Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-16 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesMINUTES 1 PARKS & RECREATION Commission 2 Special Meeting 3 December 16, 2025 4 In-Person & Virtual Conference 5 Palo Alto, California 6 7 Commissioners Present In Person: Amanda Brown, Shani Kleinhaus, Nellis Freeman, Roger Smith, and 8 Vadim Axelrod 9 Commissioners Present Virtually: Bing Wei 10 Commissioners Absent: Yudy Deng 11 Others Present: Council Member Lythcott-Haims (left 9:36 p.m.) 12 Staff Present: Sarah Robustelli, Ben Heisten, Kristen O’Kane , Ed Shikada 13 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 14 Meeting was called to order at 7: 01 p.m. 15 PUBLIC COMMENT 16 1. Naomi R. sent an email to the Commission 2 days prior regarding a park at Ventura Elementary 17 School. The park was named after Naomi R.'s late brother who passed away on a school field trip 18 in 1974. Naomi R. was looking for direction on how to have the park preserved and made an 19 official park. 20 2. Juanita S., who serve d on the board of the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks nonprofit organization, 21 announced that the organization received a $50,000 donation from Priscilla Chan and Mark 22 Zuckerberg. The contribution will support the organization's efforts to enhance parks and open 23 spaces throughout Palo Alto. Juanita S. expressed gratitude for the generosity of the donors. The 24 organization will provide additional details on specific projects and fund allocation in a 25 forthcoming announcement. 26 City Manager Ed Shikada spoke with Naomi R. after the City Council meeting yesterday and will look 27 into the issue and work with Naomi R. on the next steps to preserve the park. 28 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 29 There were no agenda changes, additions, or deletions. 30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 There were no minutes to approve. 32 Division Manager Sarah Robustelli said that, to ensure compliance with the Brown Act, individual roll 33 call votes for the Vice Chair election should be stated within the record. The meeting minutes for the 34 November 25, 2025, meeting will be corrected when finalized and will be on January's agenda. Ms. 35 Robustelli read the Vice Chair election roll call vote: Commissioner Brown voted for Brown; 36 Commissioner Wei voted for Wei; Chair Freeman voted for Brown; Commissioner Deng voted for 37 Wei; Commissioner Kleinhaus voted for Wei; Commissioner Axelrod voted for Wei; and 38 Commissioner Smith voted for Brown. 39 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 40 1. Council Liaison Report 41 Council Member Lythcott-Haims was the chair of Council's ad hoc committee for the Cubberley 42 Community Center. Council Member Lythcott-Haims expressed gratitude to the PRC and the PRC ad 43 hoc committee, the community, and staff. The project was anticipated to be completed in November 44 of 2026. Last night, consultants presented the results of the second poll. There will be four polls 45 total. Poll 2 entailed speaking with over 400 people and showed a lot of public support for the 46 project to a certain level. The next task was to figure out what the public will be willing to contribute 47 and which mechanism will be used to acquire those funds: a parcel tax or sales tax. A parcel tax 48 would require two -thirds of voters to approve, whereas a general sales tax would only require a 49 majority vote. The goal was to raise $100M through a parcel tax and over $200M through a sales tax. 50 Phase 1 of the project, which included acquiring land from the School District, renovations, and the 51 addition of new buildings, was projected to cost $392M. The gap in funding could be met through 52 directing development impact fees from the forecasted housing and potential third -party 53 partnerships. The goal was to continue listening and refining the project, then describe the project 54 and earn the community's support. 55 Commissioner Brown asked if the $100M to $200M factored in the potential for lease revenue 56 bonds. 57 City Manager Ed Shikada said lease revenue bonds were not specifically factored in . Lease revenue 58 bonds would have a lessee that would generate revenue . Staff was discussing the potential for a 59 nonprofit lease and was continuing to explore a variety of options while focusing on the ones most 60 viable in the immediate term. 61 2. Department Report 62 Division Manager Sarah Robustelli recapped the Holiday Tree Lighting event from December 5, in 63 which over 300 people attended and 4 local groups provided entertainment. This evening will be the 64 second of a 3-part family movie series at the Cubberley theater. There were over double the amount 65 of RSVPs compared to the first movie night. Ms. Robustelli highlighted the Hearts and Harmony 66 Valentine's Day Dance , to be held on February 13, 2026, at the Mitchell Park Community Center. 67 There was a discussion about the turf study at the November 17 Council meeting, wherein a motion 68 was made to create an ad hoc committee. Since then, there had been 2 meetings with the ad hoc, 69 which will return to Council on January 12. The Stanford Palo Alto Community Playing Fields turf 70 replacement achieved substantial completion on December 5. The project was delivered on time and 71 on budget. The Boulware Park turf area was open and available for public use. In October, 72 unintended walking trails and invasive plants were removed from the golf course and selected 73 wetland areas were seeded and mulched with native plant material. There were 470 native plants 74 planted, which acted as test plots and will be reassessed in the spring. A request for proposal had 75 been issued to solicit an ecology firm to provide 5-year wetland monitoring and reporting, which will 76 begin in the spring of 2026. The first phase of the Valley Water Tide Gate project will be completed 77 by January 31, 2026. Phase 2 of the project will include a flap gate replacement and minor wing wall 78 repairs, which will be completed in September and October of 2026. In late November, 15 trees were 79 planted by the duck pond and sailing station areas in the Baylands. There were 12 Eucalyptus trees 80 situated adjacent to Arastradero Road that will be removed by the end of January. Signage had been 81 placed. 82 Chair Freeman asked if staff was conducting a survey to gather data about the Cubberley movie 83 nights and how staff was getting the word out. Chair Freeman confirmed there was signage placed 84 for the tree removal at Arastradero and queried if the trees would be replaced. Chair Freeman 85 questioned if there was any feedback regarding the playing fields. 86 Commissioner Axelrod asked if staff had considered year-round family movie nights and how the 87 Mayfield project turned out compared to the estimated time and budget. 88 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked what types of trees will be planted near Arastradero Road and if they 89 will be planted in the same location where the Eucalyptus trees were removed. Commissioner 90 Kleinhaus emphasized that Eucalyptus trees provided space for birds to nest. 91 Vice Chair Wei asked if staff knew how many attendees of the tree lighting event were local and how 92 that event was broadcasted. 93 Ms. Robustelli confirmed staff was doing a survey of the Cubberley movie nights and said that 94 activation was working. Staff was getting the word out via normal communication channels, such as 95 Uplift Local, social media, and the webpage. Ms. Robustelli confirmed there was signage for the tree 96 removal at Arastradero Road and there will be a one -for-one replacement of the trees. Ms. 97 Robustelli said there was positive feedback from the local clubs regarding the playing fields. Staff 98 could discuss having year-round family movie nights. Ms. Robustelli did not have data on the 99 attendees for the tree lighting event but word was spready through the typical City channels, 100 including the website, Uplift local, social media, and the event was listed in the Enjoy! catalog. The 101 playing field replacement cost roughly $3.2M and was on time and on budget. 102 Assistant Director Ben Heisten said staff was working with Grassroots Ecology to do mitigation 103 planting. The replacement trees will be planted in close proximity to the location where the 104 Eucalyptus trees were removed. The new trees will be a mixture of Valley Oak, Coast Live Oak, and 105 Toyons. Saplings that had been planted prior will be caged. 106 BUSINESS ITEMS 107 3. Discussion of Partnering Norms for Commission/Staff Effectiveness 108 City Manager Ed Shikada stated the purpose for bringing this topic forward was to be proactive in 109 providing tools and guidance for the Commission and staff before any issues arise. When discussing 110 with other departments on how to reinforce expectations and guidance for staff, there was a 111 suggestion to have this topic as a discussion to set norms for how to interact and reinforce shared 112 expectations between staff and commissioners. Mr. Shikada wanted to focus on broad principles. 113 Staff from various departments provided input, which was compiled into a draft that was shared as 114 part of the report. Mr. Shikada expected the conversation to result in suggested changes or additions 115 to the draft. Mr. Shikada proposed bringing this topic up at a future retreat and periodically revisiting 116 it. 117 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked how the document relate d to the adopted Boards and Commissions 118 handbook and what would happen if there were inconsistencies. Commissioner Kleinhaus wondered 119 if the document will go to Council. 120 Chair Freeman asked if this topic was a result of the meeting with commission chairs and vice chairs 121 that occurred about 7 months ago. Chair Freeman stated that because all commissions were 122 different, the interactions could be different. Chair Freeman opined the topic was timely because the 123 PRC recently added new commissioners. Chair Freeman queried if the process of handling issues was 124 the same across all commissions and how issues get resolved . 125 Vice Chair Wei agree d with the suggestion to put this topic as an item at the retreat in February. 126 Commissioner Brown asked how the regulations in the BCC handbook were enforced and what the 127 current responsibilities were. Commissioner Brown questioned if staff thought those were 128 satisfactory. 129 Mr. Shikada explained the BCC handbook was primarily for commissioners whereas this topic 130 included staff as well. The intent was to provide a short, quick guide. Staff reviewed the handbook 131 and draft to ensure there were no inconsistencies. Mr. Shikada agreed there could be different 132 dynamics among different commissions. Mr. Shikada said the current intent was not to bring the 133 document to Council but keep it internal. Mr. Shikada wanted the draft to reflect the interactions at 134 the PRC. The Mayor and Vice Mayor held a meeting with all the chairs and vice chairs . This topic was 135 related but not a product of that meeting , however the topic of how to reinforce conduct 136 expectations in the public arena was mentioned. Any issues that may come up could be discussed 137 with the Chair, Council liaison, or with the staff involved. Depending on the issue, the City Manager 138 or Human Resources could get involved from there. Staff would view the issue and try to resolve it 139 with the parties involved, however there could be privacy concerns depending on the circumstances. 140 The ideal resolution would be to have a conversation among the parties involved so that the issue 141 could get addressed and the parties could move forward. 142 Commissioner Kleinhaus was concerned about number 7 on the draft, which advised commissioners 143 to provide feedback on staff work privately. Commissioner Kleinhaus agreed personal comments or 144 those regarding performance should be done in private, however the phrasing included work -related 145 issues. Commissioner Kleinhaus opined the work product is part of the Commission's discussion and 146 any criticism of the work product should be made in the Commission. Commissioner Kleinhaus 147 suggested that number 7 in the draft should relate to performance issues only. Commissioner 148 Kleinhaus expressed concern about number 3, regarding professional and respectful conduct in 149 communication. Commissioner Kleinhaus believed the phrasing could negatively impact some 150 discussions or whether certain people, especially those from different cultural backgrounds, felt 151 comfortable participating. Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested having safeguards to ensure the 152 norms do not have a "chilling effect" on discussions and participation. Commissioner Kleinhaus 153 wanted to see a comparison of the Boards and Commissions handbook versus the draft at the 154 retreat. 155 Commissioner Smith believed it was important for everyone to work together with respect. 156 Commissioner Axelrod clarified that the intent was to revisit the draft document annually. 157 Commissioner Axelrod opined the draft was generic and asked if there should be a separate, PRC -158 specific document as well. 159 Commissioner Brown noted the role of a commission was to advise on specific subject matter policy 160 rather than how work was done, which was laid out in the draft and handbook. Commissioner 161 Brown opined that trusting staff to implement the Commission's direction provided was critical to 162 success. The PRC had a lot of commissioner turnover. Commissioner Brown liked the suggestion of 163 revisiting the draft document multiple times a year. Commissioner Brown wanted to ensure there 164 was clear directive from Council on the PRC's scope of work. Commissioner Brown wanted to set 165 clear definitions of ad hoc and liaisons at the retreat and focus on the Commission's purpose and 166 responsibilities. 167 Chair Freeman agreed it was important to know what the Commissioners roles were as ad hoc or 168 liaisons. Chair Freeman believed staff did a good job including as much information as possible in the 169 reports. Chair Freeman said meeting as an ad hoc or liaison was an opportunity to work together 170 with staff to help take some labor off of staff. 171 Mr. Shikada explained that the general, Citywide perspective on the topic was in the BCC handbook 172 while the draft went into more detail. The PRC was welcome to add elements that were PRC specific. 173 Mr. Shikada will look at including further discussion on this topic at the February retreat. 174 Public Comment: None. 175 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL. Park Improvement Ordinance for 2100 Geng Road Development Tree 176 Removals in Baylands Athletic Center 177 City Attorney Tim Shimizu went over some procedural rules regarding a quasi-judicial hearing and 178 asked the Commissioners to disclose whether they had any contact with the owners, developers, 179 applicant representatives, or members of the public pertaining to this item. 180 Chair Freeman had no conversations regarding this project but had looked at the public information 181 on the website . 182 Commissioner Kleinhaus referenced number 4 on the email that had been sent out about the rules 183 for a quasi-judicial hearing and asked who Commissioners were to refrain from contacting after the 184 hearing. Commissioner Kleinhaus clarified that the rule will no longer apply once the PRC took action 185 regarding the item but there could be no discussion with anyone until after a decision from the PRC 186 was made. 187 Mr. Shimizu explained that the idea was that all Commissioners should have the same information 188 when making a decision on whether to recommend the PIO. If there were questions about the 189 project, it was important to ask them this evening or direct the questions to staff afterwards. Staff 190 would then provide the answer before the whole Commission before the vote at the next meeting. 191 Division Manager Sarah Robustelli clarified this item was listed as a discussion item, not an action 192 item, and it will be coming back at another meeting. 193 Commissioner Kleinhaus had met with the developers on site on September 30 to look at the trees 194 and discuss plans. Commissioner Kleinhaus had a question about where to find the CEQA documents 195 and called to ask. Commissioner Kleinhaus did not learn anything that was not in the package . 196 Commissioners Brown, Smith, and Axelrod had no disclosures. Vice Chair Wei had no disclosures. 197 Senior Planner Steven Switzer explained that the project was along the shared property line 198 between the Baylands Athletic Center and 2100-2400 Geng Road. A map highlighted the 45 non -199 native Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees that may be impacted. 200 This project was a development application that was a Site and Design, Conditional Use Permit, and 201 Vesting Tentative Map for 2100-2400 Geng Road. It will replace 4 existing office buildings with 145 202 for-sale townhomes , of which 19 were low-income units. The site was in a flood zone. The flood zone 203 location necessitate d raising the site and removing 218 trees on the office property and impact ed 204 the 45 City trees due to a retaining wall. There were 648 new trees proposed on the project site . A 205 slide showed a map of the protected and nonprotected trees . A section cut from the civil drawings 206 was shown of the retaining wall with the finished grade . There would be 83 protected trees 207 removed, which include d 45 City trees and would necessitate 292 replacement trees based on the 208 City's tree replacement values . The applicant proposed an additional 356 trees. 209 Construction traffic will utilize the property entrance on 2100-2400 Geng Road and equipment will 210 be stored on the same property. There were no anticipated impacts to the Baylands Athletic Center 211 parking lot during construction . Flaggers will be used at the Geng Road entrance to ensure park 212 users' safety. The athletic fields were scheduled for use March through June . The applicant will 213 coordinate with the organized leagues to ensure field use was minimally impacted. 214 There was an updated Arborist Report with the Grading Permit submittal to determine the impacts 215 of the grade on the root systems of the Eucalyptus trees. There will be ongoing monitoring and 216 reporting of the trees during the grading. The tree replacement contribution was $1,250 per 24 -inch 217 box replacement tree. Urban Forestry and Parks , Golf, and Open Space will use those funds to 218 establish trees on parkland . Additional permits were not excused. An Initial Study checklist was 219 prepared by the City for the development project subject to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. It 220 was determined to be consistent with the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the 2030 221 Comprehensive Plan. Appendix A1 and A2 were the arborist reports and Appendix E was the 222 biological report. 223 Pre -application for the project was submitted on July 8, 2024. A formal application was submitted on 224 December 18, 2024. The project went before the ARB for early feedback on October 16, 2025. The 225 project went to the PTC on December 10, 2025, where it was recommended to Council for approval. 226 The project was scheduled for the January 15, 2026, ARB meeting and will tentatively go to Council 227 in March 2026. 228 The e xact number of City trees that will be impacted by construction could not be determined until 229 the grading plans were prepared and implemented . The Park Improvement Ordinance authorize d 230 the removal of trees based on an updated arborist report. Trees that had a low likelihood of survival 231 would be removed and there would be payment of in-lieu fees for replacement trees . Urban Forestry 232 was involved throughout the process. The applicant was exploring an option to move the retaining 233 wall further onto the project site to reduce the impact to the 45 City trees. 234 Staff recommend ed that the PRC recommend that Council adopt a PIO (Attachment A) at the 235 Baylands Athletic Center for the tree removals associated with the 2100 Geng Road development 236 project. 237 Applicant Michael Cohen was a partner at Strada Investment Group, the developer of the Geng Road 238 project. It was an 11-acre site with 4 existing office buildings surrounded by parking . The project was 239 to convert the buildings into 145 for-sale townhomes. The property was zoned for residential units at 240 the densities proposed and as was included in the City's state -mandated Housing Element. The 241 project was designed for first-time homebuyers because there was a large undersupply in the Bay 242 Area for first-time home buying opportunities . The project was unanimously approved for 243 recommendation last week at the PTC. 244 A slide showed a picture of the proposed changes to the site. The site's grade must be raised an 245 average of 3 to 4 feet to lift the site out of the flood plain and meet FEMA requirements so 246 homebuyers could get flood insurance. The arborist report stated that 31 of the 45 City trees were 247 already considered to be in poor health and would likely falter with or without the project and could 248 present future health and safety risks. Under the ordinance, the applicant will fund the monitoring of 249 the trees and will fully fund tree replacement at the City's discretion. 250 Mr. Cohen said that, based on the printed agenda, this item was an action item but would defer to 251 the City. 252 Mr. Shimizu clarified this was an action item and the Commission was bound by state law procedural 253 requirements to make a decision on this item this evening. Bringing the item back in January was the 254 original plan to follow the standard PIO procedure but because of the aforementioned restrictions, 255 the PRC must make a recommendation this evening . 256 Commissioner Brown clarified that the proposal in its current form met all regulatory requirements 257 related to trees, environmental, and construction . 258 Commissioner Axelrod assumed the new trees would be less mature and asked if the canopy of the 259 new trees will match or exceed that of the current trees. 260 Chair Freeman asked of 648 new trees, how many new trees would be placed where the removed 261 Eucalyptus trees were and asked what the maximum number of City trees w as that could be 262 impacted. 263 Vice Chair Wei wanted to ensure the environmental impact was evaluated. Vice Chair Wei asked how 264 long it will take for the replacement trees to restore the equivalent amount of shade, carbon 265 sequestration, and habitat value lost due to the canopy loss. Vice Chair Wei queried if the 266 replacement species will prioritize drought tolerance, biodiversity, and/or climate resilience . Vice 267 Chair Wei wondered about the irrigation and maintenance commitment o ver the next 3 to 5 and 5 to 268 10 years. Vice Chair Wei asked whether any of the removed trees were heritage or high ecosystem -269 value trees, which could not be functionally replaced in the near-term. 270 Mr. Switzer said the project at Geng Road exceeded the tree replacement requirements. Mr. Switzer 271 referred to the City standards and explained that a tree's diameter measured at breast height (DBH) 272 could equate to 2 or 3 replacement trees per removed tree. There we re further requirements and 273 standard conditions for approval, such as that the trees be somewhat mature and reach heights of 8 274 feet or more . The in-lieu fee enabled Urban Forestry to select whatever tree species it deemed fit to 275 replace removed trees. The number of trees impacted could be less than 45 but would be no more 276 than 45. 277 Landscape Architect Mogan Burke said that the project will replace trees at a 3:1 rate on the site , 278 which would triple the amount of canopy. 279 Mr. Cohen explained the ordinance did not address the project site . The project will triple the 280 number of trees on the site . The ordinance was related to the project's impact o n the 45 City 281 Eucalyptus trees along the back of the athletic fields . The replacement, if there was enough room, 282 would be 2 to 3 times as many trees as were currently in that area. The applicant will replace the 283 trees with whatever species the City deemed fit. 284 Item 4 Public Comment 285 1. Herb B. distributed a printed version of his comments to the Commission and staff. Herb B. was 286 concerned that the City did not analyze the project in terms of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan 287 for the Palo Alto airport. The site was within the airport influence area. Herb B. opined the 288 project would be subject to the criteria within the plan, which may affect the financial viability of 289 the project. Herb B. recommended all the information regarding the plan be made available to 290 the applicant prior to the item being brought to Council. Herb B. was also concerned about the 291 public's ability to know what staff was doing, noting staff's press release that the BuildingEye 292 application will no longer be in use and will be replaced by Palo Alto Permit View. 293 2. Winter opined this project failed to meet the City's sustainability and climate goals. Winter 294 noted the project will be built in a flood zone, which would necessitate a heavy retaining wall 295 that may kill trees, contribute to groundwater rise, and utilize a lot of fill which could be subject 296 to liquification in the event of an earthquake. Winter wanted an analysis of how m any GHGs will 297 be created due to the large number of truck trips required to haul the fill soil and the retaining 298 wall cement. Winter was glad there will be native trees but was upset that a private project 299 could remove City teres. Winter believed the new trees should have a big enough canopy to 300 sequester carbon and provide cooling . 301 Commissioner Kleinhaus appreciated that the planting palette of the project included California 302 native trees and shrubs, such as Oaks and Toyons, which provided ecological value to the 303 development. The 2008 Baylands Master Plan, which was still in effect, allowed for development on 304 adjacent private lands but emphasized protecting Baylands resources and park functions. 305 Commissioner Kleinhaus opined that removing large, mature City trees in the Baylands to 306 accommodate the private development will not fit unless the net ecological benefit outweighed the 307 impacts to the existing natural resources. Commissioner Kleinhaus gave background on her 308 experience and expertise. Commissioner Kleinhaus said species type was critical to providing a 309 higher habitat value in that location and suggested replacing the Eucalyptus trees with Willows, 310 White Alders, and/or Fremont Cottonwood s. Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to save some 311 Eucalyptus trees if possible and supported taking a gradual approach to the removal process. 312 Commissioner Kleinhaus believed it was important that the replacement trees get planted in a 313 nearby location. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked for the City Arborist's opinion and wanted to know 314 how to capture this information in the ordinance so the City will gain habitat value on or near the 315 site. Commissioner Kleinhaus was not opposed to the project. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked Mr. 316 Gollinger to provide language for the ordinance that allowed the Urban Forestry Department to 317 implement the intent, including that the facility will still be utilized . 318 Commissioner Axelrod was glad the project will provide more family housing and wanted the trees 319 to be mature enough to provide shade and an area for children to play. 320 Vice Chair Wei agreed that mature trees would be beneficial for families. Vice Chair Wei noted the 321 noise level from the airport had been complained about by City residents for a long time. Vice Chair 322 Wei suggested the project demonstrate canopy equivalents over time and prioritize large -canopy, 323 climate -resistant tree species. Vice Chair Wei recommended a minimum 5 -year maintenance 324 replacement guarantee. Vice Chair Wei wanted staff to look into on -site replacement of the trees 325 first and off -site as a second option. Vice Chair Wei proposed a higher ratio of preservation measures 326 for any mature, high-ecosystem value trees that will be removed. 327 Chair Freeman did not see any defined park spaces, such as play structures, playgrounds, or 328 neighborhood-scale recreation areas, within or immediately adjacent to the project site in the plan 329 materials. The nearest traditional parks were several miles away. Chair Freeman asked staff to 330 confirm whether the absence of an on -site park or park amenity had been acknowledged as part of 331 the broader planning review. 332 Urban Forrester Peter Gollinger explained the intent was that the money that will go to replacement 333 trees will be used on or nearby the site with the intention to plant primarily Bayland -related and 334 native drought-tolerant species. Mr. Gollinger wanted this project to be done jointly with the parks 335 to provide ecological habitat and ensure use of the facility. Mr. Gollinger will send a draft of potential 336 language additions to Ms. Robustelli for discussion. 337 Mr. Shimizu said the PRC could vote to recommend certain additions , which staff could put into the 338 ordinance before the item goes to Council. 339 Mr. Switzer explained the project was subject to development impact fees, which included an in -lieu 340 fee for parkland. The site's plan design included play areas. Revisions to the plan were made to 341 accommodate recommendations from recent hearings. 342 Commissioner Brown asked if the finding was not included, if the same planting would happen 343 regardless based on what was included in the Tree Technical Manual and regulations. 344 Chair Freeman asked if the replacement trees would be planted after the retaining wall was built and 345 where . 346 Vice Chair Wei questioned if the motion should include a survival maintenance period. 347 Mr. Gollinger stated that, if staff only used the Tree Technical Manual, the trees would still be 348 replanted but may not be at or near the site and there may not be a focus on Bayland -specific 349 species. Mr. Gollinger said the motion did not need to include a survival maintenance period 350 because the trees would be planted by City staff and would be maintained by the City. 351 Mr. Switzer explained that the retaining wall will be on the site property. The proposed trees would 352 be planted in between the retaining wall and townhomes along the rear of the property on the 353 project site. 354 MOTION: Commissioner Kleinahus, seconded by Vice Chair Wei, recommended that City Council adopt a 355 Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) at Baylands Athletic Center for the Tree Removals 356 associated with the 2100 Geng Road development project , with an addition that staff will provide 357 another finding that includes a City commitment to canopy, Baylands tree species, in the vicinity of the 358 impact. 359 MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Deng Absent) 360 The PRC took a 6-minute break and returned at 9:10 p.m. 361 5. Annual Aquatics Performance Update by Team Sheeper, Inc. 362 Team Sheeper, Inc. Founder and CEO Tim Sheeper said there were 33 weeks of swim lessons in 2025, 363 up from 22 weeks in 2024. There were 878 swim lesson scholarships provided in 2025, up from 180 364 scholarships provided in 2019. Swim lesson scholarships were for youth and cost a family $5 per 30-365 minute swim lesson. Water exercise programs were offered a few days a week, which were 366 introduced in 2025. There were 34 weeks of recreational/family swim in 2025, up from 16 weeks in 367 2024. Lifeguards were on duty every time the pools were open. To increase the number of swim 368 lessons and open swim, the lifeguard staff must increase. There were 2 lifeguard instructor trainers 369 and 6 to 10 lifeguard instructors , which certify lifeguards. In 2024, 201 lifeguards were certified in 370 Palo Alto. Lifeguard certifications were now offered year -round, which required indoor classroom 371 space during the colder months, which Palo Alto did not have but Menlo Park did. In 2025, 146 372 lifeguards were certified in Palo Alto and 84 were certified in Menlo Park. The annual aquatics survey 373 showed that 86 percent of the overall average respondents were satisfied or extremely satisfied with 374 operational safety, communication, and facility management. A slide showed 4 graphs of attendance 375 trends from 2022-2024. Lap swim visits leveled out to pre -pandemic levels, open swim visits 376 increased, and there was a sharp increase in swim lessons. Lap swim was at 82 percent resident 377 usage, open swim was at 54 percent resident usage, swim lessons were at 78 percent resident usage, 378 and masters swim was at 67 percent resident usage. There were no user fee increases over the past 379 3 years. In 2026, the number of weeks of swim lessons and open swim was projected to increase and 380 a decrease in summer swim camp fees was expected through an early bird registration incentive. 381 Commissioner Axelrod asked if the statistics provided included Menlo Park facilities. 382 Commissioner Smith asked where non -resident users were coming from and if there were statistics 383 from East Palo Alto. 384 Chair Freeman asked if there was a breakdown by age and if it was the same group of people 385 utilizing multiple programs. 386 Vice Chair Wei asked how recreational swim differed from lap swim and open swim. Vice Chair Wei 387 queried if there was an intentional, local pipeline to certify and train Palo Alto youth as lifeguards. 388 Mr. Sheeper said the statistics were for Palo Alto only and did not know where non -resident users 389 were coming from. Mr. Sheeper believed that Rinconada Pool attracted people from along the 390 Peninsula due to its size, features, surrounding parks, and length of time being open. There was no 391 data from East Palo Alto specifically. Close to 50 percent of users were seniors and adults. Mr. 392 Sheeper explained that swimmers tend to be loyal to one program. There were about 300 monthly 393 members and 50 master swimmers. Mr. Sheeper explained that lap swim was done primarily in the 394 lap pool while open or recreational swim, which terms were used interchangeably, were done mostly 395 in the play pool. Diving boards were open in the summer. The pipeline of local lifeguards came 396 mostly from the local high schools. 397 Public Comment: None. 398 Commissioner Axelrod asked for comparisons between the Belle Haven and Burgess pools and 399 Rinconada. Commissioner Axelrod proposed working with staff to come up with comparisons 400 between Menlo Park pools and Rinconada regarding things like access times for different levels, fees, 401 etc. Commissioner Axelrod asked if the Junior Lifeguard program led to some people becoming 402 lifeguards and, ultimately, instructors. 403 Commissioner Brown asked if lifeguard certifications would be offered in Palo Alto during the winter 404 months if there was classroom space at Rinconada. Commissioner Brown asked if there was interest 405 in changing the website platform from PerfectMind, citing some user feedback. Commissioner 406 Brown cautioned against comparing Rinconada against another facilities due to inherent differen ces 407 in the pool structure and demand. Commissioner Brown asked if there was anything the PRC could 408 do to support the program . 409 Chair Freeman asked if, based on the changes made to the timing of the customer survey, the quality 410 of feedback received was better then prior surveys even though the response rate declined. 411 Vice Chair Wei asked why some activities moved to Menlo Park facilities during the winter. 412 Commissioner Smith asked how many years the contract with the City was for and if that term length 413 was comparable to other cities . 414 Mr. Sheeper explained the fees in Palo Alto were the same or less than Menlo Park facilities with the 415 exception of summer camps. The pool structure at Burgess was different than at Rinconada. Palo 416 Alto had a large legacy pool team through Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics, which used a lot of water 417 time in the afternoons. Mr. Sheeper believed the way the City and Public Works controlled the pool, 418 water, chemistry, facility, and decks was superior to the Menlo Park facilities. If there was classroom 419 space close to the pool, all lifeguard certification classes would be held in Palo Alto. Mr. Sheeper 420 opined the PerfectMind platform worked well and that feedback showed people wanted it to be 421 easier to sign up for lessons. There were challenges recruiting, training, and retaining swim 422 instructors to meet the demand for lessons. Mr. Sheeper thought the change in survey timing would 423 result in more respondents but there were less. However, there was a lot of commentary on the 424 feedback, which was important. The lifeguard training courses were moved to Menlo Park in the 425 winter because there was no place for trainees to warm up after getting out of the water, which was 426 uncomfortable. The contract with the City was a 5-year term, which will expire in 2028 and was 427 comparable to other cities. The goal was to have junior lifeguards become lifeguards and eventually 428 instructors. The junior lifeguard program was for kids aged 8 to 12. People must be 15 to be come a 429 lifeguard. There were shared lifeguards between all 3 facilities . 430 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 431 Division Manager Sarah Robustelli said the next meeting will be on January 27 at 7:00 p.m. 432 Commissioners were sent a poll asking about availability on Friday, February 13 for the retreat, 433 which would be at the Mitchell Park Community Center. 434 Chair Freeman mentioned the 2026 workplan template normally gets sent out. 435 Ms. Robustelli said the items for the January meeting included a Cubberley update and lengthy 436 discussion for CIPs. There was the option to keep the meeting at 2 items or to potentially move up 437 the Urban Forestry update . The items for February included a tennis and pickleball action item, 438 potentially the San Antonio Road Area Plan update, and the Palo Alto Youth Council update . The 439 items for March were the Open Space annual report and the Urban Forestry update if it did not get 440 moved to January. 441 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the Cubberley presentation in January will be the same as 442 presented to Council last evening and asked what Council expected of the PRC on that item. 443 Commissioner Axelrod asked if there were any upcoming items regarding parks, playgrounds, or kids 444 spaces. Commissioner Axelrod queried when the 2026 workplan will be addressed. 445 Commissioner Smith asked if the meetings always began at 7:00 p.m. 446 Ms. Robustelli said the Cubberley update was similar to that presented to Council and was an 447 informational update. P arks, playgrounds, and kids space updates happen during the Departmental 448 Report. The CIP update in January will include a deep dive into upgrades, parks, etc. A template will 449 be sent out for the 2026 workplan and accomplishments will be provided by each ad hoc group. Staff 450 may try to populate the workplan ahead of time, as not all workplan items took place in a single 451 year. There was consensus to bring Item 3 back and have a Brown Act refresher at the retreat, which 452 may take longer than 3 hours, which the poll did not account for. There could be an agendized 453 discussion around meeting start times if the Commission desired. T here was not consensus about 454 trying to move up the Urban Forestry update . 455 6. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates 456 Chair Freeman gave an update on the Racket Courts Policy, which will be brought to the Commission 457 in February. Staff was continuing to collect and analyze court usage data for pickleball and tennis . 458 Chair Freeman encouraged newer members to familiarize themselves with the prior discussions . 459 Division Manager Sarah Robustelli will send an email to the Commission with a link to the 460 pickleball/tennis discussion . 461 ADJOURNMENT 462 The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. 463