids
would just go to the nearby trees to pee rather than using it. I would suggest we can build a bigger one
Yes my kids and I are there every week pretty much, when there are many other people there are the same time
Yes
It is a heavily used field and there are lot of kids and adults who use the playground. Currently, there is one portable restroom that is hard to find and also will not
suffice the needs of huge crowd during weekdays and weekends.
Yes It's a much need amenity for the field users. A lot of kids and families spend a lot of time there and we need a restroom there. Thanks!
Yes
A more centralized location that is accessible from the track and turf field would be better, but I support the proposed location if it will allow the restrooms to be
installed sooner and with less disruption to the park activities.
Yes Kids always having hard time to find bathroom in this field during their soccer practice
Yes The fields are heavily used by multiple clubs and teams. In the absence of proper facilities, people (especially kids) will turn to less appropriate alternatives
Yes I am not a local resident but I bring my child to practice soccer several times per week. The current bathroom situation is not idea.
Yes Much needed especially families w children!
Yes
Yes
Our children play soccer on these fields 4x a week & I am always concerned that they have to walk far (to Cubberley) alone & out of sight to use a restroom
during practice.
Yes It is much needed
Yes Many kids play in the field daily and it need a restroom closeby.
Yes no nearby restrooms. The field gets lots of players from palo alto and outside for game days
Yes Needed for the number of soccer practices and games at this location.
Yes needed for public health
Yes It’s heavily needed for all users of the field.
Yes
Yes
Yes
There are many soccer players and families using the fields for games and practices. The existing (single) porta-potty is wholly insufficient for the amount of
people. I have found it really dirty and not because it was not cleaned, but just plain overwhelmed.
Yes The field is heavily used by PASC and others and the single portable restroom is insufficient to support the heavy traffic flow. Thank you.
Yes We use this field several times a week for soccer practice/soccer games/general fitness
Yes One port-a-potty is gross and insufficient, as there can be many, many people there watching their kid's soccer or baseball games.
Yes This serves larger numbers of users and allows the park to be clean.
Yes
Yes High volume of users of the fields; current single standalone porta-potty insufficient.
Yes
5
Packet Pg. 63
Yes
Yes high demand and currently only one stall shared across multiple players
Yes
No
Because it is wasteful and disturbs the park. There are plenty of existing restroom and water fountain options at the Cubberley complex no more than 2 minutes
away. All we need is good signage.
Yes Restroom is much needed at this heavily utilized recreational fields.
Yes The port apotty is filthy and not adequate for proper health & safety of children
Yes Sports players and families need clean restrooms!
Yes
Yes Would be helpful for soccer practice and for soccer tournaments for visiting players/families.
No
We already have problems with parking along Nelson rather than in the Cubberly lot and problems with homeless & trailers parking near that entrance. This will
add to that. It will encourage congregation there that will tend to block the through path. These are players, probably able to run 7 miles during a game. You
can refurbish the existing Cubberly restrooms, it's not too far, or put this near the Cubberly parking lot (NW stadium entrance) and add pumps or whatever lines
instead of sighting this poorly to avoid some nominal expense. Build it right or don't build it. So put it in the NW stadium entrance area and do it right, and/or
refurbish Cubberly restrooms.
Yes Needed for high number of athletes in the area. Without it, there is the potential for bathroom use in the bushes
Yes Because a single portopotty on site for such heavily used fields is absolutely ridiculous! Having a bathroom there should be a MUST!
Yes
A real restroom facility will be a positive new addition to numerous users of these fields, which the current single porter-potty hasn't been anything sufficient at
all. Thank you for building this new bathroom facility - very much looking forward to it!
Yes
that area has so much usage from the soccer fields and only one disgusting portapotty - the bathrooms at the community center are very far, especially for young
children, and not always open.
Yes
Yes It would be great for everyone
Yes Very much needed for a basic human need
Yes Convenient to all players
Yes
Yes there are many users of the fields and they have no restroom so it is likely they will go in the bushes! Also do not paint it lime green and blue as in the picture.
A neutral brown or grey is much better because it will not be camouflaged so it should look like a building and painted like one. Thank you!
Yes Bad location
Yes It's just a good idea.
Yes My son practices and plays soccer here 3 or more times per week. Having a safe, easy accesible restroom is essential.
Yes
My kids participate in Club Soccer and they are often at Cubberly for practices and games and a new restroom facility near the fields is truly needed. With the
amount of use of the fields on the weekends, it's surprising that only one portable potty is available.
Yes
Yes I often play at cubberly and there is never an opportunity to use the restroom when we need to
Yes Helpful for soccer practices
Yes
Yes
Yes Both my kids participate in sports at Cubberley multiple times per week (soccer and softball).
Yes
Yes Help residents, especially kids, get full use of the excellent facilities at Cubberly Park.
5
Packet Pg. 64
Yes There needs to be more bathrooms
Yes
Yes Fields used extensively by sports teams and neighbors. Flushing toilets that don’t smell terrible would be wonderful.
Yes
Yes This is a great facility that is used heavily by all in the community. A clean, accessible bathroom is much overdue.
Yes Kids who play soccer need to have a restroom Thank you
Yes
Yes
There is no accessible bathroom in the near area and there are so many kids and families that consistently use the space surrounding. Minimum of a 300+ daily.
This would support children and their families and provide a safety element so that children do not have to walk 10 mins away to use the restroom.
Yes Much needed. The porta-potty gets really unsanitary and tons of kids and adults use it regularly with sports practices.
Yes
Porta potty’s that have been used smell and are way more unsanitary. Clean bathrooms that get cleaned daily would be beneficial for all who use/live near
cubberly
Yes
Yes There’s a lot of kids on the field during practice so it would be great if more people can go to the bathroom.
Yes Extensive use of fields for soccer, baseball and softball and one portable bathroom is not enough
Yes It's needed!
No The location should be close to the parking lot where the flow of traffic is. The proposed location will be hard to find and used infrequently.
No
We have concerns about safety for both users and neighborhood families. The bathroom should be next to the parking lot, close to the entrance/exit of the
track, and in an area that can have adequate lighting. If additional work needs to be done to promote proper drainage, then do it.
No
It is accross the street from my home that faces the track and I am concerned that the homeless person RVs that already park along Nelson will use it as their
morning and evening bathroom spot. It is also encourages people to park on Nelson for soccer games and field activities, which clogs the street all weekend. It is
not located near a track enterance. It is in the middle of a busy bike path that we use to ride to school. As the only exteral bathroom at Cubberly open til 10, it will
shift where and how people think about the outside space toward my neighborhood.
5
Packet Pg. 65
No
The ONLY reason to put it in the suggested location is access to the sewer line. With the exception of the sewer there appear to be no other good reasons to put
it in that location and many reasons not to do so. There are several, better locations. 0) Although the sewer is close, the facility is as far as possible from existing
sources of power and fresh fresh water. Just in terms of operations, note that it would be farther from janitorial services for the rest of Cubberley community
center complex, possibly leading to cleaning delays and odor/sanitation concerns. 1) It is clearly the least desirable location for the surrounding neighborhood for
a number of reasons that go well beyond NIMBY: sight, sound, security, attractive nuisance for non-residents that may wish to stay the night in vehicles(which
goes to security/safety), possibility odors. 2) Taking safety a bit further, it has no visibility from the field and track nor from Nelson drive in one direction, and not
very much visibility from Nelson drive in the other direction. The recently planted trees on the main field will further screen it. It is the furthest possible location
from the majority of users of the all-weather field and track as well, should assistance be needed. And note those users are the primary reason it is being placed
by the track and field rather than in a more central location. This is the worst possible location from the security of the restroom facility itself due to visibility. 3)
The safety/security concerns might also relate to urgency of need, both as a restroom and as a facility with fresh water, for instance for cleaning required for first-
aid. 4) The location would appear to maximize, rather than minimize(or at least reduce), the average distance when all users of the playing fields (including
tennis courts) are taken into account. The major reason for the near-the-track location could be historical, due to the presence of stands where there used to
occasionally be larger numbers of spectators for football games, but it is very rare when even more than a few dozen people sit in the stands today. There are far
more people in their own folding chairs watching soccer matches during a tournament than sitting in the stands. 5. It may be that one reason for placing it near
the track is the use of that track by the local community during the day rather than soccer and other organized group uses, but note that the those users tend to
be at the facility for a relatively short time, typically an hour or less, and are also more likely to be able to go home, whereas a child at soccer practice or an all-
day tournament, does not have that option and will more likely have a need. The local users numbers are also low compared to those during afternoons,
evenings and weekends when organized team activities take place. Conclusion: If all current users of the athletic facility are considered including the entire field,
softball and tennis, a better location might be nearer to the tennis courts, and probably the best location from the perspective of existing utilities would be as an
extension of the old girls locker room where water, sewer, and power should be available. And note that this location would enable much better visibility for
security purposes.
No
A much better location for a restroom is between the rear parking lot and the NW stadium entrance--it will be more centrally located for the bulk of people who
use the field and track.
No
Please locate the restroom by the parking lot, where it'll be most useful, and farther from the neighborhood. I understand there will be an expense, but please
spend a bit and do it right.
Yes
Kids complain about the state of the porta potties. And we need proper washing facilities to go with the bathroom. A prefab restroom is much better than
keeping a porta potty out forever.
No
Not in the proposed location. Put it near Cubblery / Cubberly parking lot where the current portapotty is. If sewer lines are the driver of putting it close to homes,
you can leverage a pump system. Residents do not want the sight and smell of a public restroom yards away from their homes.
No There are restrooms in Cubbereley, not good for the neighborhood to put public restrooms in a residential area
No We need bathrooms but these are in the wrong path, even for track users. The current location is much better.
No
This is the absolute wrong place to put it - right next to the dugout? Yuck :) - Also we live right next door to this - why is the city putting a restroom next to our
homes? Why can't it be in the parking lot area?
Yes Convenient for people using field
Yes It’s critical to have a full restroom at this field.
Yes It’s necessary when people exercise or play sports there.
Yes
Needed for a long time. People use the bushes too often. Pls move it toward the parking lot as where it is now it will Attract homeless who already hang out on
the bench by the softball field & in RVs on Nelson.
Yes
5
Packet Pg. 66
Yes Convenient for runners to use the track.
No Poor choice of location.
Yes
No
The bathroom is absolutely necessary, there's no argument there. The City of Palo Alto *must* be able to put together a plan that doesn't have children as young
as 5 going to the bathroom mere feet from a busy street, which is just plain dangerous. (You should watch traffic on Nelson at drop off and pick up times if you
don't think it is a busy street.) It is also very exposed to the public. The right place to put a bathroom is by the interior parking lot, the softball bleachers and
Cubberly track, near where the port-a-potty is. By blocking off part of the parking lot, which is mostly populated by waiting parents, this is a safer area,
surrounded by adults who could help if a child was in distress. It is also not in an area where fast moving cars and sometimes distracted drivers could endanger a
child. Finally, putting a bathroom across the street from people's houses is possibly affecting the value of their houses. While you say the bathrooms will be
cleaned daily, we all know that what a plan by consultants says and what the City actually makes happen (especially when budget cuts come around) are often
two different things. When plumbing backups happen on weekends, which they will since there are games on every field from 8 am to 8 pm, who will be called to
fix it and clean it up? Will people across the street and neighbors have to live with the stench all weekend? As a resident in the neighborhood, I have a very hard
time believing that there is a city worker on standby taking phone calls from the Cubberley fields, or a plumber they would hire on weekend rates, or a city
worker who would be called in to clean up the mess. This location is NOT acceptable in any way, shape, or form.
Yes Closest restroom is too far away at the pavilion
No
It will bring more people and cars into the neighborhood. It would be better placed near the parking lot or to location that can tie into the cubberley community
center sewer lines.
No Too close to residence. It should be closer to cubberly center
Yes
Although it might be better to locate it closer to parking lot, reliability is also a concern. Ongoing maintenance costs , pump replacement etc. seems like an
ongoing issue. If it could be moved a little farther away from Nelson without needing a pump we would encourage you to try. Parking on Nelson and sidewalk
blocking is already an ongoing issue. Perhaps you could designate no parking zones ,and restrictions of oversized vehicles to discourage overuse by vehicle
overnighters.
Yes
Yes Really needed
Yes
Yes There is no bathroom nearby. This will be really helpful.
Yes
Cubberley Sport Fields is a great place for its community and visitors. Adding a well maintained public bathroom will provide convenience to the fields users!
Thank you!
Yes needed
Yes Better than the portable
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes It is convenient for players to use the restroom
Yes
Yes Many people including seniors and children use the field. 1 porta potty was never enough.
No
The location is poorly chosen. Put the restrooms where the parking, people flow, and activities are focused not in a remote area. Location close to parking is
essential. Otherwise, utilize existing restrooms at Cubberley. Move away from residential housing please!
Yes Lots of people!
Yes
5
Packet Pg. 67
No It should go near the parking lot where it will be more central and better lit without adding security lighting.
Yes It's convenient for everyone using the field.
Yes
Yes
No Please consider placing the restroom near the parking lot. The proposed location is too close to Greenmeadow residents' homes.
Yes
No
1) most of field users are parking in the parking lot; 2) it's unsightly for the neighborhood; 3) It will attract transients ; 4) The location is really unpleasant for
people who are using the field close by, e.g. the baseball field. As a resident in the neighborhood, I strongly do NOT support the proposed location. But I support
the new restroom for the field users.
Yes
We have so many users of this facility, and it's track and field. Due to issues with transients, this restroom should be located in the well lit parking area. The
parking area is the most convenient to all users and it the safest location. Keep it away from the Nelson Dr. neighborhood.
No Closer to parking lot would make it more accessible. Also too close to the neighborhood
No There are already bathrooms at Cubberley. If not appropriate, fix them.
No Too close to Nelson Street. Prefer nearer parking lot
Yes Improved sanitation and security - many late-night people seem to loiter at Cubberley and use the port-a-pottie
No Because it will increase littering, foot traffic, homeless, and problems in front of my home.
No
Original location towards NW corner of the field, which is closer to the parking lot, is logistically better. First, for field users driving to the site, especially families
with kids, proximities of the bathrooms to parking is more convenient. Second, following above consideration, the new proposed location may unintendedly
encourage field users to park on Nelson for easy access. I also worry that the new upgrade spacious bathroom will be misused as a hiding place especially
there's no lights around that corner. Just few nights ago, car thefts were spotted in Greenmeadow at 3:30-4:00am. In terms of the additional financial costs - I
wonder if it would be more cost effective to connect the drainage towards the North, say the Cubberly Pavilion, assuming the city could work out with the school
district.
No
While adding new public restrooms is a great idea, the location proposed is far from ideal. Why not put the restrooms where the portapotty is now? Or on the
Cubberley track side of that fence, where there are bushes now? A location near the parking lot rather than Nelson Drive will be better for Greenmeadow
residents and folks traveling to Cubberley for various events.
No This is not the correct location - the current location (adjacent to the parking lot) is better for all users.
No Should be on the parking lot side given that is where users park.
No
The proposed location is not central to the foot traffic in the Cubberly Sports Fields, it makes more sense to locate the restrooms adjacent to the Cubberly
parking lot.
No The location is illogical given where the majority of field usage is, and it is unnecessarily located next to a residential neighborhood.
No Too close to homes. Aesthetically intrusive. Location near other end of the stadium better.
No
Needs to be closer to the main parking lot, not to the neighborhood. Now you're just encouraging more cars to park in the neighborhood, which is already
dangerous due to heavy traffic.
No Too close to the residential area.
No It’s too close to a residential area and will increase traffic posing a safety risk for children that routine walk and play in the area
No Will encourage traffic on Nelson, is not that accessible from the turf field. Put it by the Cubberley packing lot.
No
No
The restrooms would be more convenient for all users of the sports fields if the building was to be located next to the parking lot. The proposed location is a poor
choice.
No Too close to the neighborhood.
5
Packet Pg. 68
No Seems very off to the side, near residences, ideally should be place closer to the parking lot.
No
The bathrooms should be at the other end of the stadium so they are more easily accessible from the parking lot and more of the baseball diamonds for the
highest utilization rate. They should not be next to a residential neighborhood where homeless people will congregate.
No
This location seems a little remote from where people using the fields would find it and access it. It seems to make more sense to be at the other end of the
walkway, closer to the parking lot. Near the parking lot would make it more accessible to visitors to the fields and Cubberley in general. Especially for visitors in
wheelchairs or otherwise disabled... going all the way to the other end of the walkway from the parking lot seems unwelcoming and cumbersome. Also, I think
the proposed location could promote some abuse/misuse of the space since it's in a quieter, darker more remote area. I know that the sewer access is easier
from the proposed location, but I think the long term success of these restroooms would be better at the other end of the walkway.
No
This is a poor location and the proposed design is ugly. There are multiple restrooms in the existing buildings. Suggest making it clear where they are and
providing the same cleaning and locking service proposed for this location. Absent that, a better location from a near neighbor point of view would be the far
end of the track near the Friends of the Library building. There are sewer connections nearby for Greendell and the Gym. Please don't proceed with this design :(
No It’s not a convenient location for users. A better location is next to the parking lot.
Yes
Yes Parks need to have bathroom facilities nearby to effectively support sanitary use.
No
Too close to residential street/homes. Neighborhood has asked soccer/softball/field users/ parents/teams to use Cubberley parking lots to avoid congestion and
accidents on residential streets (Nelson Rd). If the bathroom goes in the proposed location it will encourage more parking on Nelson rather than parking lots.
Also, we get occasional RV parkers who camp on Nelson for days until ticketed to move. This bathroom location will create more illegal car/RV parking on our
residential street. Moving the bathroom to the parking lot side of Cubberley turf makes it a better location for all users.
No I propose to move the location closer to the parking lot area - otherwise the traffics issue on Nelson Dr will just get worse.
Yes
the field is heavily used and a more visible restroom would help solve problems for people who are using the field. I'm living in the neighborhood but I even do
not know the location of the previous restroom and this might also be true for people using the field. A more permanent restroom also is a better solution than a
mobile one in terms of cleanness and functionality. I like the feature that the restroom is locked automatically after 10 pm daily and cleaned daily.
No
I fully support adding a bathroom, but not in the proposed location. we already experience a lot of neighborhood traffic problems due to field use, and I only see
this as exacerbating the problem. it makes more sense to have the bathroom installed where the majority of users are - where the port-a-potties currently are
located.
Yes
No
This close to Nelson will bring more traffic into the Greenmeadow neighborhood which is already a problem as people pick-up, drop-off kids in a hurry without
looking out for pedestrians and bikers. The restroom should be more centrally located on the Cubberly campus and designated parking lots so that they can
more easily be used by the tennis courts and parking lot. Also for the user's safety , the facilities should be in higher traffic areas with clear sightlines by parents
and other guardians. I like where the current port-o-potty is. It is parking adjacent, out in the open, well lite, and has clear sight-lines. Thank you.
No
placing the restrooms next to the neighborhood will just increase traffic to the neighborhood. which during weekend and afternoon practices can be a strain
between residents and field users. (i my self have almost be hit multiple times on my bike and or do want feel safe for my kid on her bike let alone the disregard
for stop signs and speeding through the area) to be clear - i fully support the addition of a restroom BUT please reconsider the location closer to Cubberly and
not Greenmeadow
Yes High use of the track and field, but not near Nelson Drive - unsightly, out of character with nearby neighborhood.
5
Packet Pg. 69
No
I 100% support the addition of restrooms close to the Cubberly Sports Field, but that is not a field-friendly or neighborhood-friendly location. The restrooms
should be located closer to the Cubberly parking lot and the main entrance to the Sports Field.
Yes The high volume of daily field and track users. Please locate bathroom in the safe, central and user friendly parking lot location, NOT near Nelson Drive
No
The location is too close to our residential neighborhood. This would be unsightly and potentially smelly. That pathway is one of the main entrances to the
Cubberley fields - and many people pass by to get to the track/ stadium/ oval fields. It narrows the paved walkway and is too far away from the oval field users.
It should be located on the other side of the bleachers near where there’s a wide path opening to the track and oval field - near the parking lot. It’s a more
discreet location, more private, tucked in the nook on the bayside of the bleachers, and very convenient to all the people using the track and fields.
No
The building looks fine, but the location is just not right. It should be more centrally located, closer to the Cubberley Center. For a small cost for additional
plumbing line, put the restrooms where the parking, people flow and activities are focused. Restrooms need to be conveniently located.....not off in a remote
location that is invasive to the Greenmeadow neighborhood. Put them where the current temporary portapotty is!
No
It is not conveniently located for ALL field activities and it's too close to the street local residents. It would be better to locate it in the far end of the parking lot
near the middle of the main field (not the football field). The football field does not get near the usage the main field does on any day of the week.
No
This restroom will bring added traffic to the residential Nelson Street. Not only is it an eyesore for my neighbors, it will increase parking and driving on Nelson
when all of the soccer clubs have been told many times (and agreed) not to park on Nelson but they continue to do it. It creates a dangerous environment for
cars and soccer players and bikes and pedestrians. And a public resource on that road will encourage people to park there. Cubberly also has a history of
homeless people sleeping on the bleachers. in the bushes of the cubberly field as well as parking RV's on Nelson Drive. This restroom will draw homeless people
closer into the residential neighborhood instead of encouraging them to be close to Cubberly. A bathroom is a good idea, and a location that seems to be
working well is where the current porta-potty is.
No It needs to be located, regardless of extra cost for pump, where it has been determined would be the ideal location!!
No The location is too far from the main entrance to the field and too close to the neighborhood along Nelson Dr.
No I do support adding a restroom but it needs to be closer to the main parking lot which will be more accessible to field users
No
I go by here virtually every day. This proposed location will not only be unsightly from the neighborhood, it will be in the wrong place. Virtually everyone who
uses the track parks in the parking lot. The field users are more of a mix, and may split half and half, but they go up the length of Nelson, using other entrances.
This proposed spot is just not where the people are. So it's the wrong place for two reasons -- inconvenient for the "customers", and unsightly for the
neighborhood. It is bound to attract some transients, and I think it is better located for that reason near the parking lot as well, rather than near neighborhood
homes.
No Yes, I agree with adding this restroom, but it needs to be in a more convenient location, like maybe the opposite end of the field.
Yes There is a need for one. The fields are heavily used and a nearby bathroom would be welcome.
No
I would love to see a restroom at cubberly, and live the design, but I don’t think that is the right location. It needs to be closer to the parking lot. I realize that
creates an additional engineering challenge but it is the right approach. It should not be out of the way or near residential homes.
No It should be closer to the Cubberly parking lot, it should be further away from houses!
No Unsightly and out of character with the nearby residential neighborhood.
Yes It is much needed and I trust the judgement about its location.
5
Packet Pg. 70
No
There are already restrooms within Cubberley itself and no additional restrooms are needed. If, however, a restroom is installed, the following requirements
should be met: (a) it should be further within the Cubberley facility and not on the edge/near the residential neighborhhod; and (b) it should close at 7 pm, not
at 10 pm. The location is all wrong -- it is really far from the soccer and baseball fields. If the goal is to provide a service to people who use the fields, this isn't a
great way to do it -- it's a far, far walk for the parts of the fields that are used most heavily. So, placing the restrooms next to Nelson isn't going to be very good
for meeting the stated goals. We all know that a restroom like this will be a benefit for the homeless and RV dwellers. It is not appropriate to put that within or
so close to a residential neighborhood. And, it just means that the neighbors will be calling the police more often to have RVs that are parked on Nelson for
more than 72 hours removed; this will increase work for the police and be a burden to the neighbors (and notably a burden not placed on other neighborhoods --
so unfair to Greenmeadow). As for timing, all activities on the Cubberley fields end by about 6 or 7 pm, even during the longest days of the summer. Nobody is
on the fields at 10pm. Leaving the restroom open that late will only encourage and attract people who shouldn't be there. Plus, the fields lose at dusk; the
bathrooms should not be open any later than that.
No
The proposed location is a main thoroughfare for walkers and joggers, plus it is in close proximity to homes on Nelson Drive. While there is a need for a better
restroom facility at Cubberly, a better location for users and for the Greenmeadow residents would be at the other end of the soccer field, close to the parking lot
behind the Cubberly Community Center. At that location, it would be equally convenient to users of the soccer field, and more convenient to the baseball field
users as well as the tennis courts at the complex. Plus, that location would not be as close to neighborhood homes.
No Too close to residences on Nelson
No
I do not want a restroom in front on my house! We already have too many homeless people parking on Nelson Drive. You will encourage more homeless people
in front of our house on Nelson Drive! Please refurbish the bathrooms in the Cubberley facility. Everyone has been using the bathrooms at Cubberley for years!
You can put up bathroom signs to use the bathrooms at Cubberley. Please do NOT put bathrooms in front of our house on Nelson Drive. Thanks so much.
No New bathroom is too close to Nelson, which would contribute to more people and traffic along Nelson.
No We should put it closer/adjacent to the parking lot
Yes it is a reasonable accommodation for a heavily used site
Yes
No Too close to Greenmeadow neighborhood.
No
Location is wrong....far from parking, people-flow, and central activity, and invasive to the neighborhood. Additional cost of proper placement is unfortunate,
but very small. Let's do this right.
Yes
No
No
No It should be by the parking lot so the location is convenient to all field users
No
The proposed design is ugly and will be a nuisance. There are plenty of bathroom facilities in the cubberly buildings. Suggest refurbishing one or more and
providing clear directions as to where they are. The little kids soccer camps use those bathrooms regularly without a problem.
No I support the restroom but it should be build further from residents and closer to the cubberly center. This would make it more accessible from the Parkin lots
No The rest room should be closer to where the activities are, I.e. it should be where it currently is.
Yes
Yes Needed due to heavy field use
5
Packet Pg. 71
1
Team Sheeper Inc./Palo Alto Swim and Sport
Presents:
2022 Annual Aquatic Report
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Parks and
Recreation Commission
January 2023
6
Packet Pg. 72
2
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Overall Survey Results ................................................................................................................................... 4
Table of program hours per week 2019-2022 .............................................................................................. 4
Profile of 2022 lap swim population at Rinconada Pool ............................................................................... 5
Profile of 2022 Palo Alto Masters Members at Rinconada Pool ................................................................... 6
Lap Swim Survey Responses ......................................................................................................................... 7
Summary of satisfaction percentages from lap swim respondents of the 2022 annual survey .............. 7
Summary of requests from lap swim respondents of the 2022 annual survey ........................................ 7
Average lap swim fees .................................................................................................................................. 8
2019-2022 Comparison ................................................................................................................................. 8
Resident vs. Non-Resident usage .............................................................................................................. 8
Senior vs. Adult usage ............................................................................................................................... 9
Total lap swim visits .................................................................................................................................. 9
Lap swim monthly memberships ............................................................................................................ 10
Lap swim membership usage vs. drop-in usage ..................................................................................... 10
Total volume of facility visits .................................................................................................................. 11
Total volume of lessons .......................................................................................................................... 12
Total volume of open swimmers ............................................................................................................ 12
Total volume of lessons given in summer camp ..................................................................................... 13
Pool Comparisons ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Survey Responses........................................................................................................................................ 17
Employee Data ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Palo Alto Revenue and Revenue Share ....................................................................................................... 20
Risk Management Documentation ............................................................................................................. 21
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
6
Packet Pg. 73
3
Introduction
It is with great pleasure that Palo Alto Swim and Sport presents data from our 5th full year of aquatics
operations at Rinconada Pool. 2022 can be defined as the first year of a rebuilding period as we ascend
back to our operational baseline of 2019.
We are proud and pleased with the year-round community support we receive for our daily services. We
are thrilled to see that the positive feedback we received for our operational structure through the
annual survey correlates with our efforts.
A quick review of our 2022 programming shows:
Lap Swim-Thriving and continuing to grow past pre-pandemic levels.
Summer Swim Camps-Thriving and meeting a community need.
Open Family Swim-Modest improvements over 2021, returning to baseline, directly related to staffing.
Swim Lessons-Mild improvement from 2021, undergoing a complete remodel and recruiting work force.
Masters-Stable, but in need of continued development and culture building.
PASA-Thriving, legacy quality youth program, impacted, community demand exceeds available time and
space.
Coming soon in 2023:
Fee Structure Modifications- Lowering of senior citizen fees for lap swimming, post pandemic pricing
correction. Increasing differential between resident and non-resident fees.
Pool Closure-Minimum of 45-day closure beginning March 6 due to a replastering project.
Swim Lesson Resurrection- Investment in leadership and recruitment will bring drastic improvements in
delivery of service, upon pool reopening in Spring.
In collaboration with the Palo Alto Community Services and Public Works, Palo Alto Swim and Sport has
been able to achieve a state of equilibrium in serving the aquatic needs of the community. Our
intention is to continue providing premium programming and customer service while being capable
stewards of the community gem which is Rinconada Pool.
6
Packet Pg. 74
4
Overall Survey Results
Table of program hours per week 2019-2022
Summer Non-Summer Summer Non-Summer Summer Non-Summer Summer Non-Summer
Lap Swim 68.5 68.5 68.5 68.5 68.75 68.75 75 72.75
Open Swim 42 0 32 0 31.5 0 80.5 9.5
Swim School 15 0 15 10 15 0 38 23
Palo Alto
Masters 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 9.5 9.5 17.25 17.25
PASA 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 26.5 26.5 17.5 21
Camps 35 0 35 0 35 0 25 0
2021 2020 2019
Program
2022
6
Packet Pg. 75
5
Profile of 2022 lap swim population at Rinconada Pool
Members are defined as swimmers who purchase a monthly swim pass.
Drop-ins are defined as swimmers who purchase a daily pass to swim.
6
Packet Pg. 76
6
Profile of 2022 Palo Alto Masters Members at Rinconada Pool
6
Packet Pg. 77
7
Lap Swim Survey Responses
Summary of satisfaction percentages from lap swim respondents of the 2022 annual survey
Summary of requests from lap swim respondents of the 2022 annual survey
6
Packet Pg. 78
8
Average lap swim fees
Average volume per month: 6,350 lap swimmers
Average swims per member per month: 8.8
Average cost per swim for members:
2019-2022 Comparison
Resident vs. Non-Resident usage
Avg cost per swim Resident Non-Resident
General $7.27 $7.84
Senior $6.14 $6.70
6
Packet Pg. 79
9
Senior vs. Adult usage
Total lap swim visits
6
Packet Pg. 80
10
Lap swim monthly memberships
Lap swim membership usage vs. drop-in usage
6
Packet Pg. 81
11
Total volume of facility visits
Facility Visits:2019 2020 2021 2022
Lap-Member Visits 19,560 22,830 39,764 34,575
Lap- Drop-Ins 16,712 11,782 13,971 11,588
Open Drop-Is 29,794 4,065 8,226 19,893
Masters Visits 1,361 5,482 5,291
Camp Visits 3,515 1,050 3,560 3,580
Swim Lessons 7,514 617 173 1,431
TOTAL 77,095 41,705 71,176 76,358
6
Packet Pg. 82
12
Total volume of lessons
*Camp lessons not included
Total volume of open swimmers
6
Packet Pg. 83
13
Total volume of lessons given in summer camp
6
Packet Pg. 84
14
Pool Comparisons
Lap Swim information gathered from municipal pools along the greater peninsula region of the San
Francisco Bay Area. Captured for comparison purposes.
* By appointment only
** Pool(s) closed indefinitely
Municipal Pool Hrs/Week Lane Space Fees
Santa Clara 33 20 $11 R/NR, 10 pass-$70
Mountain View*38 8 $6R/$7NR, 25 pass $99 R/$124 NR, Senior $34 R/$43 NR Senior
Burlingame*45 20 $8, $80/month (No R or Senior discounts)
Campbell*24 8 $5.50 general use, $15/hr reservation
San Jose 39 8 $6 R/NR, $3 Senior, Monthly $90/$45 Senior
South San Fran 20 6 $5.25 R/NR, Monthly $56 R/$63 NR, Senior $45R/$51 NR
Sunnyvale*21 20 $10 R/$12 NR, $7 Senior
Santa Cruz 47.5 14 $7 R/NR, $5 Senior, 10 pass-$63 R/NR, $45 Senior
Menlo 87 17 $9 R/$10 NR, $8 R/$9 NR Senior, Monthly $65 R/$72 NR, $52 R/$61 NR Senior
Palo Alto 68.5 14 $9 R/$10 NR, $8 R/$9 NR Senior, Monthly $65 R/$72 NR, $52 R/$61 NR Senior
San Bruno**
Redwood City **Closed 2 municipal pools indefinitely
Closed pool permanently
6
Packet Pg. 85
15
* By appointment only
** Pool(s) closed indefinitely
6
Packet Pg. 86
16
Chart displays resident pricing at lowest cost. Membership (based on the average of 8.8 swims per
month), punch pass pricing, or drop-in pricing if not other pricing is available.
* By appointment only
** Pool(s) closed indefinitely
6
Packet Pg. 87
17
Survey Responses
6
Packet Pg. 88
18
Resident
Non-
Resident
SURVEY RESPONDENTS-
MASTERS
6
Packet Pg. 89
19
Employee Data
2022
Camp Counselors 22
Camp Managers 3
Lifeguards 36
Customer Service 6
Customer Service Managers 2 (shared)
Swim Instructors 2
Facility Directors 2
Masters Coach 2
CFO/HR 1 (shared)
Operations Director 2 (shared)
CEO 1 (shared)
78
(6 shared)
Total
6
Packet Pg. 90
20
Palo Alto Revenue and Revenue Share
For Period January 1 through October 31
Revenue share is based off number of lessons given:
2022 Revenue share is 1%
Jan - Oct 22
Camps 272,988
Laps DI 92,079
Lessons 43,874
Memberships 283,322
Open Swim 134,407
Total Fees 826,670
Rentals 119,697
Total Income 946,367
Revenue Share 9,464
6
Packet Pg. 91
21
Risk Management Documentation
Emergency Action Procedures (EAP)
The Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is a protocol that describes the roles and responsibilities of the staff
during an emergency. EAPs are a very important aspect of lifeguarding because by designating roles
prior to emergencies, lifeguards can rescue and treat victims more quickly and effectively. This can only
be achieved when the EAP is known by all and practiced with regularity. Emergencies are not all the
same, it follows that the response to a passive drowning victim in the water would differ from that of a
stroke victim on land. While there will be areas of crossover from one plan to the next, it is important
that you are aware of each plan and when to activate them. Palo Alto Swim and Sport has three main
EAPs: Water Based Emergency, Land Based Emergency, and Environmental Emergency.
Water-Based Emergency
Reacting to water-based emergencies is the main reason lifeguarding exists as a profession. Three
common examples of water-based emergencies include: distressed swimmers, drowning victims and
nonfatal submersion victims. Injuries and sudden illness can occur either in or out of the water. When
incidents occur in water then you have a water-based emergency.
Common examples of injuries and sudden illness may include: head, neck or back injuries, severe
bleeding, wounds, fractures, dislocations; heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures
and strokes, temperature-related emergencies such as cramps, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and
hypothermia.
Water based emergencies require at least two guards to extricate the victim from the water, meaning
that those lifeguards cannot perform patron surveillance. To speed rescue and prevent collateral
damage the pool must be empty of patrons, or in the process of being evacuated, while extricating a
victim. Because of these reasons the pool will remain closed until the emergency is over and all
lifeguards can return to duty.
EAP – Water-Based Emergency
1. Primary rescuer performs 3 short, loud whistle blasts and yells “WATER EMERGENCY, CLEAR
THE POOL”. All guards on deck respond by echoing the 3 whistle blasts and yelling “WATER
EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL”
2. Secondary rescuer tells the front desk and informs them as to the nature of the emergency
and if they need to call 911- if that has been determined yet.
3. Primary rescuer performs rescue and calls for backboard if needed.
4. Secondary rescuer gathers equipment such as, the AED, Oxygen, and backboard and then
assists with rescue.
5. Other guards will take on the role first of assisting with treatment by obtaining equipment
(oxygen, AED, BVM, etc.) and communicating with front desk to ensure 911 has been called;
and second by assisting with crowd control – pool evacuation, keeping walkways clear and
directing EMS personnel to the appropriate location.
6. Primary and secondary rescuers should stabilize and treat victim until EMT’s arrive.
Treatment should always be performed by the person with the highest level of training. This
6
Packet Pg. 92
22
means that after water extrication a different lifeguard may take over treatment. Lifeguards
will only stop treatment once EMS personnel take over treatment.
**Pool will remain closed until emergency is over and all lifeguards can return to duty**
Land-Based Emergency
Land based emergencies are another type of emergency that lifeguards must be able to react to. As
stated above, injuries and sudden illness can occur either in or out of the water.
Common examples of injuries and sudden illness include: head, neck or back injuries, severe bleeding,
wounds, fractures, dislocations, heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures and strokes,
temperature- related emergencies such as cramps, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and hypothermia.
All of these are examples are land-based emergencies, provided of course that they take place on land.
Unlike water-based emergencies, the pool may be able to stay open during a land-based emergency.
This is because treatment of the victim may only require one guard.
The following conditions would require shutting down the facility to allow for enough room to treat the
victim and to prevent secondary injuries due to normal facility operation: head, neck or back injuries,
heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures, and strokes.
EAP – Land-Based Emergency
1. Primary rescuer communicates to other guards that someone has been injured and tells them
that another guard needs to come out to cover primary rescuer’s pool, or to assess the
victim.
2. Primary rescuer then assesses victim to determine if 911 needs to be called. If 911 needs to
be called, perform 3 short, loud whistle blasts and yell “LAND EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL”
All guards on deck respond by echoing the 3 whistle blasts and yelling “LAND EMERGENCY
CLEAR THE POOL”.
3. Secondary rescuer tells the front desk to call 911, include a short explanation such as “we
have an unconscious adult male, approximately 30 years of age...” then proceed with
appropriate treatment.
4. Secondary rescuer gathers equipment, such as, AED and Oxygen, and assists with rescue.
5. Other guards will take on the role first of assisting with treatment by obtaining equipment
(oxygen, AED, BVM, etc.) and communicating with front desk to ensure 911 has been called;
and second by assisting with crowd control – pool evacuation, keeping walkways clear and
directing EMS personnel to the appropriate location.
6. Primary and secondary rescuers stabilize and treat victim until EMS arrives. Treatment for a
victim should always be performed by the person with the highest level of training. This
means that after the assessment or starting of treatment, a different lifeguard may take over
treatment. Lifeguards will only stop treatment once EMS personnel take over treatment.
**Pool will remain closed until emergency is over and all lifeguards can return to duty**
When to Call 911
6
Packet Pg. 93
23
Land EAP
• Victim is unconscious, loses consciousness, or has a decrease in their level of consciousness.
• Victim has any difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Victim has severe bleeding, severe burns or is vomiting due to heat stroke or excess water
ingestion. Victim has a head, neck, or back injury.
• Victim has possible broken bones, excessive swelling, or deformity.
• You suspect a cardiac emergency (heart attack) or cerebral attack (stroke). If CPR is being
administered.
• If a lifeguard is treating a victim outside of the facility.
• If a woman is going into labor.
The primary rescuer does a primary assessment of the victim to determine if 911 needs to be called. If
911 does not need to be called, they begin the secondary assessment of the victim. When in doubt
about whether to call 911, ask your supervisor for help. If your supervisor is not present, then tell the
patron you believe that 911 should be notified. If a patron refuses 911 assistance, the patron must sign a
refusal of care form.
If victim is a minor, then all efforts should be made to locate their parent or guardian.
Land-Based Emergency (non-911)
Not all land-based emergencies require 911 to be called. This decision to close the pool should be made
by the lifeguard who is watching the pool, considering bather load and the programs in the water at the
time. If the lifeguard feels uncomfortable with their bather load, or feels that patron safety is
compromised, close the pool.
Primary rescuer communicates to other guards that someone has been injured, and tells another guard
a) will need to come out to cover primary rescuer’s pool or to assess the victim.
b) can communicate with the front desk to call the parent/guardian if needed.
The victim should be moved to the first aid station if injuries allow movement.
The primary rescuer then treats victim according to their injuries. Once treatment is complete, release
victim back to coach or parent/guardian, if a minor and fill out all necessary paperwork.
** It is always important to remember that a victim’s condition can always deteriorate. Primary rescuer
must constantly reassess and be prepared to call 911 if victim’s condition worsens.**
Environmental Emergency
Environmental emergencies happen when the surrounding environment poses a risk of injury to staff
and patrons. Severe weather and natural disasters are an example of environmental emergencies.
Severe weather and natural disasters can involve violent winds, thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning,
6
Packet Pg. 94
24
earthquakes, mudslides, and flash floods. In addition, certain emergencies may result from a specific
facility problem, such as a fire or chemical
spill. Communication is of utmost importance. Lifeguards should be communicating with supervisors,
front desk, and other staff during an environmental emergency. It is also important to communicate the
nature of the emergency to the patrons; however, stopping to answer questions is rarely possible during
an emergency. The first two steps for these EAPs are the same; the latter steps are determined by the
nature of the environmental emergency.
EAP – Fire
1. Lifeguard observes an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as:
thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long
whistle blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck
respond by echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE
POOL.”
2. Establish communication with front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the
emergency while clearing the pool. The next steps are determined by the nature of the
environmental emergency.
3. Each lifeguard clears his or her own pool and directs patrons to the closest emergency exit.
Lifeguards must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any
personal belongings due to risk of injury. Guards must make sure all patrons exit through the
closest exit, and that patrons do not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons
have exited, guards must check in with a supervisor. After supervisor is aware of the deck being
cleared, lifeguards exit through the emergency exit closest to them.
4. Supervisors and other staff will be responsible for clearing the building and bathrooms. In the
absence of supervisors, the highest-ranking lifeguard will clear the building and bathrooms.
After patrons have exited the pool deck through the emergency exits the building must be
cleared. Clear the break room and office first, then the bathrooms. Move into the bathroom and
check each stall, while stating loudly, “Everyone out of the building there is a fire!” Once the
bathrooms are clear, lock the door and exit through the main entrance. If anyone is in the
building, they should exit through the closest exit as long as it is not blocked by fire.
5. Patrons and staff then wait for the fire department to come fight the fire or to give the “all
clear.”
EAP - Earthquake
1. Lifeguard observes an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as
thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long
whistle blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck
respond by echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE
POOL.”
2. Establish communication with front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the
emergency while clearing the pool. Beware that during an earthquake pool water can violently
slosh over the edges. For this reason, it is important to quickly get patrons out of the pool and to
ensure patrons promptly get away from sides of pool.
3. Each lifeguard clears his or her pool and directs patrons to the closest emergency exit.
Lifeguards must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any
6
Packet Pg. 95
25
personal belongings due to risk of injury. Guards must make sure all patrons exit through the
closest exit, and that patrons do not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons
have exited, guards must check in with a supervisor. After supervisor is aware of the deck being
cleared, lifeguards exit through the emergency exit closest to them.
4. Lifeguards must keep in contact with a supervisor. If no supervisors are working at the time of
the earthquake, lifeguards must wait for about five minutes after all shaking has stopped then
check the building for injured staff and patrons. If injuries are found call 911 if warranted, or if
unsure about how to treat victims. If any small fires are discovered use fire extinguishers to put
them out and/or call 911 if fire is not easily dealt with. Leave building as soon as it has been
swept through, do not stay in building longer than necessary.
5. Emergency personnel or official media broadcasts (radio, TV, internet) will inform the patrons
and staff when it is safe to re-enter buildings and obtain their possessions.
Chemical Spill
Chemical spills are a very rare but serious emergency. While there are many chemicals utilized for the
proper functioning of a pool, there is only one chemical that would cause an emergency related spill,
Hydrochloric Acid (Muriatic Acid). It is stored in a tank, in a room, near the front of the building.
If a spill were to take place it may happen in the following areas: 1) when the tank is being filled; or 2)
because of material failure of the storage tank. Either way the spill will mostly likely occur near the front
entrance of the building.
EAP - Chemical Spill
1. Lifeguard observes an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as:
thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long
whistle blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck
respond by echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE
POOL.”
2. Establish communication with front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the
emergency while clearing the pool. Beware of the fumes and do not let the liquid touch you or
any patrons. Tell front desk to call 911 and immediately direct all patrons to exit the facility
through the closest exit away from the spill.
3. Each lifeguard clears his or her own pool and directs patrons to the closest exit away from the
spill. Lifeguards must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any
personal belongings due to risk of injury. Guards must make sure all patrons exit through the
closest exit, and that patrons do not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons
have exited, guards must check in with supervisor via radios. Ensure 911 has been notified of the
spill. After supervisor is aware of the deck being cleared, lifeguards then exit through the closest
emergency exit that is away from the spill.
4. Supervisors and other staff will be responsible for clearing the building and bathrooms. In the
absence of supervisors, the highest ranking lifeguard will clear the building and bathrooms. After
patrons have exited the pool deck the building must be cleared. Clear the bathrooms first, and
then move to the rest of the building. Move into the bathroom and check each stall,
while saying loudly,” Everyone out of the building there is a chemical spill!” If anyone is in
the bathrooms, they must exit through the exits on the pool deck. Once the bathroom is clear,
lock the doors. After bathrooms are cleared and locked, clear the rest of the building, starting
6
Packet Pg. 96
26
with the front office and the break room. If anyone is in the building, they should exit through
the exits on the pool deck.
5. Patrons and staff then wait for the fire department to respond to the spill and give the “all
clear.” If the chemical smell becomes strong enough to be painful to eyes and lungs,
the lifeguards must move everyone farther away from the spill.
Pool Closure
There are many reasons why the pool may be closed due to non-medical emergencies. The most
common issues are biohazards, pump room issues and weather conditions.
Biohazard Procedure
If a biohazard happens, you must take immediate and swift action. Biohazards range from fecal incidents
to large volumes of blood contamination. Once aware of the situation immediately blow your whistle
and yell, “Clear the Pool Please!”
In the event of solid fecal matter, vomit, or excessive blood, notify the front desk of pool closure and
estimated 16
time of reopening. The chlorine level must be raised to 2 parts per million (ppm) and the pool closed for
30 minutes to properly decontaminate the area. The pool is normally kept at a higher level than 2 ppm,
see Pool Closure Binder for proper dosing charts.
Once the pool is evacuated obtain the following items:
• The proper amount of chlorine from the wet chemical storage area
• A biohazard disposal bin
• A pool scoop and gloves
• Put on gloves and proceed to scoop the contaminate out of the pool. Place the net and contents
into the biohazard disposal bin and add the chlorine to affected area. Collect all items and
return to the pump room for complete decontamination and disposal.
Place contents of scoop into the biohazard bin and rinse the scoop under running water
Fill a five-gallon bucket 3⁄4 full of a chlorine/water solution: one part chlorine for every nine parts water
Detach the net from the pole and place the net in the solution for 20 minute
Once clean, dispose the gloves in the biohazard bag, tie the bag off and then place the bag in the
garbage receptacle. When this last step has been completed, obtain and complete a “pool closure form”
from the pump room desk.
Pump Room Issues
As lifeguards, there are few times that you will be in the pump room however, it is important to know
what issues may require the pool being closed. The first thing to do when coming across most of these
6
Packet Pg. 97
27
problems is to notify your manager or call individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts list to
receive further instructions.
Circulatory Pump
If the circulatory pump for a pool is turned off then the pump is off and the filters cannot function, and
without filters patron cannot be in the pool. To determine if a given pump is on or off look at the
breaker panel; if the light is off then the pump is off. First notify your supervisor, and then clear the
affected pool. If no supervisor is present, first clear the affected pool and then call individuals on the
Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further instructions.
Pool Chemistry Issues
pH Levels: pH levels that are out of prescribed ranges have the potential to cause injury or illness to
those in the water. If the pH is lower than 7.2 or higher than 7.8, notify your supervisor or call
individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further instructions. A pH level that is
out of the prescribed range may require the pool to be cleared.
Chlorine: It is imperative to ensure that the pool has the proper part per million (ppm) of chlorine. If the
chlorine levels are below 1 ppm or above 10 ppm then notify your supervisor or call individuals on the
Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further instructions. With this issue the pool may need to
be cleared.
Hazardous Weather
Lightning, thunder, hail, and tornado watches or warnings are all possible reasons for pool closure due
to weather. However, the most common of these are thunder and lightning. If you hear thunder or see
lightning, then the pool must be closed, and the deck must be cleared. The deck and pool must remain
closed for 30 minutes after each instance of thunder or lightning. For example, a lightning strike occurs
so you close the pool for 30 minutes. If 25 minutes passes and you see lightning again, the clock would
reset. Everyone must wait 30 minutes from the last lightning strike before reentering the water.
Air Quality Facility and Program Closure Protocol:
Due to the common occurrence of wildfires in the Northern California region, Team Sheeper Inc has
implemented our own Air Quality Facility and Program Closure Protocol. The data in which we will use to
implement our company protocol comes from the website PurpleAir.com as it displays a more accurate
and current air quality reading.
The primary colors you should be aware of when the air quality starts to become hazardous
are: Orange (Unhealthy for sensitive groups) – With an air quality index between 101-150
Red (Unhealthy) – With an air quality index between 151-200
Please check PurpleAir.com and add our zip code “94303” as well as set the ‘conversion’ to “AQandU”
to get a more current reading for our location. The AQandU conversion is the closest to what the EPA
calculations.
Orange Protocol
6
Packet Pg. 98
28
It’s OK to be active outside, especially for SHORT ACTIVITIES such as recess and physical education.
For LONGER ACTIVITIES such as athletic practice, take more breaks and do less intense activities.
All long-duration, high-intensity activity groups, including Swim School will be cancelled when air quality
reaches 130.
Red Protocol
The Rinconada Aquatic Facility will be CLOSED and all staff sent home when air quality reaches 150.
Open Swim and Lap Swimming will be the only programs operational between the air quality of
130-150.
*Covid-19 Standard Operating Procedures at Rinconada Pool is available upon request
6
Packet Pg. 99
29
Summary
After 5 full years of service to the community of Palo Alto, we continue to improve and refine our
knowledge and delivery of aquatic services. We are grateful that we have had strong, capable, and
sustainable staff and leadership team on-site. Our leaders have been with us for most of our tenure as
pool operators and they continually demonstrate that they possess the passion and endurance to
continue to serve the community. Constantly ensuring a premium experience for all that engage with
the facility. Our overall operation is only as good as the individuals we have interacting and caring for
the community members.
6
Packet Pg. 100
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: LAM DO
SUPERINTENDENT OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 24, 2023
SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PERFORMANCE FISCAL YEAR 2022
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report on the financial performance of the City’s golf course. No action
is recommended.
BACKGROUND
In May 2018, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course re-opened as the Baylands Golf Links after a
course renovation. The new course included a full reconfiguration of the 18-hole course layout to
conform with a Baylands setting and some modification of practice facilities. Since re-opening, the
course has been operated by OB Sports, a golf management company, on behalf of the City.
When the golf course re-opened, green fees were established with a range to accommodate
dynamic pricing, where green fees fluctuate based on time of day, day of week, and demand.
Green fees are also tiered with Palo Alto residency, Bay Area residency, and visitor rates. The
combination of dynamic pricing, tiered pricing, and high demand during the COVID-19
pandemic has resulted in strong green fee revenue to support operating costs.
DISCUSSION
In Fiscal Year 2019, green fee revenue from course play and tournaments overachieved its
financial pro-forma projection and budget. However, revenue from merchandise sales
underachieved sales targets. Overall revenue from golf operations ended Fiscal Year 2019 at 6%
under target.
In Fiscal Year 2020, the overall revenue target was increased in alignment with prior pro-formas.
As the prior fiscal year resulted in strong green fee revenue, this revenue category was increased
while the revenue target for merchandise sales was decreased. However, in Fiscal Year 2020 the
golf course underperformed financially by 26% less than target. During part of the first eight
months of the fiscal year, the course was impacted by poor air quality throughout the region from
the 2019 fire season. The course then closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s
shelter in place Health Order implemented by the County and remained closed during most of
the key Spring season. The fire season and COVID-19 pandemic impacts to financial
performance can also be viewed from the perspective of golf rounds played at 42,429 rounds
where the target was 58,449 rounds. This reflects 27% fewer rounds of golf played than targeted
rounds. Similarly, overall revenue was 26% less than targeted budget.
In Fiscal Year 2021, the State and County Health Orders were relaxed from singles play to allow
group foursome play and the impact on golf operations was an increase in daily capacity for golf
7
Packet Pg. 101
rounds. With few social distanced activities and options, the general public continued to choose
golf throughout the fiscal year resulting in revenues 29% higher than target and the first fiscal
year since course renovation that the golf course exceeded revenues above target. A comparison
of rounds of golf played in Fiscal Year 2020 vs. 2021 reflects a 49% increase of 42,429 vs.
63,352 rounds. The increase in revenue and rounds of golf played were also reflected at golf
courses in the region and throughout the country, each with varying degrees.
For Fiscal Year 2022, the strong revenue performance of the golf course continued throughout
the fiscal year. Overall, revenue was $5.3M and 32% above revenue target. Rounds of golf
played were the highest since the opening of the renovated course at 64,157 rounds. Demand for
golf during the COVID-19 pandemic paired with a high number of warm and sunny days
contributed to the course’s increased utilization rate and course play. In particular, the winter
and spring seasons were warmer than usual with very little precipitation.
In the current Fiscal Year 2023, the summer season performed on pace with the prior fiscal year.
However, the fall and winter seasons thus far have been wet with several rainstorms in
December and numerous atmospheric river rainstorms January. This has resulted in almost 10%
less revenue for the fiscal year to date in comparison to the prior fiscal year. If the remainder of
the winter season continues to experience heavy rainfall, there will be fewer ideal dry and warm
golf days. This would likely result in weaker revenue performance than the previous two fiscal
years.
The following table reflects golf rounds played and player residency for the FY 2022. The
course continued to draw players from Palo Alto and Santa Clara County during the COVID-19
pandemic. This is reflected in 70% of players residing in Santa Clara County, half of whom are
Palo Alto residents.
Golf management company OB Sports remains the course operator and are under contract with
the City through Fiscal Year 2024. They provide a full suite of services on behalf of the City
7
Packet Pg. 102
including course maintenance, course bookings, course play, golf practice, lessons, and golf shop
sales. They also provide food and beverage service and host banquets at the Bay Café as their
own business through a lease of the restaurant facility. Thus, food and beverage revenue are not
factored in the golf course’s operating budget.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for golf operations is budgeted in the Community Services Department’s General Fund
budget.
PREPARED BY: __________________________________________________________
LAM DO
Superintendent Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division
Community Services Department
7
Packet Pg. 103