Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-25 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesMINUTES PARKS & RECREATION Commission Regular Meeting March 25, 2025 In-Person & Virtual Conference Palo Alto, California Page 1 of 18 Regular Meeting 1 3/25/2025 2 The Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council 3 Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 7:00 P.M. 4 Present In Person: Chair Freeman, Greenfield, Cribbs, Deng, Kleinhaus, Wei 5 Council Liaison: Lythcott-Haims 6 Present Remotely: None 7 Absent: Brown 8 Call To Order and Roll Call 9 Chair Freeman called the meeting to order and roll was taken. 10 Public Comment 11 1. Tom H., president of Palo Alto Middle School Athletics Community Organization, spoke 12 in follow-up about on the progress of the ad hoc committee's evaluation of outsourcing 13 middle school athletics to local nonprofits, a process initiated following their advocacy 14 work and the City Council's October 7 vote. He thanked the commissioners for serving 15 on the ad hoc committee. He urged them to pursue this evaluation with more urgency. 16 He described the success of his organization. He did not believe there had been any 17 progress made from the ad hoc committee and had failed in attempts to contact them. 18 He highlighted some of the challenges his organization had faced in working with City 19 staff. He wanted the opportunity to learn about the evaluation process, discuss the 20 nonprofit and answer any question that might assist in the ad hoc committee’s 21 evaluation. 22 Approval of Minutes 23 1. Approval of February 25, 2025 Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Summary 24 Minutes 25 MOTION: Vice Chair Greenfield moved, seconded by Commissioner Cribbs to approve the Draft 26 Summary Minutes. 27 MOTION PASSED/FAILED: 5-0-1 28 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 29 None. 30 City Official Reports 31 2. Council Liaison Report 32 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed her appreciation of the work of the PRC. She 33 reported they had a State of the City address by the mayor on March 18. She encouraged 34 everyone who was not able to be there in person to watch it online. She described the first 35 public session held with their consultant, Concordia, on the new Cubberley Community Center 36 the prior week. Mora Oommen of Youth Community Service sponsored an honoring of June 37 Fleming in Women's History Month the prior week. On March 21, there was a celebration of 38 the expansion of the Geng Road Safe Parking Lot. On April 7, the City planned to have a 39 conversation on a bill proposed by Senator Becker called SB 457 which would put meaningful 40 restrictions on the Builder's Remedy. Palo Alto was considering sponsoring that bill. She 41 reported that on either April 7 or 14 Council would be taking up the artificial turf study. 42 Vice Chair Greenfield thanked Councilmember Lythcott-Haims for her report. He inquired if 43 there was a specific role the PRC could play in furthering the Cubberley process along. 44 Kristen O’Kane, Director of Community Services, stated they planned on coming to the April 45 meeting of the Parks and Rec Commission. They would provide a lot of detail on the schedule 46 for their work moving forward on Cubberley and a recap of what was learned from the first 47 community meeting and their plans for the second community meeting. 48 Commissioner Wei enjoyed the event for June Fleming. She hoped the collaboration among the 49 cities could be continued. 50 Commissioner Cribbs thought the June Fleming event was wonderful and she appreciated the 51 context provided to all the mayor’s speeches. She was also interested in how the Commission 52 could help with Cubberley. 53 Chair Freeman parroted the other commissioners’ comments and appreciated the 54 summarization provided by the Council’s liaison. 55 3. Department Report 56 Sarah Robustelli, Community Services Division Manager for Open Space Parks and Golf, 57 provided the Department Report via slide presentation including upcoming special events, 58 special interest classes and camps, Cubberley updates, Mitchell Dog Park positive feedback, 59 Traffic Garden update, El Camino and Stanford/Palo Alto playing fields repairs, biannual 60 renovation of Bowling Green, Kiwanis partnership at Lucie Stern and Briones Park and capital 61 improvement projects completed at Ramos Park. 62 Vice Chair Greenfield wanted to encourage the Transportation Department to create a 63 webpage to talk about and track the progress of the traffic garden. 64 Commissioner Cribbs wanted to know the direction of the golf agreement and how soon it 65 would be reviewed. 66 Ms. Robustelli replied a very thorough golf update was planned for May coming back to Parks 67 and Rec Commission. 68 Commissioner Kleinhaus queried if the golf update would include the review of the current 69 mitigation in process. She suggested City Council include discussion of plastic surfaces in 70 playgrounds. 71 Ms. Robustelli confirmed the golf update would include a review of the current mitigation in 72 process. 73 Commissioner Wei congratulated them on the Ramos Park opening. shared Commissioner 74 Kleinhaus’ concerns about children’s health with artificial turf being used in the parks. She 75 congratulated them on the revenue increase for the camp. She hoped there would be enough 76 team and vendor help. She felt heartwarmed for the Lucie Stern World Festival. She was aware 77 there would be a youth pickleball tournament and a youth mental health conference in Mitchell 78 Park on the upcoming weekend. 79 Ms. Robustelli indicated all the specialty classes were contract classes. 80 Chair Freeman thanked Ms. Robusteilli for her report and congratulated her on the completion 81 of Ramos Park. He asked if there was any outreach intent to let the neighborhood know the 82 park would be opening. He had questions about preparation for the May Fete Parade. 83 Ms. Robustelli stated they anticipated Ramos Park would be complete in the next couple 84 weeks. There were no plans for a ribbon cutting at Ramos Park. People would know by the 85 construction fencing coming down. They did plan to consider a ribbon cutting for Tower Well 86 Park and would bring that forward at PRC. She offered to come back with more information on 87 the May Fete Parade. 88 Vice Chair Greenfield indicated it would be a good time to reach out for PRC participation in the 89 May Fete Parade or at the upcoming retreat. 90 Director O’Kane added they would reach out to the commissioners and see who wanted to be 91 involved in the parade. She mentioned Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had done some work 92 related to increasing the number and type of floats. She remarked the special events 93 coordinator, Lance LeDrew, had worked to bring new things to the parade. 94 Chair Freeman was glad to know there would be floats back in the parade. He wanted an 95 update on summer signups. 96 Director O’Kane confirmed they did summer camp registration but she did not have an actual 97 number of signups in front of her. She described DigiDraw that was intended to improve equity 98 for registration and were collecting feedback on that process. The camps do generally fill up 99 quickly in particular the Art Center, Junior Museum and Zoo, Children’s Theater and many of 100 the recreation camps. They had already seen waiting lists for those camps. They would do their 101 best to accommodate people as either new camps opened or they could identify new locations 102 to have the camps. 103 Commissioner Deng thanked Ms. Robustelli for her hard work. She wanted more explanation 104 about the El Camino and Stanford playing field project. 105 Ms. Robustelli explained in order for the El Camino and Stanford playing field to stay functional 106 they had deferred some of the minor capital improvement plans. There would be an upcoming 107 total construction brought to City Council in the upcoming months for Stanford/Palo Alto 108 playing fields. The El Camino Park replacement would not move forward until the turf study had 109 been completed as directed by City Council. 110 Business Items 111 4. Eleanor Pardee Park Restroom Survey Results and Next Steps – 60 Minutes 112 Ms. Robustelli provided a slide presentation about the Eleanor Pardee Park Restroom Survey 113 results and next steps for discussion including a description of the park, background of the 114 Parks Trails Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, project background and 115 community interest, stakeholder engagement and outreach, community survey results and key 116 takeaways, next steps, approval process and proposed timeline. 117 Orit opined that the survey was biased and asked leading questions. She did not feel it 118 appropriately represented the feelings of the very close -by neighbors of the park. She thought 119 Palo Alto residents should be alarmed by the City making decisions based on this type of survey 120 and presenting the data as if it was valid. 121 Mary S., neighbor of Pardee Park, spoke about the benefits of installing a restroom for children, 122 elderly people and gardeners utilizing the park. She urged the Commission to add the Pardee 123 Park bathroom to the budget in June and quickly schedule the community hearings about the 124 design of the bathroom. 125 Anavi N., 8-year-old resident, liked the idea of having a bathroom at the park. 126 Margaret S. urged the Commission to consider how inconvenient and inhospitable it was to 127 enjoy a walk around the park, gardening in the community gardens or taking grandchildren to 128 the playground where there was not bathroom. 129 Azieb N. thought both sides brought good points about having a bathroom in the park. She 130 suggested having a vehicle with toilets accessible that would be open when the park was in use 131 with an attendee. It would be a business opportunity and would be available immediately. 132 Amy K. found that the survey did not reach everybody as satisfactorily as the Commission 133 thought it did. She stated she lived around the block from the park and none of her neighbors 134 knew about. She understood the convenience of having a restroom for the gardeners and for 135 children but described the unintended consequences that would come with it. She advised that 136 there was a bathroom available at the library that was a 0.3 mile walk. 137 Cynthia L., neighbor to the park, strongly objected to adding bathrooms to the park because it 138 would be a small benefit to the casual visitors but described detriments to the adjacent 139 neighbors. She thought the stakeholders of the survey should be considered a two-block radius 140 of the park. She asked to have the survey invalidated because of the last question. 141 Hao, resident of Hutchinson Avenue, described the reasons he strongly opposed the proposal. 142 He questioned the validity of the survey results. 143 Rochelle W., resident of Crescent Park, strongly supported having a bathroom in the park. She 144 recalled a park bathroom in San Francisco with no safety or trash issues. 145 Penny P., community gardener, felt it would be helpful to elderly people and little kids to have a 146 bathroom in the park. She described the unsanitary conditions of no accessible bathroom in the 147 park. She hoped the Commission would move forward with installing the bathroom. 148 Evan R., resident of 890 Sharon Court, expressed concern about the building of a bathroom in 149 the park as it was a neighborhood, not regional, park. He noted the parks with bathrooms had a 150 rec leader to monitor them. He pointed out the cost of maintaining the bathroom had not been 151 addressed. 152 Nancy H. wanted all parks in the City to have comparable services. She wholeheartedly 153 supported having a restroom in the park. She noted the restroom at Seale Park which had no 154 detrimental issues. She indicated it needed to be funded in the next budget cycle and moved 155 forward. 156 Commissioner Cribbs appreciated all the thoughts on both sides on having a bathroom in the 157 park. She was an advocate of having bathrooms in all parks and would continue to be. She took 158 to heart the residents asking about the aftercare and was concerned about the reports that the 159 new bathrooms at Rinconada had vandalism. She wanted to know what they had the ability to 160 do about that. 161 Commissioner Wei said it was interesting to see two sides of the story. She echoed 162 Commissioner Cribb’s for advocating toilets in the park. She also took into heart the parking 163 concerns, etc. She wondered if the public commenter’s suggestion about mobile toilets could 164 be a temporary solution. 165 Vice Chair Greenfield presumed the default plan would be to have the same prefab -to-restroom 166 model used in other parks. He asked if there was any potential for stuffing of the ballot box 167 regarding the survey. He asked how a short walk was defined in the survey. He wanted 168 clarification of the number of park restroom projects that would be ahead of any potential 169 Pardee Park restroom project. He commented they had restrooms at a number of 170 neighborhood parks without some of the concerns being brought up. He agreed that the 171 restroom at Ramos Park was ugly. He hoped to have better screening of plants and landscaping 172 around it. He hoped any plan for a restroom would take that into consideration. He presumed 173 the restroom would have a timed lock and would not be open all night long. He thought it was 174 time to move forward with a restroom at Pardee Park. 175 Ms. Robustelli confirmed the default plan would be to have the same prefab -to-restroom 176 model used in other parks. She explained there was an IP address attached to the survey results 177 and they did not ensure each address used to answer the survey was unique. She replied that 178 short walk was not defined in the survey. She stated Boulware and Cubberley would be 179 completed in the upcoming weeks/months. The Magical Bridge restroom was next in the queue 180 which she confirmed would likely be installed and completed in FY27. Public Works Engineering 181 believed construction and installation of a restroom at Pardee Park could take place in FY28. 182 She indicated the Roth building facing Heritage Park would have a restroom opening. 183 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated she lives near Ramos Park and had not seen a lot more traffic or 184 trash since the installation of the restroom. She thought the biggest problem with that 185 restroom was that it was ugly and that it was not located where people could see their kids 186 going in and out. She hoped not to repeat that. She asked if something could be done 187 temporarily while they wait for the bathroom. She wanted to know more about the issue of 188 vandalism. She thought they could monitor Ramos Park for the type of concerns the community 189 living around the park has expressed. She did not think there would be problems but wanted to 190 know if they could get some data. 191 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims said that the public comment that everybody in the City should 192 be treated equally meaning all parks should have bathrooms lead her to wonder what the 193 distribution was. She requested pulling together a visual of where the parks were, which ones 194 had bathrooms and which part of the City was underserved or had more than their fair share. 195 She would also like data addressing the cost to maintain. 196 Chair Freeman was surprised to hear how easily someone could stack the survey. He was 197 interested to know what was being defined as walkable. He mentioned there were people that 198 were not aware of the survey. He assumed there would be another opportunity to do a 199 community engagement to gather more information. He opined the survey was questionable 200 and advised looking into a way to monitor the IP addresses to see if the response number was 201 accurate. He noticed a temporary restroom there a couple of weeks before during an activity so 202 thought there would be opportunity to put something temporary there and monitor it. He 203 thought whether it was a temporary or permanent restroom, there should be a way to have it 204 locked at a certain time. He felt it was essential that Staff take a moment to explain the Park 205 Improvement Ordinance and how they go about making the design. He agreed with 206 Commissioner Kleinhaus that it should be in a location where people can see kids going in and 207 out. He asked how broad the community engagement would be and when it would take place. 208 He asked if there were noticeable demographic patterns among those who opposed versus 209 supported the restroom. He wanted to know if there was a way to do a deeper dive into 210 patterns of oppositions. He advised making sure the survey was valid. He asked if it was 211 possible that the City could consider a temporary solution to serve as a pilot. 212 Ms. Robustelli outlined some of the upcoming steps in the process including Staff proposing 213 Eleanor Pardee Park as part of the proposed FY26 budget. That would go to the Finance 214 Committed. From there, there would be multiple work sessions and topics and could be 215 discussed at that level. Priorities can change during those meetings. Ultimately, the full Council 216 then adopts that that budget and then funding is there. The Public Works Engineering Team 217 would lead design and permitting. That would involve community engagement. The design 218 aspect would be location. Typically in the past there has been a community meeting which is 219 another way to engage with the community. Once the community meetings have been made 220 and there is more substantial information, the Park Improvement Ordinance would come back 221 to the Parks and Rec Commission and ultimately get approval from City Council. She offered to 222 come back with information about how broad the community engagement would be and when 223 it would take place. She said some of the key analysis points showed the highest level of 224 support came from residents who live near the park. Among supporters within walking 225 distance, 48% strongly agreed that a restroom was necessary. Opposition to the project was 226 concentrated within a smaller subset of 18% of respondents. Minimal opposition was observed 227 among those who supported the restroom indicating a strong consensus amongst advocates. 228 She did not think they asked about patterns of opposition. The survey by question was included 229 within the packet. 230 Vice Chair Greenfield thought the number of responses was incredible and hoped they were 231 accurate. He supported the recommendation to run an IP check. He questioned if it was 232 appropriate to be requesting funding in the FY25 budget for FY26 when they knew it would be 233 pushed to FY27 and FY28. He thought it would be interesting to know who was paying for the 234 temporary restrooms at the soccer field at Cubberley. He opined requesting funding for a 235 temporary restroom could potentially be more appropriate for the upcoming fiscal year budget. 236 Ms. Robustelli stated Council can direct Staff to change direction and Staff serves at the 237 pleasure of the Council. 238 Commissioner Cribbs remarked the City has a good contractor with reasonable pricing for 239 temporary bathrooms. She thought it was an interesting idea, especially if they needed to wait 240 until 2028. 241 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Provide Feedback on Draft 242 Proposed Bicycle Network and Facilities, and Program and Policy Recommendations – 243 45 minutes 244 Ozzy Arce, Senior Planner Office of Transportation, introduced Nick Falbo and Sylvia Star-Lack 245 who would be joining him to provide the BPTP update. 246 Nick Falbo, Mobycon Senior Integrated Mobility Consultant, provided a slide presentation 247 update on the BPTP including the meeting purpose and agenda, project overview and timeline, 248 the vision for the plan, five key objectives of the project, Bicycle Network Development 249 Approach, network development primary inputs, the updated network proposing two bike plan 250 classifications to frame policy and influence street design decisions, map of the bike network 251 proposal, bike network changes since 2012, facility selection approach, bicycle boulevards, bike 252 lanes, protected bike lanes, shared use paths, selection guidance, map of bicycle facility 253 recommendations, key changes from 2012, project lists, programs and policies, safe and 254 inclusive category, connected and accessible policies, community led and cooperative category, 255 comfortable and enjoyable category, integrated and collaborative programs and phase 3 256 engagement. He indicated feedback would be welcomed through April 30. 257 Commissioner Cribbs wanted to hear more about deprioritizing enforcement in Item five in the 258 staff report. 259 Mr. Falbo explained it was a general philosophy of making sure they were supporting walking 260 and biking, and not acting as a deterrent with some sort of over-policing of walking and biking 261 activity that was not actually contributing to unsafe behavior. 262 Mr. Arce followed up saying it could be a conversation with the police department. They heard 263 concern from people that the City was ticketing people, particularly youth, for bicycling 264 infractions when they should have been taking an educational approach first. That was opening 265 up a conversation with the police department and the community around how they were 266 enforcing. 267 Commissioner Wei appreciated their work making biking safer. She mentioned the traffic 268 garden being presented by the youth council. She wondered if there were more programs for 269 training for parents and children and how they would go about safety education in the 270 multilingual capacity. She wondered if there was any consideration to engage more 271 stakeholders to recognize the work they were doing through corporate social responsibility 272 programs. He asked for elaboration on E-bike enforcement. 273 Mr. Arce stated education was one of the enforcement tools they had. The City recently hired 274 additional staff under the Safe Routes to School program to help further build that program out 275 including consideration for multilanguage education and older youth as well as the K -6 efforts. 276 He acknowledged they would support partnerships that would help them install infrastructure 277 or bicycle support facilities. The way they would see that happen would typically be through 278 development proposals or upgrades to existing businesses that look to upgrade a building that 279 have bicycle parking requirements. He thought that would also apply to housing development. 280 Any commercial property owner that wished to install bicycle parking on their property would 281 have a process for that. He stated they could take a PPP program into consideration for 282 infrastructure in the City’s right of way as they develop. He indicated the City and the 283 Commission had a recent discussion around E-bikes. They wanted to take into consideration 284 best practices and include recommendations in the plan that speak to those best practices yet 285 the plan would not seek to change any policy direction as part of its action. He said it might 286 recommend policy changes or work toward those policy changes based on best practices. It was 287 something for them to take into consideration. 288 Mr. Falbo added the rise of E-bike and micromobility was one of the other big innovations since 289 2012. Part of designing the future network that updates the 2012 plan will be accommodating 290 those users in a way that minimizes conflict and supports them as modes that are actually 291 contributing to mobility, contributing to safety and contributing to how people get around the 292 City. Thinking about how to build great bike boulevards and protected bike lanes will include 293 providing adequate space. 294 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims announced she had to leave the meeting. 295 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired what walking infractions had been recorded and cited in the 296 City. She was not sure there was a need to include that. She thought looking at wider facilities 297 and line of sight was more relevant. She asked if they expected tree removal to allow this plan 298 to move forward and if they had any mapping, numbers or information on that if so. She 299 commented they should be looking at the vision holistically to include comfort and safety and 300 identify where more shade was needed. She suggested looking at Mayview. She talked about 301 safety issues at the Ross and East Meadow Circle and advised it should be added to the list to 302 be removed. 303 Mr. Arce did not have the numbers on infractions for bicycling and walking. He thought they 304 might connect with the police department on that. He explained this was a visioning document 305 that laid the lines on a map seeking to identify the streets the City wanted to prioritize for 306 investments. It was at the project level where the analysis would come in in terms of 307 environmental and traffic impacts that would help them make the best project. They did not 308 drill down to the granular level she was asking for at this planning level. At best, they could 309 know which projects they presume would repurpose some of the existing curb-to-curb right of 310 way. He mentioned they were having conversations internally with the City’s Stormwater 311 Management people to seek to introduce some green infrastructure opportunities as part of 312 their recommendations. 313 Mr. Falbo remarked at this network stage level of planning they did not necessarily have all of 314 the answers identified for exactly how a particular project would be implemented. They had 315 been keeping an eye on where projects were likely to be working within the roadway. When 316 redoing the transportation system, they recognized they have limited space and tried to be 317 efficient and smart with how that can be reorganized. They are looking at reorganizing the 318 space between the curbs already. This would have tremendous cost savings when it comes to 319 implementation so they can build more and built the stronger connected network faster but 320 also with the other impacts that can happen such as trees. By building within curb to curb, they 321 were reconfiguring parking and travel lanes. They were doing traffic analysis to understand 322 what would be possible in implementing that without having impacts outside of the roadway 323 area. That information would generally come as part of future project development. For this 324 particular plan, it was possible they would learn more for the top priority projects. As far as the 325 overall network, they were unlikely to have any data that spoke to how each of those would be 326 implemented with any level of confidence. 327 Commissioner Deng asked if they could share a few of the recommended performance 328 measures around the five objects. She inquired if they had the original or average numbers they 329 started with. She wanted to know if there was any neighboring city doing similar things they 330 could compare to. 331 Mr. Arce explained when they were developing the scope of work for this plan, the Pedestrian 332 and Bicycle Advisory Committee included a requirement for the City to develop performance 333 measures to measure their success against. They divided them into categories similar to those 334 objectives. He shared a slide with explanation of the categories and objectives of the 335 performance measures. He remarked the consultants would prepare the baseline numbers as a 336 part of the draft and final plan so they would have the base to go off of and then measure 337 annually or on a reoccurring basis. He thought they could find some apples -to-apples 338 comparisons but a lot of the indicators were developed specifically for Palo Alto. He said the 339 City of Mountainview was also currently updating their active transportation plan and he would 340 check in with their staff about the performance measures to see which ones they would 341 recommend. 342 Vice Chair Greenfield appreciated the status update, the vision statement, the clear objectives, 343 the maps and the five tables of information. He liked the emphasis on more protected class 4 344 bike lanes, improved bike lane access, bike racks on buses, interactive bike map tools, valet 345 event parking, repaving and program priority. He asked where the City was on Idaho stops sign 346 enforcement. He supported Commissioner Kleinhaus’ comments regarding identifying streets in 347 need of shade. He did not know Palo Alto invented bike boulevards and urged them to continue 348 to mention it. He asked for elaboration on the vision for the bike friendly zones particularly at 349 University Avenue. He asked if they considered University Avenue to be a calm place for 350 bicycles today. He questioned if there was a possibility to consider a project to look into a 351 potential policy change regarding E-bikes in non-pedal mode. He encouraged them to include 352 libraries in the connected and accessibility section. He was curious about the process of vetting 353 a project to be added to the list. He suggested making the narrow sidewalk going into the bike 354 pedestrian access at Alma Plaza on Ramona a no-parking area so bikes could enter from the 355 street. He asked if they could find a bike path solution that would work for bikes and peds on 356 Cal Ave. Regarding all-user access and accessibility, he thought larger parking spaces for cargo 357 bikes or three-wheel bikes would be a big plus. He wanted to know the current policy for the 358 crossing button height. He queried what the standard width was for a bike lane or a bike bridge 359 crossing. 360 Mr. Arce did not want to speak on behalf of the police department but he imagined they 361 enforce the rules of the City of Palo Alto and had to make judgment calls and prioritize their 362 time. He recalled the Commission recently had a conversation about E-bikes in the open space. 363 It would be up to the Commission to determine whether that was something they wanted to 364 reopen but this would be the opportunity for them to hear that recommendation. Based on the 365 feedback they received, it would be the City Council that determined what made it into the final 366 plan. He stated that moment through April 30 was the time to provide feedback on those 367 location specific comments. He noted there was an interactive map on the project webpage to 368 geofence that comment. He plugged the City’s 311 as another place to submit feedback. He 369 pointed out the City Council recently created two new City streets for the City’s comp plan. 370 They created a pedestrian street that was Ramona where only pedestrians were allowed and 371 emergency vehicles. They also created a second street called Community Street on the car -free 372 portion of Cal Ave. It would allow for bicycles, walking and commercial vehicles during special 373 events. That was a recent Council action for those car-free streets. He presumed there were 374 standards for the height of crossing buttons but did not have that information. 375 Mr. Falbo explained looking at 2012, the network through the University Avenue area had 376 almost every street included in the network itself. Part of what was done in this update was 377 clean that up and prioritize key routes. They did not want to abandon all of those streets and 378 say they were not good places to ride a bike. They generally want all those streets to all support 379 bicycling as best as they can. They also wanted to include bicycle amenities and do what they 380 could to support bicycling comprehensively and holistically. There was an active project on this 381 corridor for University Avenue. The vision was for it to continue to be a calm place. They were 382 going to defer to that project and if there was room to help make key recommendations or 383 nudge it, they wanted to do that. He remarked that it did not meet the criteria for a bicycle 384 boulevard. It did seem like the kind of place to ride to, park, and enjoy as a pedestrian. He 385 commented they had the recommended network. They were open to feedback. They were 386 excited to see what all the feedback looked like. They would look at all those comments from 387 the perspective of network connectivity and make sure they were serving the City at the right 388 density. He thought the Cal Ave project would have a place for bicycling through it built into the 389 design. He explained the National Standards Association recently adopted a new bikeway 390 design guide that would be referenced by engineers as they implement these types of projects 391 that have guidance about how to fully accommodate for this vision of meeting all ages and 392 abilities. 393 Sylvia Star-Lack, Manager Transportation Planning, Office of Transportation , mentioned that 394 cyclists in general should not be reaching either up or down for a button to get a signal to 395 change. California law required that the signals detect bicyclists. She asked to be informed if 396 there was a place that the detection was not working correctly. 397 Chair Freeman wanted to know the most innovative or forward-thinking policies introduced 398 compared to the 2012 version. He asked about the biggest challenge in balancing comfort and 399 safety while designing routes on arterial streets and making parents feel comfortable having 400 their kids ride on those streets. 401 Mr. Falbo suggested the embracing of protected bike lanes was the big innovation of the last 402 decade in the United States. He thought a lot of discussion around bike boulevards in Palo Alto 403 was thinking about what bars they set for comfort and if they can continue to be a leader as 404 they invest in bike boulevards. He remarked it was a challenge to create safe routes on arterial 405 streets. The elements that create comfort come with more investment. The new world of 406 facilities they were creating were more comfortable and appealing to a broader range of users 407 and riders. Part of that was getting people to see it in action. 408 Mr. Arce said that in addition to the protection and removal of sharrows, they had also seen a 409 shift toward acceptance and embracement of quick build done right, being able to showcase 410 the vision behind something before they got to the full expensive structure and having the 411 middle step to gather community feedback and have that iterative process so when the actual 412 infrastructure in concrete went into the ground, it would resonate with the community and 413 they avoid instances like Ross Road that set back the practice of bike planning. They were taking 414 the opportunity to push forth innovative recommendations as a vision and then leaving room to 415 continue to learn from the best practices so when they moved to implement, they were 416 reflective of the best in class. 417 Ms. Star-Lack mentioned that in the work they were doing with the Safe Routes to School 418 program, protected bike lanes was the number one thing parents said would allow them to let 419 their child walk and bike to school. That was the thing they would like to deliver but not every 420 child lived on a bike boulevard and not every school route could be completely traversed on 421 just a bike boulevard. Part of the intent of the network and upgrading of the facility type was to 422 increase everyone's comfort in riding. That tied in with the City's greenhouse gas emission goals 423 and sustainability climate action plan. She sympathized with Commissioner Kleinhaus’ 424 frustration with the Ross Road and Meadow project. She noted she did not see a conflict 425 between having trees and bike facilities. They added trees to Ross Road itself for shade and 426 traffic calming. She opined the quick build program would help them to learn. They were 427 iterating at East Meadow and Ross. The normal course before evaluating whether or not 428 something worked in transportation engineering was waiting for two years and then evaluating 429 and taking data. 430 Vice Chair Greenfield expressed frustration that the community had not figured out how to 431 navigate traffic circles. He mentioned that Gunn had a recycle program that accepted bicycles 432 to repurpose for students in need. 433 Commissioner Cribbs wanted to know how they were publicizing the community workshop on 434 the second. 435 Mr. Arce replied they were advertising it through the different meetings they were attending as 436 well as working with the City’s communications team to help them publicize it on all the City’s 437 social media channels, the Uplift Local newsletter and the Transportation Connect blog. He 438 commented the public would have another opportunity to provide comments once the draft 439 plan document was released in the fall. 440 Chair Freeman inquired about the timeline for finalizing the draft plan. 441 Mr. Arce confirmed the timeline for finalizing the draft plan was in the fall. They were going to 442 present the information to the City Council anticipating before their summer recess and would 443 take the summer to put together the draft plan they would present to the public in the fall 444 anticipating a City Council adoption by the end of the calendar year. He confirmed that would 445 integrate the community input, as well. 446 6. Informational Update on Arastradero Creek Stabilization and Utility Line Repair – 45 447 Minutes 448 Aaron Perkins, Principal Engineer Water Gas & Wastewater Utilities, provided a slide 449 presentation update about the Arastradero Creek Rehabilitation Project including an agenda, 450 exposed natural gas pipeline, temporary repair of Arastradero Creek, Arastradero Creek 451 permanent repair design, Arastradero Creek permanent repair construction and Arastradero 452 Creek post construction monitoring. 453 Commissioner Cribbs asked where the money came from for this project and how many 454 agencies were monitoring it. 455 Mr. Perkins replied the money came from Utilities. He stated the three main permitting 456 agencies that would be monitoring were the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and 457 Wildlife and the Water Board along with CEQA. 458 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to know how well the temporary retrofit was holding up. She 459 pointed out there were some areas that looked like there had been slides. She asked how often 460 it was monitored and if they still monitor if there was continuing erosion on the sites where 461 they had been working on with temporary solutions. She queried what kind of CEQA was 462 anticipated. She asked how one would get notified when there was a CEQA document of some 463 kind and wanted to be on the notification list. She thought a mitigated negative declaration was 464 needed at the minimum. She asked if the plan had to go back to the Pipeline Hazardous 465 Materials Safety Administration. She questioned if they would get to see an update and provide 466 any input as to a preferred alternative. She strongly recommended an alternative that would 467 put the infrastructure under the road potentially or somewhere not in the creek. She asked 468 how many structures it served. 469 Mr. Perkins said the temporary retrofit was holding up well. It had been through two storms 470 and was being monitored. He stated the reason those areas were exposed was it appeared that 471 a six foot head cut had been working up that stream for many years. The gas pipeline was 472 installed in the 1960s and had recently been exposed. It had been an ongoing problem and had 473 just finally caught up to the utility lines. He stated it was monitored monthly during storm 474 events. It was dry in summer so was not monitored then. They anticipated it being a negative 475 declaration. The design consultant would take care of that. They were hoping for a negative 476 declaration. He offered to get information on how one could get notified if there was a CEQA 477 document. He said they would loop her in on what their approach would be when they got to 478 the process. He stated the plan did not have to go back to the Pipeline Hazardous Materials 479 Safety Administration. The safety-related condition report had been filed notifying them of that 480 issue and a follow-up report had been issued as far as closing that out due to the backfilling 481 work to protect the pipeline. He commented he would work with the Parks and Rec staff about 482 the alternatives. Whichever route they chose, the construction would be contracted out. The 483 construction work in the creek would exceed their authority and had to eventually go to 484 Council. He stated Utilities would love to move the pipeline out of the creek. It appeared they 485 could potentially move the water and wastewater pipelines into one of the trails outside of 486 crossing the creek at that location. The natural gas pipeline would most likely have to remain 487 under the creek. It would have to be drilled deeper because it eventually goes up to the golf 488 course. He answered the pipeline served everything above Alexis Drive. The water line served 489 further up to all of the reservoirs in the Foothills. 490 Commissioner Wei asked for elaboration on alternative evaluation of utility relocation for creek 491 restoration. She presumed all the environmental impact versus safety reports would be 492 gathered in the data gathering process. 493 Mr. Perkins explained the environmental consultant was gathering data to put together to 494 present some alternatives. One option would be a relocation of the utility lines outside drilling 495 the gas line deeper to avoid the future head cut. Even if they relocate the lines, they would still 496 have to do a smaller creek restoration project that could include a couple hundred feet of the 497 creek to remove the temporary fill and do something the permitting agencies would be happy 498 with approving. The water and wastewater lines would be completely remote. If they were 499 going to leave the utility infrastructure crossing the creek at that location, they would need to 500 do a much larger stabilization plan, most likely from the point of the utility lines all the way 501 down to Arastradero Lake, which would be about 1200 feet of creek restoration. That could be 502 cascading pools or something to avoid turbulent head cut. He confirmed all of the 503 environmental work would be done through their environmental consultant. 504 Vice Chair Greenfield inquired if a park improvement ordinance would be required for this 505 work. He wanted to know if there was a reason why a park improvement ordinance was not 506 required for the interim work. He asked for what reason would the permanent plan not require 507 a park improvement ordinance. He queried the anticipated total costs for potential different 508 options. He compared the cost to the Buckeye Creek restoration and highlighted that it had 509 been put off and scaled back but acknowledged it was a necessity. He opined awareness 510 needed to be increased and highlighted and the needed to look to consider potential solutions. 511 Ms. Robustelli thought a park improvement ordinance would likely be required. Depending on 512 what came out of the design phase was when it would likely be an iterative process. If a park 513 improvement ordinance was required, it would come back to the Parks and Rec Commission. 514 She stated she and Mr. Perkins would continue to work together and would make sure the 515 group was aware of any updates. She said the requirement of the park improvement ordinance 516 had to do with scope. They were still in the design phase so it felt premature to say it was 517 required. They would be checking with legal once the design was completed. 518 Mr. Perkins replied the interim work was done under emergency permit because it was an 519 exposed eight-inch high-pressure natural gas pipeline. It was important to get that backfilled 520 and protected in place before the creek started flowing again and trees and things started 521 coming down the creek. The permanent plan would most likely go to Council due to the cost of 522 it. He anticipated the total costs for potential different options would be over $5 million. 523 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the studies and evaluations included the biological state of the 524 creek. She wondered if they had looked into funding from outside sources such as Valley Water 525 or other government funding. She opined they could combine enhancements or synergetic 526 outcomes with additional funding. 527 Mr. Perkins confirmed the studies and evaluations included both species and animals. They 528 were doing field verification for endangered species and endangered plants there. They were 529 also researching what could potentially be there as well and writing up a report on that. Those 530 were also part of the permitting agencies requirements for the temporary placement as well. 531 He stated they were not looking into funding from outside sources at this time. They were 532 ideally trying to get the pipelines out of the creek. They had submitted for FEMA grant funding 533 due to the winter storms. He added they were trying to address the utility pipeline issue of it 534 being in the creek. Part of it was that there was some creek restoration needed. Using utility 535 funds, they would improve on that. 536 Commissioner Wei wondered if there was mitigation of the risks of extreme weather between 537 now and when the work would formally start. 538 Mr. Perkins replied the temporary stabilization project was completed at the end of 2023. They 539 had been monitoring that monthly. There had not been a lot of deterioration from the last two 540 years. From a regulatory standpoint, they also inspect the gas pipeline quarterly. They would be 541 able to identify risks before anything happened. 542 Chair Freeman questioned if they knew how long that pipe had been exposed before the 543 emergency repair. If the relocation of the gas pipeline option was chosen, he wanted to know if 544 there were any contingencies in place to avoid. He wanted to know what measures would be in 545 place to protect surrounding wildlife and habitat during construction and it construction work 546 would affect other ongoing projects in the area. He asked for an estimate of the timeline. He 547 presumed notifications, signage and such would have to happen sooner rather than later. 548 Mr. Perkins explained they leak surveyed that section of pipe in April 2022 and the leak survey 549 technician did not notice that as exposed, which is how they nailed it down to the 2022-2023 550 storm. He explained when they did the relocations, they typically installed all the piping first 551 and did the connections to the existing facility last then businesses and houses were usually 552 bypassed. He indicated the project would require trail closures. They would be posted on the 553 City’s webpage and out in the preserve. He did not know of any other projects it would impact. 554 He stated they were working on getting the trails closed. They would be doing geotechnical 555 work on April 2 and were working to post those closures. They had utility potholing work 556 anticipated for the following week on April 9 and were working to close the trail for that day. 557 Throughout the process, there would be small, intermittent closures. When they get to the 558 construction phase, it will be a much longer closure. 559 Ms. Robustelli commented the type of construction that would be taking place would be factors 560 in noticing and ensuring that everyone using the preserve was being safe. She confirmed they 561 could plan ahead. 562 Vice Chair Greenfield wanted discussion about what kind of construction staging would be 563 required. He expressed his and the other commissioners’ disappointment with the extended 564 construction stating that keeps going on at Arastradero Preserve and happening without 565 community input. He urged that they do not assume it is okay to stage whatever they want 566 there as long as they want. 567 Mr. Perkins acknowledged there would have to be some construction staging set aside but they 568 would work with the team at Arastradero Preserve to identify locations to store equipment and 569 pipe until they could get the construction window completed. He stated they understood the 570 sensitive nature of the preserve and that was why they were presenting the project to the 571 Commission and onboarding environmental consultants and Utility staff to assist them in 572 managing the project to make sure it was done right, per the permitting agencies and things 573 were identified correctly. 574 Commissioner Kleinhaus added this was why they needed to do the transparent CEQA 575 document like a mitigated negative declaration that identifies where the staging would be and 576 allowed the public to comment and know about it. Negative declarations were usually not 577 made public. 578 Mr. Perkins acknowledged that this project could require full EIR but it would depend on what 579 came out once they received all the data and identified what the problem was with the six -foot 580 head cut. He assured her he would keep her comments in mind. 581 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND 582 AGENDAS 583 Chair Freeman indicated they were asked to have their work plans for the retreat in by April 2. 584 Ms. Robustelli shared for the April preview they had a pickleball community presentation, the 585 Cubberley update, the ad hoc Nature Preserve Access Policy update and Grassroots Ecology. 586 Vice Chair Greenfield suggested they needed to figure out a way to get the agenda down to 587 three items. 588 Chair Freeman thought they could move one item to May. 589 Ms. Robustelli stated in May preview they had golf course update as well as another 590 transportation item, South Palo Alto Bike and Ped Connectivity project. 591 Vice Chair Greenfield added they had to get park dedication in. 592 Commissioner Wei suggested park dedication could be in April. She indicated she would be 593 offsite in May. She thought pickleball could be moved to May. 594 Vice Chair Greenfield stated the ad hoc should be reporting to the Commission at least every 595 year and it should be less than every 12 months since it had been going on. He added it was not 596 appropriate for the ad hoc to continue working independently of the Commission. 597 Commissioner Wei thought pickleball could be moved to May. 598 Chair Freeman stated they would not be moving pickleball. 599 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to know what the pickleball item was. 600 Ms. Robustelli replied there was a request through the Chair for the Picklelball Club to present. 601 Chair Freeman added it was a presentation by the Pickleball Club to give them an update on the 602 progress they had made since the last meeting. They were only asking for 20 minutes. 603 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to hear the ad hoc’s work and wondered if they could push 604 either pickleball or the Grassroot Ecology. 605 Commissioner Wei suggested moving Grassroot Ecology to May. 606 Ms. Robustelli offered to ask about moving Grassroot Ecology to May. 607 Commissioner Wei spoke about the study session the youth did at City Hall the prior Monday. 608 She was supposed to bring possibilities of their exchange program to Mexico and France. She 609 talked about a student who lost her friend in Gunn High and would be presenting about starting 610 a nonprofit about youth mental health on the following Sunday. There would be a youth 611 pickleball tournament the following weekend. During the retreat, she wanted to look into ad 612 hoc for youth. 613 Commissioner Kleinhaus reported Access to Natural Preserves had been completed. Staff would 614 present that to the Bike Commission and then it would come to them. 615 Commissioner Cribbs announced their ad hoc was working on not only the field but also the 616 courts and some ways to introduce fairness into reservations, especially with tennis. They 617 would have a report on that soon. They had already heard a good update on Cubberley. The 618 middle school athletics ad hoc was interested in making a lot of progress before the beginning 619 of fall so they were busy working on that. The Wellness Center continued to meet and work on 620 Cubberley. The skate park was expanding their support group and offering clinics at the 621 elementary schools if they were interested. They were continuing to expand their numbers 622 among both high school and college kids and looking for continuing funding. She was pleased 623 they were included in the CIP although with no funding. 624 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated the open space liaisons had two field trips with Staff. One was 625 to Arastradero Preserve to look at the access and trails and see how recommendations could be 626 implemented potentially. The second one was to the Emily Renzel Marsh, a facility maintained 627 by Public Works. They went to discuss the vegetation management there so the management 628 would allow them to do the work they needed to do but with more consideration of the natural 629 nesting cycle for local birds. 630 Vice Chair Greenfield added regarding the access policy trip to Arastradero Preserve. They 631 recommended that Staff reach out and get feedback from PABAC before they came to the 632 Commission. That would be happening at the beginning of April. They were looking to be 633 inclusive of PABAC. 634 Commissioner Deng had been working with Commissioner Cribbs on the Cubberley project and 635 the middle school athletic ad hoc committee. She was the community fellow for the Cubberley 636 project. She was at the community meeting the prior week. Palo Alto Online quoted her saying 637 they were confident they would make it happen. She had been working with Commissioner Wei 638 on the youth council. They had attended a parent study group the prior week. At Neighbors 639 Abroad, they had seen a lot of youth cultural exchange programs happening. 640 Commissioner Wei asked if any results came out of the San Jose Artificial Turf tool. 641 Ms. Robustelli stated it was Staff’s standard practice to ask any of the ad hocs who were on the 642 court or field to attend. No one was able to attend the prior Monday. Staff made contact with 643 the City of San Jose and was able to see two different field installs. They were a great resource 644 and they would be using that connection. She would be happy to provide more information to 645 the ad hoc. All of the information would be considered with not only the turf study as a 646 resource but also supporting the staff recommendation for the Mayfield/Stanford/Palo Alto 647 playing field construction. 648 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 P.M. 649