Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-28 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesMINUTES 1 PARKS & RECREATION Commission 2 Regular meeting 3 October 28, 2025 4 In-Person & Virtual Conference 5 Palo Alto, California 6 7 Commissioners Present: Shani Kleinhaus, Jeff Greenfield, Nellis Freeman, Anne Cribbs , Yudy Deng 8 (arrived 6:12, left 10:30) 9 Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Bing Wei , Commissioner Amanda Brown 10 Others Present: Julie Lythcott Haimes (arrived 6:25) (left 9:43 p.m.) 11 Staff Present: Sarah Robustelli, Megha, Ben Heistien, Kristen O’Kane 12 Meeting Starts 6:06 p.m. 13 14 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 15 Chair Freeman called the meeting to order. 16 The clerk called roll and declared Commissioner Wei and Brown were absent. 17 PUBLIC COMMENT 18 Lisa V. commented that an art exhibition related to privately owned public open spaces was 19 occurring at Avenidas through the remainder of the week. A statement was read declaring why the 20 exhibition was important. There were opportunities to rebalance the use of the spaces. 21 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 22 Switch Item 8, recognition of commissioners, with item 3. Ad Hoc updates 23 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 24 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from September 23, 2025 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular 25 Meeting 26 a. Anne Cribbs made the motion to approve. Seconded by VC Greenfield. 27 b. (5-0) 5 approved, 2 absent 28 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 29 2. Department Report (20 min) 30 31 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf, reported that Councilmember 32 Lythcott-Haims was running late. Upcoming special events would include the tree lighting at Lytton 33 Plaza on December 5 and a holiday toy drive (the last day to donate would be December 14). A recap 34 of special events that had taken place was provided. The Cubberley update would return to the PRC 35 on November 25. The preferred concept and plan was being finalized and the second of 4 36 community polls would be open November 7 through 17. The final presentation to Council and the 37 community was scheduled for December 15. This meeting’s agenda included an item for the Turf 38 Study, which included a decision point for PRC. Construction on the Palo Alto Tide Gate Structure 39 Seismic Retrofit and Rehabilitation Project started and would run until the end of January for this 40 segment. There was a plan for another construction phase the following year. The Stanford Palo Alto 41 Community Playing Fields Turf Replacement Project was underway. PFAS testing, safety net 42 replacement, new goal and sand and cork installation was upcoming. Completion was scheduled for 43 December. 44 45 Chair Freeman asked how much advanced noticed the public received for the run/walk event , which 46 had started later than usual. 47 48 Ms. Robustelli answered that the run/walk event date would change based on the timing of the full 49 moon. There had been a decrease in attendance from last year. 50 51 Commissioner Cribbs requested the status of First Tee. 52 53 Ms. Robustelli replied that a draft agreement was being finalized for First Tee and was scheduled to 54 come to PRC for discussion on November 25. 55 56 Commissioner Kleinhaus addressed the Valley Water sign and inquired if Palo Alto approved signs by 57 other groups. It was preferred that the Valley Water directors not be listed on the blue sign. It was 58 disappointing that Palo Alto and Valley Water could not work together to fix the loose flood gate , 59 which was initially a mitigation requirement. The project was moving forward and the City’s interests 60 in the gate and the art on the bridge were not included. Commissioner Kleinhaus queried if there 61 was any news related to a nature corner. 62 63 Ms. Robustelli responded the orange signs for the closure were displayed for public. The blue image 64 was not a sign but something Valley Water was distributing. As for nature corner, there had been a 65 tarantula crawl. 66 67 Mike Warner, Supervising Ranger, would send a video of the tarantulas to be displayed later. 68 69 V ice Chair Greenfield questioned why the tide gate had been closed over 2 years. 70 71 Ms. Robustelli could return with more details on the tide gate closure. The delay had to do with the 72 project as a whole and completing work seasonally to adhere to the requirements for the regulations 73 for permits. 74 75 Chair Freeman asked if there would be a ribbon -cutting or event for the reopening of Mayfield. 76 77 Ms. Robustelli answered there were not typically ribbon -cuttings for re -openings. Work was being 78 done with the recreation counterparts , which were being scheduled for December. There would be 79 an announcement to the public. 80 81 Commissioner Deng spoke of the Pet Palooza Parade having been a success. 82 83 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed that Council had been doing a lot related to housing. The 84 future neighbors on San Antonio would need parks, open space and a tree canopy. Council had been 85 provided with an update on the Affordable Housing Development planned for Lot T and the 86 Downtown Housing Plan. There had been a conversation concerning the impacts of RV dwellers on 87 businesses and residences and where they parked and the needs and concerns of RV dwellers who 88 needed more services and safe places to park. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims would be on the 89 Council’s newly formed Ad Hoc, which would work on impacts and services. Regarding Cubberly, a 90 second poll to gauge the degree of renovation or rebuild desired by the public and the amount of 91 funding they would be willing to contribute would run after the election. 92 BUSINESS ITEMS 93 3. Recognition of Service for Commissioner Crib bs, Greenfield, and Freeman 94 95 Chair Freeman recognized the dedicated and thoughtful work of Commissioner Cribbs and Vice Chair 96 Greenfield. Vice Chair Greenfield’s ability to ground conversations and bring clarity to complex issues 97 strengthened discussions. Commissioner Cribbs’ enthusiasm, commitment and creativity was 98 inspiring. Chair Freeman had learned much working alongside them. 99 100 Item 8 Public Comment 101 102 1. Doria S. thanked all commissioners for their dedication and work. Vice Chair Greenfield was an 103 outstanding leader and much benefit had been gained through his wisdom, perspective and 104 dedication on matters. 105 106 2. Winter D. thanked Commissioner Cribbs for her service. The word extraordinary was invented for 107 Vice Chair Greenfield who had an ability to analyze complex issues, critically think and work with 108 people effectively. 109 110 3. Daren A. stated working with the Commission had been a career highlight. Vice Chair Greenfield 111 and Commissioner Cribbs were amazing and dedicated, had diverse and invaluable skills and 112 experiences, cared, worked with staff and strengthened Palo Alto’s foundation. 113 114 4. Karen H. (Zoom) concurred with the previous speakers and thanked Vice Chair Greenfield and 115 Commissioner Cribbs for their work on dark skies, bird -safe glass and ensuring space and 116 protection for trees. Vice Chair Greenfield was committed to natural open spaces and had 117 served on working groups. 118 119 Commissioner Deng expressed deep gratitude to Commissioner Cribbs and Vice Chair Greenfield 120 who had been incredible mentors and role models. Commissioner Cribbs was thanked for her 121 encouragement. Vice Chair Greenfield was knowledgeable, generous and had thoughtful insights, 122 which was impressive and much had been learned from him. Commissioner Deng thanked both for 123 their service, friendship and leadership. 124 125 Commissioner Kleinhaus would miss Vice Chair Greenfield and Commissioner Cribbs. The comments 126 of previous speakers were embraced. Commissioner Cribbs was youthful and enthusiastic in the 127 approach to community needs, which taught Commissioner Kleinhaus a lot. Vice Chair Greenfield 128 was creative and thoughtful and had been a mentor. Commissioner Kleinhaus was thankful for Vice 129 Chair Greenfield’s guidance. 130 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf, thanked Vice Chair Greenfield and 131 Commissioner Cribbs for their mentorship. It had been a joy and a pleasure to work with them. Staff 132 presented them with a gift. 133 Kristen O’Kane, Community Services Director, expressed gratitude to Vice Chair Greenfield and 134 Commissioner Cribbs. Vice Chair Greenfield had knowledge and expertise in many areas and was 135 thanked for being dedicated to the community and for challenging staff. Commissioner Cribbs was 136 thanked for being and inspiration and dedicated to Palo Alto, especially the commitment and passion 137 for youth sports . 138 139 Commissioner Cribbs thanked all for the thoughts and comments and for the opportunity to serve 140 on the Commission, which had been fun and an honor. The friendships and teamwork were 141 appreciated. Commissioner Cribbs hoped to be able to share thoughts about future items, including 142 the turf and grass playing fields (if there should be grass fields, there was 10.5 acres in the Baylands). 143 There should be continued partnership supports for First Tee, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and 144 Friends of the Parks. There were opportunities for shared facilities with PAUSD and Stanford 145 University. The restoration rebuild of Cubberley was most important. It was important to meet all 146 Palo Altans’ needs in the spirit of compromise. 147 148 V ice Chair Greenfield voiced it had been a great pleasure to have served with Commissioner Cribbs 149 who was an incredible role model and very inspiring. It had been humbling, an honor, privilege and 150 fun serving on the PRC. Vice Chair Greenfield thanked the community for the support and input, 151 which was valuable , and his family for their patience and support . Much had been learned from staff. 152 Vice Chair Greenfield thanked present and incoming commissioners for their collaboration, patience, 153 humor, friendship, passion and dedication. Vice Chair Greenfield would be available through phone 154 calls, etc. 155 156 Chair Freeman thanked the Commission for the time, dedication, and cooperation brought to the 157 work. Chair Freeman wished Vice Chair Greenfield and Commissioner Cribbs the best. 158 159 4. Review and Provide feedback on the Foothills Nature Preserve improvements Project Scope 160 reduction 161 162 Megha Bansal, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, noted that staff had presented a draft 163 improvement plan for Foothills Nature Preserve to the Commission in August 2023, which included 164 infrastructure safety and access improvements throughout the preserve. Council had recently 165 discussed additional proposed improvements due to reduced visitation. Council had referred the 166 project to the PRC for potential reduction in scope and directed staff to return with funding 167 adjustments as part of the FY2026 midyear budget review. A background of the project scope was 168 provided. In September 2024, per Council direction , the scope had been reduced to safety and 169 access improvement around the Boronda Lake Preserve entrance and Vista Hill. Feedback from PRC 170 Open Space liaisons had been acquired in early October and the reduced scope was supported with 171 some input, including removing access asphalt at Vista Hill and removing or revisiting a new asphalt 172 parking lot across from Boronda Lake. A slide listing all the components of the reduced scope was 173 displayed, which included creating designated pedestrian pathways along Preserve roads from the 174 entrance of Boronda and Vista Hill, adding curb or utilizing existing borders for safety between the 175 new pathways and the roads, adding traffic control features, reconfiguring and removing existing 176 parking and adding benches at Vista Hill Viewpoint. 177 178 Ms. Bansal stated the pathway width had been reduced to 3- to 4-feet wide and would be 179 constructed with a mix of sand and silt material. Existing boulders in the Preserve would be used as 180 safety barriers where feasible and new asphalt curbs would be added where the boulders were not 181 feasible. No trees would be removed. Traffic control features would include speed humps, 182 crosswalks, tiger teeth spikes to enforce one -way traffic, directional striping or signage , stop signs 183 and a turnaround zone . Slides were furnished showing examples of each traffic control feature. 184 Parking improvements would be limited to the entrance of the Boronda Lake and Vista Hill areas. 185 Based on input from the liaisons, a new hardscape parking was not being proposed for Boronda 186 Lake, so it would be natural space. The existing gravel parallel parking would be removed. Parking 187 would be reconfigured in all other areas. The proposal would remove 25 unreserved parking spaces 188 and parking spaces would be streamlined, which would improve the parking situation and make 189 traffic flow smoother. 190 191 Ms. Bansal noted that parking striping would be added and unnecessary asphalt surfacing would be 192 removed as part of parking reconfiguration at Vista Hill. Items removed from the 2023 scope 193 included pedestrian pathways from Boronda Lake Dam to the Interpretive Center, a trail connecting 194 overflow parking to Baronda Lake through sensitive habitat, bus parking at Vista Hill and a new 195 asphalt parking lot across from Boronda Lake. Staff had already addressed items such as bike ra cks at 196 various areas and split rail fencing. A slide was furnished showing the preliminary cost estimate for 197 the reduced scope, although the numbers would be refined during project design. Staff would 198 proceed with design after receiving input from the PRC . It was anticipated that construction 199 documents would be completed by the winter of 2025. Staff would return to PRC for a Park 200 Improvement Ordinance recommendation in the winter of 2025. Council’s adoption of the PIO would 201 be requested in the spring of 2026. It was anticipated that bidding and contract awar d would occur 202 in the spring or summer of next year and that construction would begin by the fall of 2026. 203 204 Vice Chair Greenfield requested clarification of reserved versus unreserved parking. 205 206 Mike Warner, Supervising Ranger, Community Services Department, answered that unreserved 207 parking was open, general parking. Reserved parking was at Oak Grove and Towle Campground and 208 there were ADA spots and 10-minute zones. Some of the 10-minute zones would be given back 209 during weekdays. 210 211 Vice Chair Greenfield asked if the 20 spots at Towle Camp were included in parking space count in 212 the Preserve. 213 214 Mr. Warner replied that the 20 spots at Towle Camp were counted as reserve d spots. There were 215 292 unreserved spots for daily operations. Towle Camp and Oak Grove picnic were considered 216 differently. 217 218 Chair Freeman inquired how the 3- to 4-foot pathways would safely accommodate families or small 219 groups. 220 221 Ms. Megha responded that the Baylands guideline for trails was 3 to 5 feet. Some areas were tight 222 but removing trees was not desired. 223 224 Commissioner Kleinhaus mentioned the liaisons suggested reducing the pedestrian path to 3 and 4 225 feet. Commissioner Kleinhaus agreed with the re being a pedestrian pathway from Boronda Lake to 226 the Interpretive Center and with removing the bus parking at Vista Hill and the trail connecting the 227 overflow parking to Boronda Lake as it would go through sensitive habitat. 228 229 No Public Comments for this item 230 231 Commissioner Kleinhaus would accept keeping the parking lot across from Boronda Lake if using 232 materials other than asphalt. It was good that the bike racks and the split rail fence were addressed. 233 There had been discussion of planting trees along the road/meadow. 234 235 Mr. Warner stated planting trees were more on the operations side, not related to the Improvement 236 Plan but staff was considering it and would follow up with more information. 237 238 V ice Chair Greenfield commented that it would be great to add the crosswalks and speed humps , 239 remove the excess asphalt at Vista Hill Viewpoint and preserv e trees and that using the quarry fines 240 on the trails would be helpful. The trail width was adequate. There was a concern about the 241 reduction in parking without looking at visitation data. It had not been discussed with the liaisons. It 242 was important to keep hardscape (not asphalt) parking across from Boronda Lake. The use of plastic 243 reflectors was encouraged to demark the spaces. Vice Chair Greenfield queried what the expense 244 would be to add the hardscape parking area. Consideration should be given to adding a paved path 245 between Boronda Lake and Orchard Glen. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if all the split rail fencing had 246 been installed and if a bench could be added in the prime -time viewing spot where there were 247 currently 2 benches. There should be a plan to plant Valley Oaks along the creek side of the road at 248 Los Trancos meadow. It was questioned if the flashing speed warning sign would be removed with 249 the addition of the speed humps. 250 251 Mr. Warner answered that the majority of split rail fencing necessary to reduce environmental 252 impact had been installed. If needed, additional fencing would be added but there was not a huge 253 demand and folks were being respectful of the flow of the Preserve. It might be possible to add 254 another bench in or close to the prime -time viewing spot. There was no plan to remove the flashing 255 speed warning sign , which had been effective in reducing speeds . It could be evaluated for removal if 256 the speed humps should be effective. 257 258 Vice Chair Greenfield suggested an additional speed hump be added to increase the likelihood of 259 removing the flashing sign. 260 261 Commissioner Cribbs inquired how many speed bumps there would be throughout the Preserve and 262 if the crosswalk could be smaller or not so white. 263 264 Ms. Megha answered that 7 speed humps were being proposed. The City standard design would be 265 used for the crosswalk. 266 267 Commissioner Deng queried what the time frame was for completing construction and if the safety 268 project might be expanded to the Oak Grove picnic area. 269 270 Ms. Megha anticipated 3 to 4 months of construction with completion occurring the end of 2026. 271 Regarding expanding the project to the Oak Grove picnic area, a Phase 2 could be added in the 272 future if Council desired. 273 274 Ms. Robustelli added that expanding the project to the Oak Grove picnic area could be incorporated 275 in the comments if desired. 276 277 Commissioner Deng expressed that expanding the project to the Oak Grove picnic area was not a 278 current concern but she wanted to know if future projects were planned to improve safety and 279 access. 280 281 Ms. Robustelli stated this was the only safety project on the books for Foothills Nature Preserve for a 282 Capital Plan. 283 284 Commissioner Kleinhaus voiced that removing asphalt from a nature preserve should be a high 285 priority. Asphalt needed to be removed before adding trails, so elements from the lake to the valley 286 should be removed. Walking on the road was acceptable. It was questioned if there could be arrows 287 on the road instead of signage. There may be examples of more aesthetically pleasing signage. The 288 aforementioned may be enough at this point and if more was needed it could be addressed in the 289 future. 290 291 Ms. Megha replied there could be directional striping instead of signage in certain areas. 292 293 Chair Freeman asked if there would be enough ADA parking, especially around the lake. 294 295 Mr. Warner responded there was a need for ADA parking at the lake as there was currently none , 296 which was going to be addressed. 297 298 V ice Chair Greenfield inquired if the 2 remaining parallel spots at the lake would be suitable for ADA. 299 Vice Chair Greenfield addressed the pathway extension to Oak Grove and the trees along the road in 300 Los Trancos meadows and was in favor of a Phase 2 plan. There had also been a plan to adjust some 301 of the parking around Orchard Glen to have a pathway along the parking area. Vice Chair Greenfield 302 asked if there were standards, other than City standards, for crosswalks and signage for open space 303 preserves. 304 305 Mr. Warner answered that the 2 remaining parallel spots at the lake would have to be striped for 306 ADA but there was no access pad for a wheelchair, which needed to be addressed. Signage would 307 also be need. There had been a discussion about ADA parking at the turnaround zone. The trees at 308 Los Trancos meadows were not within the original scope of the plan but staff was working on 309 operations and an update would be provided at the next meeting. 310 311 Ms. Megha was not aware of other crosswalk or signage standards for open space preserves but it 312 could be evaluated during the design phase. 313 314 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if a lot of newts or other critters were struck by automobiles. 315 MidPen was working on designs for newt crossings , which could maybe be incorporated in the speed 316 humps. 317 318 Mr. Warner replied, depending on the time of the year, amphibians and animals were struck by cars. 319 The MidPen pilot program for newt crossings could be evaluated. 320 321 Ms. Robustelli requested more clarification on the asphalt versus gravel parking lot around the lake. 322 The Open Space Liaison Group was not in favor of asphalt. 323 324 Chair Freeman inquired which (asphalt or gravel) would reduce/add to the cost. 325 326 Ms. Megha responded that any parking surfacing would add to the cost, which was not included in 327 the estimated construction cost. The estimated cost would be refined. The original plan was to add 328 12 or 14 spaces across from Boronda Lake. If the new asphalt parking lot should be removed, visitors 329 could use the pathway to cross the lake. 330 331 V ice Chair Greenfield inquired if the parking area across from Boronda Lake was net neutral in terms 332 of no loss or gain with regard to parking spaces. 333 334 Ms. Meha answered that originally approximately 14 parking spaces would be removed along 335 Boronda Lake and about 12 to 14 added to the parking lot across Boronda Lake but that had been 336 removed. Folks would still be able to access Boronda Lake from the overflow parking lot via the new 337 pedestrian pathway. 338 339 Chair Freeman was concerned about accessibility and inquired if the 2 parallel asphalt parking 340 spaces could be modified for ADA . 341 342 Mr. Warner replied that the 2 parallel asphalt parking spaces could be modified for ADA but it would 343 depend on the final plan in 100-percent design. There would need to be a space for wheelchairs. 344 345 Commissioner Kleinhaus noted that a lot of pavement would need to be added to accommodate 346 wheelchairs because the trails were dirt. 347 348 Mr. Warner stated that per code there needed to be ADA access to the facility. There were 12 acres 349 of recreational turf within Foothills, which were great areas for powered mobility devices. All the 350 trails within Foothills would not be modified to be accessible because they were historic. There had 351 to be a point to access the Preserve and exit a vehicle safely but from there it would be up to the 352 visitor. 353 354 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if it would be best to have ADA parking by the park or the 355 Interpretive Center. 356 357 Mr. Warner responded there was current ADA parking at the Interpretive Center, the front entrance, 358 Vista Hill and Orchard Glen. There was none at the lake. 359 360 V ice Chair Greenfield mentioned there should be at least one ADA spot at the lake or across from the 361 lake in the pull-in parking. Vice Chair Greenfield was in favor of a hardscape parking area across from 362 Boronda Lake, which would result in no net loss of parking . 363 364 Chair Freeman was in favor of a hardscape parking area across from Boronda Lake and keeping it as 365 close to nature as possible. 366 367 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to focus on removing the asphalt, not additional parking. 368 369 Commissioner Cribbs was in favor of removing the asphalt. 370 371 Chair Freeman asked if removing the asphalt would increase the cost. 372 373 Ms. Robustelli responded that removing the asphalt was in the scope of the reduced scope. 374 Additional comments regarding adding back additional gravel parking was requested. 375 376 Commissioners Cribbs and Deng preferred to add back additional gravel parking. 377 378 [The Commission took a 5-minute break] 379 380 5. Study and Assessment of Turf Systems: Findings and Recommendation for El Camino Park 381 Synthetic Turf Replacement 382 383 Anthony Stevenson , Lloyd Consulting Group, introduced himself. A team of consultants, academics 384 and researchers had put the study together. 385 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf, announced that before the 386 Commission was an updated draft of the turf study officially titled Study and Assessment of Turf 387 Systems for the City of Palo Alto’s Playing Fields. Staff planned to make minor changes to the 388 document prior to present ing it to Council. Staff was seeking a recommendation for El Camino Park, 389 which would be forward to Council for consideration. A refresher of the study was provided. The 390 objectives for the study were outlined. The scope of work had been adjusted to incorporate the 391 County’s findings on environmental health impacts. The goal of the study was to provide Council 392 with the necessary data needed to make informed decisions about future field installations and 393 renovations. The report covered many sections, which Ms. Robustelli detailed. The next step was to 394 incorporate any changes and provide the PRC’s recommendation to Council on November 17. Staff 395 recommended that the PRC accept the findings of the study recommendations and assessment of 396 the turf systems of the playing fields and direct staff to proceed with replacement of synthetic turf at 397 El Camino Park in the manner consistent with the study’s findings and recommendation. 398 Mr. Stevenson had received a lot of feedback related to the draft study, so the study had been 399 revised accordingly. The study focused on natural grass on native soil, a performance natural grass 400 system, synthetic turf and a hybrid system. The public wanted to see more and better performing 401 fields. Environmental and health concern topics continued to evolve and were being addressed by 402 the legislature and manufacturers. Grammatical and spelling errors in the draft study had been 403 corrected. Major revisions included use hours , removing 24-hour rent reservations, El Camino 404 natural grass conversion cost and duration, key findings and recommendations and life cycle cost. 405 Feedback was obtained from the Parks and Rec Department, the public, and facility users. The public 406 was concerned with health and environmental concerns with PFAS, etc., and there was an interest in 407 optimizing natural grass fields. There was support for synthetic turf from the recreational and user 408 groups. 409 410 Mr. Stevenson stated that replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park with natural grass would 411 cost about $1.5M to $2M, which did not include maintenance, would take about 18 months and it 412 would reduce capacity. Replacing with synthetic turf would allow for maintaining the existing 413 demand and program, although it would not address health and environmental concerns, although 414 synthetic turf products were better than they were a decade ago. The study addressed PFAS, 415 recyclability, etc. It was recommended that El Camino be resurfaced with synthetic turf. There was 416 public enthusiasm for a pilot program to look at maintenance, optimizing existing fields, potentially 417 replacing with higher performing fields and/or adding additional inventory to maintain capacity. 418 Installing synthetic would allow the City time to thoughtfully review options through real -world pilot 419 programs. 420 421 Vice Chair Greenfield queried what the minor changes would be to the document. 422 423 Ms. Robustelli answered that spelling errors needed to be corrected and general acknowledgements 424 and additions would be made. Ms. Robustelli requested the Commission send minor spelling 425 changes offline ASAP. 426 427 Commissioner Kleinhaus questioned how many acres of plastic turf were installed last year in the 428 U.S. and if the report looked at global impacts. 429 430 Mr. Stevenson guessed that millions of square feet of plastic turf were installed last year in the U.S. 431 432 Ms. Robustelli answered that the study focused specifically on Palo Alto’s athletic fields. 433 434 Chair Freeman requested clarification of the number of hours of displaced play. 435 436 Mr. Stevenson explained how the displaced play numbers were calculated. An error had been found 437 in the 4,700 hours, which led to other errors. All numbers had been revised accordingly. 438 439 Vice Chair Greenfield stated the revised numbers were in line with the Santa Clara County study. 440 441 Chair Freeman wondered it if should be highlighted in the report. 442 443 Item 5 Public Comment 444 445 1. Andrea W. (Zoom) urged that artificial turf not be installed due to environmental and health 446 issues and requested that a natural grass pilot program be initiated. 447 448 2. Sue (Zoom) suggested there be more investigation into organically managed fields and the 449 prioritization of a grass -first capacity plan for Palo Alto’s parks . Engaging in pilot improvements 450 on existing grass fields was recommended. 451 452 3. Susan H. (Zoom), Chair of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter of Plastic Pollution Prevention 453 Committee, supported sand -capped fields and suggested fixing existing grass fields using 454 sustainable management techniques . It was explained that the turf study prepared by the Santa 455 Clara County Public Health staff was not an official document. 456 457 4. Cynthia Fan (Zoom) urged the PRC to reject the consultant ’s report and findings, prioritize a 458 natural grass pilot and pause El Camino. Errors regarding turf usage hour data and turf lifespan 459 and replacement cost were pointed out 460 461 5. Amar Patel (Zoom) represented Striker Soccer Club and encouraged synthetic turf at El Camino. 462 463 6. Rodrigo B., Executive Director at Palo Alto Soccer Club , requested synthetic turf replacement at 464 El Camino Park. A natural grass pilot program was supported at one of the other grass fields in 465 Palo Alto. Palo Alto and SVSA would be happy to financially support the City’s effort to improve 466 grass fields at Cubberley and Greer and to help develop new fields at the Bayland space near the 467 golf course. 468 469 7. Amanda M., President of the Board of Directors for Palo Alto Soccer Club, spoke on behalf of the 470 2,000 members of PASC and opposed a ban on artificial turf. 471 472 Commissioner Cribbs was concerned about the numbers and hoped corrections would be made , 473 that future projects would consider the recommendations for grass fields and that guidance from 474 the grass institutes would be considered. Re -turfing El Camino Ball Park was supported. There should 475 be more maintenance and research related to grass. 476 477 Ms. Robustelli stated the numbers previously spoken of by Mr. Stevenson had been implemented in 478 the updated report. 479 480 Mr. Stevenson confirmed that the numbers were correct. 481 482 V ice Chair Greenfield supported the general recommendations of the report and advocated for it 483 moving forward to Council and supported moving forward with renovation of El Camino Park ASAP. 484 Regarding the second recommendation, the natural grass replacement cost had not factored in the 485 cost of land. The other side of 101 could potentially be converted to grass fields. Environmental 486 considerations should be mitigated. Vice Chair Greenfield supported a pilot program at Cubberley 487 and Greer, although it would be challenging with regard to expenses, staff, infrastructure constraints, 488 partial field closures and additional capacity for site rotations. Vice Chair Greenfield requested 489 comments on the expense tradeoffs between grass and synthetic turf. It was addressed in the study 490 but what it would mean on an annual basis for budgeting may not have be en appreciated. 491 492 Mr. Stevenson replied that a pilot program could be broken down into 3 premises – optimizing 493 existing native fields to get more use hours, how higher performance fields would fare in the local 494 environment and the maintenance costs, and adding new natural grass fields to the inventory. The 495 project cost to covert El Camino would be $1.5M to $2M. New fields on raw land would be 496 significantly more expensive. Natural grass fields would probably not allow for doubling use but they 497 could be better performing. A pilot program would be geared toward the City’s appetite for cost. The 498 scope would need to be further defined. 499 500 V ice Chair Greenfield commented it might be helpful to Council to outline a few scenarios and flush 501 out potential costs in further detail. Hopefully a pilot program could be pursued. The care and 502 capacity of natural grass fields did not take into consideration weather closures, which was 503 significant in having year-round field access. The incorporation of risk mitigation measures had been 504 removed from the general recommendations but they should be highlighted as a recommendation. 505 Additional grass fields at the Baylands should be pursued. Vice Chair Greenfield questioned the 506 reality of a synthetic turf field at El Camino Park being recyclable. 507 508 Mr. Stevenson replied there were many recyclable turf options and there were fields in the Bay Area 509 being mechanically recycled into plastic products. There would be a cost for processing. Turf in good 510 condition could possibly go to a secondary market for batting cages, etc. 511 512 V ice Chair Greenfield expressed it would be useful to include that information in the report for 513 Council. The report should indicate what kind of synthetic turf was currently on the field and what 514 type of pad would be put in at Mayfield. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if there were summary pages in 515 the report tabulating the methodology for determining field use hours and what the best way was to 516 address the sewn -in lines on the turf fields separating. 517 518 Mr. Stevenson responded that the methodology for determining field use hours was summarized on 519 Page s 59 and 60. The sewn-in lines separating could be addressed through a good product and good 520 installation. The system on El Camino was good. 521 522 Vice Chair Greenfield voiced that what was received with the last round of synthetic fields was not 523 what was hoped for. Vice Chair Greenfield inquired if Levi’s would receive a hybrid field. 524 525 Ms. Robustelli noted that El Camino had 2-inch Edel Grass, which was a hybrid blade, not a 526 monofilament or slit film. The City had trouble with the TPE infill system. FieldTurf Vertex Prime was 527 being installed at Mayfield, which was a combination of slit film and monofilament fibers with cork 528 and sand infill. 529 530 Mr. Stevenson thought Levi’s field was hybrid. 531 532 Commissioner Kleinhaus remarked that the turf on the Mayfield and Cubberly fields deteriorated 533 frequently. Plastic was toxic cradle to grave and recycling it was often more toxic than burying it in a 534 landfill. Plastic should not be considered because Palo Alto took sustainability seriously. Given Ms. 535 Fan’s comments, Commissioner Kleinhaus may not support the report. 536 537 Commissioner Deng leaned toward the recommendation but with strong conditions. Demand was 538 high and there was support for more hours of play. The current tuff was at the end of the lifespan, so 539 something had to be done ASAP. The following conditions were suggested: A turf system with the 540 best available environment al health profile, a heat mitigation plan, a robust maintenance program 541 commitment, proper installation and a monitoring program for usage hours, infill migration, etc. The 542 community usage equity should be emphasized so there would be enough hours for community 543 rentals with a good scheduling policy, an evaluation of lifecycle costs over 10 to 20 years and 544 environmental impact disclosure. More information was requested on the pilot program to further 545 optimize natural grass fields . 546 547 Mr. Stevenson responded that actions could be taken to better optimize the maintenance practices 548 for natural grass fields, which the study touch ed on to some degree. Organic fertilizers would help 549 stimulate the grass but care had to be taken due to introducing organics into the environment. Other 550 options included increasing the maintenance budget and the practices on high -use natural grass 551 fields and resodding. It would hinge on the amount of money invested in the fields. 552 553 Commissioner Deng queried if the vibration from Caltrain would impact the choice. 554 555 Mr. Stevenson answered the vibration from Caltrain should not impact synthetic or natural grass. 556 557 Chair Freeman found that the refinements in the study provided a balanced data -driven foundation 558 for making an informed decision. It would meet the community recreational needs, which were very 559 important for youth sport programs. It also took seriously the environmental and health concerns 560 many residents had. Chair Freeman supported the recommendation going to Council because it 561 would allow reliable field access and the opportunity to keep working toward long -term 562 sustainability improvements. As it would take three natural fields to replace one turf field, the City 563 did not have the land for it and implementation would take time. Chair Freeman supported the pilot 564 program for optimizing natural grass fields but there should be benchmarks to measure the pilot 565 success, such as playable hours, water usage and maintenance cost, which need ed to be added to 566 the report. The results of the pilot should return to the PRC. The study reflected a responsible and 567 balanced path forward. Chair Freeman supported sending the report to Council. 568 569 Commissioner Kleinhaus queried if Commissioner Deng’s recommendations would be included in 570 the recommendation to Council or if it would just be noted . 571 572 Chair Freeman understood that the comments made by all commission ers would be included in the 573 comments going to Council. 574 575 Vice Chair Greenfield made a motion to accept staff recommendations with the addition of moving 576 the risk mitigation measures (RMM) plan back into the general recommendations . 577 578 MOTION: Vice Chair Greenfield seconded by Commissioner Cribbs, Staff recommends that the 579 Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council accept the findings and 580 recommendations of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems for the City of Palo Alto Playing 581 Fields and direct staff to proceed with replacement of the synthetic turf at El Camino Park in a 582 manner consistent with the Study’s findings and recommendations , in addition of adding the 583 Risk mitigation measure back into the general recommendation 584 585 Commissioner Kleinhaus queried if the RMM included pollution issues, like high use of organics 586 entering the bay. 587 588 Mr. Warner stated the RMM covered the synthetic turf. Any pilot program would consider the 589 environment, safety, playability and use hours of the field. 590 591 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated it should be added that the pilot program would not increase use of 592 organic fertilizers. 593 594 Mr. Warner stated there were ways to mitigate stormwater runoff so it would not directly discharge 595 into the bay, and it was anticipated that would be part of a comprehensive pilot program. 596 597 Commissioner Kleinhaus noted that space would be needed to create the buffers or the filtration 598 systems, which could be expensive and difficult. 599 600 Mr. Warner mentioned that treatment units could be used for mitigation. 601 602 Chair Freeman requested that be included in the report. 603 604 Vice Chair Greenfield was in favor of the pilot program being highly focused on environmental 605 sustainability but would not support ruling out the use of organic fertilizers. 606 607 MOTION PASSED: [Vote ] 608 Motion Passed 4 approved Commissioner Kleinhaus said no. 609 4-1-2 610 611 6. Update on Ad Hoc Nature Access Policy and Proposal Trail Closure at Pearson Arastradero 612 Preserve 613 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf, provided a history of the item. Staff 614 and the Ad Hoc had done an additional site visit and it was agreed that some of the work had been 615 completed and efforts concluded. 616 Mike Warner, Supervising Ranger, stated there had been a site visit in February 2025. The trail was in 617 the Bowl Loop/Management area. The Ad Hoc Committee identified a trial that was slated for 618 closure in 2000 but it was not closed and was in use. Staff identified a compromised closure of a 619 smaller trail, which would provide a better ability for closure to restore the area. There was no 620 opposition from PABAC. Details about the trail segment was supplied. There had been about 25 621 public comments between June 15, 2025, and July 15, 2025. The majority of commenters opposed 622 the closure because the trail was mainly used by seniors, families and less experienced users as a 623 bypass for the steeper trails in the area; potential crowding in other trails; loss of trail diversity and 624 the user experience; and concerns related to adjacent residential development, which could lead to 625 more closures. 626 Mr. Warner stated those supporting the closure cited the importance of protecting sensitive 627 ecosystems, reducing trail erosion, opportunities for habitat restoration and reduction of 628 redundancy trails within the Preserve. Several commenters requested better signage within the 629 Preserve, which was a maintenance task and was currently being completed and would return to the 630 PRC to show the final results. There was insufficient data to support permanent closure of the trail. 631 Staff was working on decommissioning social trails within the Bowl. Consideration was being given 632 to relocating one of the N5 fire sensors, as it was on a social trail, to reduce one of the redundant 633 trails. If the PRC would like to explore that going forward, the plan could be to monitor the area and 634 work with Grassroots Ecology to do a more in -depth survey and return with more scientific 635 information about the value of closing trails in the area. There were no plans to conduct a closure 636 and it was not recommended. 637 Vice Chair Greenfield stated the Ad Hoc had nice field trips of the Preserve. The initial focus of the 638 walking tour was to look at social trails that should be shut down and re -naturalized. The one by the 639 Lower Bowl would be shut down. The Ad Hoc was generally in favor of closing the subject trail. 640 Community feedback was significant enough that Vice Chair Greenfield supported not closing the 641 trail. There were other trail areas for consideration, which would be discussed further. 642 643 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated the Ad Hoc never considered the subject trail a high priority for 644 closure. The erosion issues, etc., could be dealt with without closing the trail. The Upper Bowl was 645 concerning because there were increasing ly more unsanctioned trails coming down and the bottom 646 was sometimes an exercise area for bicyclists. There was an opportunity to have a wetland there. It 647 was not clear if staff monitoring the area included what was in the pond or what could be in the 648 pond and restoring the pond. Dealing with access into the Bowl was important but it did not have to 649 eliminate pond access . Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested that half be for people and half for 650 nature. It was not clear how such might more forward if the Ad Hoc concluded. 651 652 Mr. Warner responded that fencing half the pond would be a struggle for maintenance. Bicycles 653 being allowed on half of it would need to be considered. The area was managed as a seasonal trail 654 closure, which could be defined within the existing framework of seasonal trail closures. A plan 655 needed to be developed with Grassroots Ecology. Staff was doing biological monitoring and 656 managing native and non -native plants in the Preserve. It could be discussed further with the PRC. 657 658 Commissioner Kleinhaus questioned if what was in the pond could be monitored and if Grassroots 659 Ecology had expertise in that area. The current closure rules did not protect the pond beyond a 660 certain number of days or hours after the rain and there was an opportunity to create habitat by 661 managing it beyond that. 662 663 Mr. Warner would discuss monitoring the pond with Grassroots Ecology and return to the PRC. There 664 was policy in place governing that area for the seasonal trail closure. If there should be more of an 665 in-depth policy, it would need to be discussed with stakeholders. 666 667 Commissioner Kleinhaus mentioned there were more and more trails entering the area. The 668 amphibians, etc., in the area needed to be provided for. 669 670 Mr. Warner replied that more trails entering the area related to the nature of the structure. It could 671 not be half closed and half open. There was existing policy for seasonally closing parts of the Bowl 672 area. A fence around the top could be installed but it would accomplish the same thing as the 673 seasonal trail closure policy. 674 675 Item 6 No Public Comments 676 677 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated installing a fence around the rim of the Bowl to block some of the 678 trails would not be equivalent to a seasonal closure. 679 680 Mr. Warner believed what had been discussed previously was controlling access to the portion that 681 had water. It could be manipulated a little but if the goal was to protect a body of water with 682 sensitive species, there should be a fence all the way around it. Either the species would be 683 protected or recreation would be allowed but it was not possible to do both. A partial fence would 684 not be effective. More in -depth study needed to be done to determine the best course of action in 685 the area. 686 687 Vice Chair Greenfield asked what would be the implication of closing the Bowl altogether. 688 689 Mr. Warner did not recommend closing the Bowl altogether. 690 691 Commissioner Kleinhaus expressed there may be a way to block part of the social trails going down 692 without fencing. Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested there be signage to not ride bikes in the water. 693 694 Mr. Warner stated enforcement would be a struggle due to staffing. Signage would help. There were 695 not enough resources to take action on controlling the Bowl currently. Staff would return with more 696 information. 697 698 Chair Freeman remarked the public had legitimate concerns. As the Ad Hoc would be concluded, a 699 liaison role could be assigned at the next meeting to conclude the Ad Hoc’s work . Chair Freeman 700 supported staff’s recommendation. 701 702 7. Update on the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) 703 704 Ben Heinstein, Assistant Director of Open Space, Parks and Golf, voiced the purpose of this update 705 was to restart the project discussion and determine next steps. The purpose of the BCCP and the 706 planning process to date were outlined. Staff recommended the PRC discuss the project and provide 707 feedback on next steps. Staff’s goal, pending PRC feedback, was to reengage AECOM to revise the 708 plan, bring it back to the PRC for review, complete CEQA and obtain Council adoption by the winter 709 of 2027. 710 711 V ice Chair Greenfield, Ad Hoc Member, noted there was obsolete information in the plan and the 712 landscape had changed significantly since plan conception. Sections needed to be reevaluated. The 713 sea level rise section was superseded by other documents and needed to be sorted out. Specific 714 areas related to Byxbee Park, the golf course, etc., were no longer applicable. Staff and the Ad Hoc 715 had differences in opinion related to the general focus and level of prioritization for environmental 716 stewardship and preservation relative to infrastructure management, etc. Environmental 717 stakeholders and Council needed to address what the goal should be . BCCPs were important for 718 open space preserves but it needed to be determined which nature preserve (Baylands, Foothills 719 Nature Preserve or Pearson-Arastradero) would present the clearest path with the fewest obstacles 720 and the least ambiguity toward developing a productive Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 721 and what staffing and infrastructure might be needed for implementation. There was concern that 722 the current plan may not be adequate to release a mediocre CCP. Tying off the work in progress as 723 quickly as possible and releasing it as an historical report should be considered. 724 725 Commissioner Kleinhaus , Ad Hoc Member, was not sure it was possible to bring the BCCP up to date. 726 There were conflicts within the plan from the start and since 2017 sea level rise predictions, 727 regulations, etc., had changed. There were omissions in the plan, such as the jurisdictional wetland 728 within the golf course. It was difficult to create a clear picture of current happenings. Every city 729 needed to prepare their own regional shoreline adaptation plan addressing protecting the 730 community, the wildlife and the natural resources. It was necessary to take a step back and figure 731 out if this could be framed as a report, not a plan. Some sections of the plan were not useful. 732 Potentially something like what Mountain View was doing for Shoreline Park could be done. The 733 BCCP did not address conservation actions or an adoptive management plan. Work needed to be 734 done on the Sea Level Rise Plan and developing a Wildlife Management Plan to enhance the habitat. 735 It should be determine what was critical within the BCCP document and how to get there. The 736 document was weak related to wildlife conservation. 737 738 Item 7 Public Comment 739 740 1. Doug P. commented that the broken sluice gate needed to be replaced to address tidal flows and 741 flood protection . 742 743 2. Rani F. (Zoom), Chair of the Environment Action Committee for the Santa Clara County Bird 744 Alliance, remarked that the BCCP was outdated as the environment al, scientific and regulatory 745 landscape had changed since 2017. It was requested that advice be taken from the San Francisco 746 Bay Conservation and Development Commission's 2024 Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan, that 747 the BCCP be accepted as a report and that remaining funds be directed toward developing a 748 Wildlife Enhancement and Resilience Plan modeled on Mountain View’s Shoreline Wildlife 749 Management Plan. 750 751 3. Dashiell L. (Zoom), Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, considered 752 the plan outdated. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission's Regional 753 Shoreline Adaptation Plan provided comprehensive strategies. It was requested that the BCCP 754 draft be accepted as a report, that a Wildlife Enhancement and Resilience Plan be modeled on 755 Mountain View’s Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan and that resources be redirected toward 756 science -based wildlife and habitat management actions. 757 758 Commissioner Cribbs inquired if this had to be done by 2027 or if recommendations could be made 759 to move forward and, if so, what the plan would be to do that. 760 761 Commissioner Kleinhaus explained that the consultant owned the plan . Comments about what 762 needed to be updated could be added but the PRC could not make changes to the plan. After the 763 consultant reviewed comments, it was not clear that the product would be better. The consultant 764 could take the comments and update the plan and then it would go to Council but the plan would 765 not include adopted management or the basis of conservation. 766 767 V ice Chair Greenfield requested that the Ad Hoc’s comments be shared with the PRC . Vice Chair 768 Greenfield inquired what the PRC’s obligations were. 769 770 Mr. Heinstein answered that the 2027 date was referenced in the Capital Improvement Plan. Staff 771 requested the PRC’s feedback to guide the next step. The plan was built off the 2008 Baylands 772 Master Plan, which was all encompassing. There may have been opportunities to strengthen 773 different aspects of the BCCP. It was explained there was still stakeholder continuity. Updates needed 774 to be made to reflect statuses of projects that had been started, completed or modified to align 775 better with the vulnerability assessment. The BCCP did not need to be abandoned as it comprised 776 the needed fundamentals. 777 778 Commissioner Kleinhaus desired a Wildlife Management Plan, and the BCCP did not address a 779 conservation element. It was possible that the BCCP may be needed before a Wildlife Plan but more 780 than the BCCP was necessary because it was deficient. 781 782 Mr. Heinstein would discuss logical next steps with staff. It was understood that a wildlife 783 management appendix or section should be added. A next step may be a recommendation to add a 784 Wildlife Management Plan to the Natural Resource Management section. 785 786 Chair Freeman queried if the community needed to be reengaged. 787 788 Mr. Heinstein answered the level of community engagement should be discussed. The last 789 community engagement meeting was in 2018 and there had been support. It also depended on 790 budget. Given the limited budget, the priorities for revising the plan should be identified. The cost of 791 reengaging the consultant should be determined and the action plan should be catered to the 792 available budget. 793 794 V ice Chair Greenfield mentioned that the Ad Hoc wanted staff to evaluate the punt option. 795 796 Kristen O’Kane, Community Services Director, expressed that staff needed to put a plan together to 797 move forward. The intent was not to do a Wildlife Management Plan. One might be done in the 798 future. 799 800 Commissioner Cribbs questioned if the group of stakeholders could be accessed. 801 802 Ms. O’Kane was sure most of the stakeholders could be assessed. If not, there could be others. 803 804 Chair Freeman commented there should be reconnection with the residents. 805 806 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated a comprehensive Conservation Plan without wildlife conservation 807 was not a Conservation Plan. A description was needed in the CIP. It was concerning that funds for 808 the plan might be used to update minor things. Nature was important to residents. 809 810 8. Council Liaison Report (5 min) 811 812 V ice Chair Greenfield had no additional comments as his liaison roles and Ad Hoc committees had 813 been agendized for this meeting. 814 815 Chair Freeman noted that data was being collected and further analysis was being done for the 816 Racquet Court Policy. It was expected to be on the agenda in the first quarter. 817 818 Commissioner Cribbs commented that staff was working on surveys and the Tennis Court Policy with 819 the leagues, which would return to the PRC in January or February and would include a discussion 820 on the pickleball and tennis courts. The survey should show the distribution of the tennis courts and 821 the potential for distribution of the pickleball courts. Commissioner Cribbs stated if it were by 822 decision, she would turn Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into mixed use courts or full-on pickleball 823 courts. Commissioner Cribbs discussed the community and a committee working on there being 824 enough tennis and pickleball courts and extending the use of all courts by lights, access, etc. 825 Commissioner Cribbs read a message of appreciation from a resident concerning the Greer Skate 826 Park, a copy of which would be provided to the PRC. 827 828 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 829 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf, announced that November items 830 would include a vote for Chair, Vice Chair and Ad Hoc and Liaison roles; discussion of a Park 831 Improvement Ordinance for 2100 Geng Road; First Tee long -term agreement; and an Open Space 832 Annual Report. There would be a special meeting on December 16, which would include an action 833 item for the Park Improvement Ordinance for 2100 Geng Road . Standard December meetings would 834 include an Aquatics Annual Report, a Capital Improvement Project update and Community Garden 835 updates. 836 ADJOURNMENT 837 The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 p.m. 838