HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-31 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
August 31, 2015
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 August 31, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker
request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council
reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item
is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Study Session
6:00-6:30 PM
1. Presentation of Palo Alto City Library Strategic Plan, 2015-2017
6:30-7:30 PM
2. Study Session Updating the Current Status of the Parks, Trails, Open
Space and Recreation Master Planning Process
Special Orders of the Day 7:30-7:40 PM
3. Appointment of One Candidate to the Utilities Advisory Commission
for One Unexpired Term Ending April 30, 2018
2 August 31, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:40-7:50 PM
Oral Communications 7:50-8:05 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar 8:05-8:10 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
4.Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C14153012
With Metropolitan Planning Group for Support of Planning Review of
Individual Review and Architectural Review Applications Due toIncreased Workload and Unanticipated Staff Vacancies, Increasing the
Contract by $350,000 for a Not to Exceed Amount of $500,000 Over a
Three Year Period
5. Review and Approval of Concept Plan Line Alignments for Proposed
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Park Boulevard and Wilkie
Way
6.Approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement with the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus
Administration to Extend the Term for One Year and Add $81,670 to
Provide Community Shuttle Service on the Existing Embarcadero
Shuttle Route from July 2015 Until June 2016
7.Adoption of a Resolution to Incorporate a Side Letter With the ServiceEmployees International Union (SEIU) to Allow a Change in the Police
Dispatcher Schedule from a 4/11 Schedule to a 4/12 Flex Schedule
8.SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the
Pilot Batting Cages Project at Former PASCO Site at the Baylands
Athletic Center (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015 PASSED: 8-0
Scharff absent)
9.SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for
Improvements at Monroe Park (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015
PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent)
At-Place Item
3 August 31, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
10.SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts (FIRST READING: August 17,
2015 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent)
11.Adoption of a Revised Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City
Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes and a
Verbatim Transcript of all Council and Council Standing Committee
Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense Minutes
12.SECOND READING: Adoption of Ordinance 5326, Amending Chapter
16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to
the California Energy Code (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015
PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent)
Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:10-9:10 PM
13.Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Regarding Possible
Uses for the 7.7 Acre Area at Foothills Park
9:10-10:45 PM 14.Comprehensive Plan Update: Comprehensive Plan Structure and
Goals/Vision Statements for Each Element (Part I: Community
Services & Facilities and Transportation Elements)
10:45-11:00 PM
15.Appointment of Five Additional Members to the Comprehensive Plan
Update Citizens Advisory Committee
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
At-Place Item
At-Place Item
4 August 31, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation September 1, 2015
City Council Meeting Cancellation September 7, 2015
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6031)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Library's Strategic Plan
Title: Presentation of Palo Alto City Library Strategic Plan, 2015-2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Library
Executive Summary
Following the successful completion of the Library Bond, all five buildings have been
renovated and/or replaced, with updates and improvements to infrastructure and to the
ability to deliver services. The reports which informed many of these improvements, the
Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations, written in 2006, and the Palo
Alto City Library Technology Plan, 2009-2013, advocated for the need for new facilities
and technologies. To plan for the library’s work following construction, a planning
process was undertaken to create goals for the next three years, to guide resource
allocation and evaluation, inspire innovation, and develop sustainable practices for the
coming years. Consultant Jane Light, retired library director, guided the staff through
the process.
Discussion
Our Vision for Palo Alto is a flourishing city where people achieve their dreams.
Mission Statement: the Palo Alto City Library connects and strengthens our diverse
community through knowledge, resources, and opportunities. We inspire and nurture
innovation, discovery, and delight.
Palo Alto’s libraries are well used, highly respected, and much loved by the community.
Library staff members take great pride in providing excellent service and library
buildings provide a twenty-first century infrastructure for users and staff.
For the past ten years the City and its library department have been engaged in a series
of capital projects to replace the Mitchell Park Library and to remodel and modernize
the Children’s Library, the Downtown Library, and the Rinconada Library (formerly
known as Main Library) as well as renovating the College Terrace Library and building
City of Palo Alto Page 2
an addition to and renovating the Children’s Library. These complex projects, and
maintaining service to the public during them, have been the primary focus of the
library staff during this time. Consequently, during the past few years the plan for the
library has been to complete the projects and to successfully move out of temporary
quarters and into the new buildings and to begin to deliver services from these
locations again. The new and renovated buildings make available spaces, technology,
and new opportunities for services to meet the needs of Palo Altos’ residents and library
users.
As Library Director Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne and staff members looked toward
the completion of these capital projects with opening of the Mitchell Park and
Rinconada Libraries in the fall of 2014, they realized that a strategic plan was needed to
focus resources and staff on the most important goals, services, and activities that will
drive the library forward during the next few years.
This is a time of rapid transformation for public libraries. Information technology, user
needs and expectations, and the library workforce are experiencing changes at an
unprecedented pace. Thoughtful planning is essential for libraries to anticipate and
respond to these changes and to keep the library an essential, vibrant information and
learning resource for Palo Alto.
Ziesenhenne engaged a consultant to lead the planning process and facilitate the work
of a diverse planning team she appointed in May 2014. The group was charged with
completing a strategic plan by the end of the calendar year.
Members of the Planning Committee included: Deborah Anthonyson, Senior Librarian;
Maristela Cardosa, Library Specialist; RuthAnn Garcia, Library Services Manager; Chad
Helton, Coordinator, Library Circulation; Eric Howard, Assistant Library Director; Jenny
Jordan, Library Services Manager; Diane Lai, Division Head, Information Technology &
Collections; Peter Pfeiffer, Library Specialist; Kathy Shields, Senior Librarian; Dave
Sigua, Library Associate; Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne, Library Director; Jane Light,
Consultant.
The project consultant reviewed a number of reports before the team’s first meeting
including:
The National Citizen Survey, City of Palo Alto, California 2013;
2013 City of Palo Alto Performance Report;
OrangeBoy Inc., Market and Cardholder Analysis for Palo Alto City Library, 2013;
Kress Consulting, Palo Alto City Library Technology Plan, 2009-2013;
FY2015 City of Palo Alto and Library departmental budget documents; and,
Palo Alto Library Advisory Commission, Library Service Model Analysis and
Recommendations (LSMAR), 2006.
The Planning Committee first developed drafts of a vision and mission statements, and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
identified the core values of the department that are library specific and supplement
those of the City of Palo Alto. Library staff members were invited to make comments
and suggestions through email and posting on an Intranet. The City’s Library Advisory
Commission (LAC) reviewed the drafts at its August 28, 2014, meeting.
Planning Committee members reviewed the drafts and conducted a SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) exercise at a library all-staff meeting.
Information gained from that exercise was very useful when the Committee began to
identify goals and strategies for attaining them during the period 2015-2017 and to
suggest a vision beyond. A subcommittee of the LAC reviewed the strategic plan prior
to its final approval by the Library Director.
Beginning with the FY2016 budget, library managers are incorporating activities related
to achieving the strategic goals into the overall work plan for the department. These
relate directly to performance measures as presented as part of the budget document.
Along with allocation of resources, the work plan and the goals are also aligned with
City Council goals and initiatives. As the library progresses through the strategic
planning work, the library staff will review the goals to make sure that they continue to
be in alignment with overall City work. Performance will be measured and reported and
the LAC will periodically review the measures to provide the best possible information to
the Council. At the end of the time frame for the Plan, all stakeholders should be ready
for the next planning process.
This Plan is intended to be a living document: one that allows for flexibility and
accountability as PACL achieves its goals, leading the vision it has for Palo Alto.
Attachments:
Attachment A: PACL Strategic Plan 2015-2017 (PDF)
PALO ALTO CITY LIBRARY
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
Strategic Plan 2015-2017
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
A flourishing city where
People achieve their dreams.
OUR VISION FOR PALO ALTO
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back) OUR MISSION
PACL connects and strengthens our diverse
community through knowledge, resources, and
opportunities. We inspire and nurture innovation,
discovery, and delight.
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
4
CITY OF PALO ALTO VALUES
Quality
Superior delivery of services
Integrity
Straight-forward, honest, and fair relations
Courtesy
Providing service with respect and concern
Innovation
Excellence in creative thought and implementation
Efficiency
Productive, efficient use of resources
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
5
PALO ALTO CITY LIBRARY VALUES
Access
Providing free and open access to collections,
resources, and services to all
Diversity
Embracing differences
Risk-taking
Challenging the norm
Community Building Fostering an engaged community
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back) GOALS
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
7
GOAL A
Create a variety of opportunities for learning and provide
effective tools for improving all types of literacy.
Strategies
Provide early childhood literacy programs based on current
research in child development and learning.
Create opportunities for community members to acquire the
necessary skills to succeed in an increasingly digital world.
Provide a portal to American culture, language, and civic life.
Ensure that the library’s collections, technology, and buildings
support the evolving requirements of 21st Century lifelong learning.
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
8
Strengthen the community and the library through
effective partnerships.
Strategies
Support Project Safety Net’s programs to promote youth well-
being and support the 41 Developmental Assets.
Increase collaboration with Palo Alto’s public and private
schools and their school librarians.
Support library stakeholders in their advocacy and
fundraising activities.
Connect librarians to community organizations in order to
support their goals and participate in their activities by
bringing library resources and services directly to them.
GOAL B
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
9
Facilitate civic participation and effective
community engagement.
Strategies
Provide a forum to explore issues of local interest and current
events.
Engage community members, with particular attention to
teens and seniors, in library services as volunteers and
program advisors.
GOAL C
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
10
Expand virtual customer experiences.
Strategies
Make the library e-branch as usable and useful on
mobile devices as on PCs and laptops.
Grow digital collections to a robust level to meet
increasing demand.
Make discovery and use of library collections, services,
and resources more simple.
GOAL D
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
11
Foster a culture of excellence, continuous
improvement, and risk-taking.
Strategies
Attract, develop, and retain the most talented employees.
Provide opportunities and resources for all employees to
continue developing their skills and knowledge.
Embrace and reward creativity and innovation.
GOAL E
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
Palo Alto City Library Strategic Plan
ABOUT THE 2015 - 2017
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
13
WHY A STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR THE LIBRARY?
Palo Alto’s libraries are well used, highly respected, and much loved by the community. Library staff members
take great pride in providing excellent service and library buildings provide a twenty-first century infrastructure
for users and staff.
For the past ten years the City and its library department have been engaged in a series of capital projects to
replace the Mitchell Park Library and to remodel and modernize the Children’s Library, the Downtown Library,
and the Rinconada Library (formerly known as Main Library) as well as renovating the College Terrace Library
and building an addition to and renovating the Children’s Library. These complex projects, and maintaining
service to the public during them, have been the primary focus of the library staff during this time.
Consequently, during the past few years the plan for the library has been to complete the projects and to
successfully move out of temporary quarters and into the new buildings and to begin to deliver services from
these locations again. The new and renovated buildings make available spaces, technology, and new
opportunities for services to meet the needs of Palo Altos’ residents and library users.
As Library Director Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne and staff members looked toward the completion of these
capital projects with opening of the Mitchell Park and Rinconada Libraries in the fall of 2014, they realized that
a strategic plan was needed to focus resources and staff on the most important goals, services, and activities
that will drive the library forward during the next few years.
This is a time of rapid transformation for public libraries. Information technology, user needs and expectations,
and the library workforce are experiencing changes at an unprecedented pace. Thoughtful planning is
essential for libraries to anticipate and respond to these changes and to keep the library an essential, vibrant
information and learning resource for Palo Alto.
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
14
PLANNING PROCESS
Ziesenhenne engaged a consultant to lead the planning process and facilitate the work of a diverse planning
team she appointed in May 2014. The group was charged with completing a strategic plan by the end of the
calendar year.
Members of the Planning Committee included:
Deborah Anthonyson, Senior Librarian Maristela Cardosa, Library Specialist RuthAnn Garcia, Library Services Manager Chad Helton, Coordinator, Library Circulation Eric Howard, Assistant Library Director Jenny Jordan, Library Services Manager
The project consultant reviewed a number of reports before the team’s first meeting including:
The National Citizen Survey, City of Palo Alto, California 2013
2013 City of Palo Alto Performance Report
OrangeBoy Inc, Market and Cardholder Analysis for Palo Alto City Library, 2013
Kress Consulting, Palo Alto City Library Technology Plan, 2009-2013
FY2015 City of Palo Alto and Library departmental budget documents
Palo Alto Library Advisory Commission, Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations (LSMAR), 2006
The Planning Committee first developed drafts of a vision and mission statements, and identified the core
values of the department that are library specific and supplement those of the City of Palo Alto. Library staff
members were invited to make comments and suggestions through email and posting on an Intranet. The
City’s Library Advisory Commission (LAC) reviewed the drafts at its August 28 meeting.
Planning Committee members reviewed the drafts and conducted a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) exercise at a library all-staff meeting. Information gained from that exercise was very
useful when the Committee began to identify goals and strategies for attaining them during the period 2015-
2017 and to suggest a vision beyond. A subcommittee of the LAC reviewed the strategic plan prior to its final
approval by the Library Director.
Diane Lai, Division Head, Information Technology & Collections
Peter Pfeiffer, Library Specialist
Kathy Shields, Senior Librarian
Dave Sigua, Library Associate
Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne, Library Director
Jane Light, Consultant
PHOTO PLACE HOLDER
Crop Photo to Fit
(Picture Tools Format -> Crop)
Send Image to Back
(Drawing Tools Format -> Send Backward -> Send to Back)
15
HOW WILL THE STRATEGIC PLAN
BE USED?
This straightforward, succinct strategic plan will serve two primary functions, to communicate and to set
organizational priorities. It will be used to communicate the Library’s vision for Palo Alto and the mission, values
and goals of the Library in support of that vision to the community, to the City Council, to library users, to other
stakeholders, and to employees and potential employees.
The plan will be used to make operational decisions and to allocate personnel and other resources.
Opportunities and options will be evaluated in the context of their impact toward attaining the goals.
Annually, as part of the City’s budget preparation process, library managers will develop objectives and
activities that align with the goals and move the department toward achieving them. Specific strategies and
ways to measure progress will be developed as part of this annual work plan. This will ensure that the
department’s budget supports the strategic plan and that priorities and objectives are driven by the plan.
Palo Alto City Library
270 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ▪ (650) 329-2436 ▪ cityofpaloalto.org
Palo Alto City Library
270 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ▪ (650) 329-2436 ▪ cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5507)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Update on the City-wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Title: Study Session Updating the Current Status of the Parks, Trails, Open
Space and Recreation Master Planning Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
This is an informational report as background to the study session on the Parks,
Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan; no Council action is
required.
This report provides a status update on the Parks Master Planning process, which
has been underway since January 2014.
The Study Session provides an opportunity for City Council discussion regarding
the overall master plan. Members of the planning team will present key results of
the public input and analysis completed to date. Discussion items for the council
will focus on the draft principles and criteria that are being used to develop,
evaluate and sort the potential improvements to the system.
Background
The City of Palo Alto has 37 parks and open space preserves covering
approximately 4,165 acres of land, which includes Foothills Park, Pearson
Arastradero Preserve and Baylands Nature Preserve. Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) project PE-13003 Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master
Plan (master plan) was adopted by Council in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget process.
The purpose of this project is to provide the necessary analysis and review of Palo
Alto’s parks and recreation system and to prepare a master plan. The master plan
City of Palo Alto Page 2
will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future renovations and capital
improvement projects aimed at meeting current and future demands for our
recreational, programming, environmental, and maintenance needs. It will
establish a prioritized schedule of future park renovations and facility
improvements.
A request for proposals was drafted by city staff and the PRC and released in Fall
2013. Proposals were received and the consulting firm, MIG Inc., was selected and
began work in January 2014.
Currently MIG is in the second phase of the process, analyzing the collected data,
prioritizing the improvements and developing recommendations. The consultant
has provided a status summary (Attachment A). All analysis, reports and
presentation materials created for the master plan can be found on the City of
Palo Alto projects web page at www.cityofpaloalto.org/parksplan.
Discussion
The objective of this master plan process is to assess the short, medium and long-
term needs for development and improvement of existing parks, open space
areas, regional trails and recreation facilities and the acquisition of new parkland
and/or expansion of existing parkland to meet on-going needs of the community.
The master plan is divided into three phases of work: phase one, encompassing
data collection and analysis; phase two, documenting and prioritizing
recommendations; and phase three, the drafting the master plan and gaining
Council approval and adoption with community input
The first phase of this process included an analysis of existing parks, open spaces
and recreation programs and facilities that involved extensive community
outreach, including an on-line survey reaching over 1,100 participants, various
focus groups and community stakeholders. An analysis of demographics,
sustainability opportunities and recreation programs with input from staff, the
consultants and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) resulted in the
creation of a ‘Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix’ that references back to
the extensive data referenced in a binder for each of the PRC members and staff.
The information in the Data Summary Matrix will be utilized during the second
phase of the project, which is currently underway.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The second phase includes documenting and prioritizing many factors including:
community needs, future growth demands, projected costs and possible funding
options. This phase is expected to be complete in the fall of 2015 and began with
the formulation of principles that will guide the prioritizing and recommendation
process. The formulation of recommendations will draw from the various
interested parties, including community members, stakeholder groups, city
boards and commissions, city staff and the Council. At this point in the process,
we are moving from the Data and Needs Summary Phase (Phase 1) to the Actions,
Criteria and Prioritizing Phase (Phase 2).
The third and final phase of the project will focus on drafting and finalizing the
master plan report.
Figure 1: Data to Recommendations Diagram
A key component to Phase 2 and the overall master plan’s framework is the
development of principles derived from the patterns, themes and priorities
expressed by the Palo Alto community in public engagement activities. The
principles dictate the overarching strategic direction for the system of parklands,
protected places and recreation programs spanning the next 25 years. With PRC
and Council input, these principles will be used to guide decision-making.
Although this update is primarily intended to inform the Council of the process to
date and provide a timeline for future involvement, staff would like to take this
opportunity to introduce the seven principles as well as introducing the draft
prioritization criteria that are currently under development.
Data
Collection
and Analysis
(Phase 1)
Data and
Opportunity
Summary
(Phase 1)
Actions
Criteria and
Prioritizing
(Phase 2)
Plan Development
and Review
(Phase 3)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The master plan’s seven principles are provided below. The principles were
derived from extensive public input, and discussions with the Parks and
Recreation Commission:
Playful, inspiring imagination and joy;
Healthy, supportive of the physical and mental health and well-being of
individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community;
Sustainable, stewarding natural, economic and social resources for a
system that endures;
Inclusive of the entire Palo Alto community, all ages, abilities, languages,
cultures, and levels of income;
Accessible, easy for all people to use year-round and to get to by all modes
of travel;
Flexible enough to accommodate multiple uses across time with adaptable
spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses; and
Balanced between natural spaces and manicured landscapes, historic
elements and cutting-edge features, and self-directed and programmed
activities.
The principles are a tool for decision-making as we begin identifying actions and
recommendations for the plan. The table below presents screening questions to
consider in weighting alternative approaches to meeting a particular need and to
prioritize actions.
Principle Does the action/project/idea:
Playful Open up opportunities for creative use of the space?
Introduce imagination, whimsy and the unexpected?
Encourage unstructured free-play opportunities?
Healthy Create and encourage everyday physical activity?
Provide a place to unwind?
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Create spaces where families, neighbors and meet
and interact?
Sustainable Highlight and enhance unique ecosystems, habitats or
natural features?
Minimize ongoing maintenance costs to achieve
quality experiences?
Adapt the system to climate change, drought, sea
level rise, and other future challenges?
Consider existing facilities, providers or places before
building new?
Inclusive Appeal to an underrepresented user group?
Respond to the unique character of neighborhoods
and areas of Palo Alto?
Accessible Reduce or remove barriers to
participation/enjoyment based on physical or mental
ability?
Fill holes in close to home access to an essential
activity?
Extend the recreation experience or activity to a new
audience or user group in Palo Alto?
Support bike and pedestrian networks or connections
to nearby facilities?
Flexible Support new types of activities on a site or in the
system without eliminating existing popular activities?
Make it easier to adapt to a new trend?
Avoid dedicating a significant area to a single use?
Balanced Support the balance that already exists system-wide?
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Result in a better balance at an individual site or
cluster of sites?
The planning process also includes a prioritization step that involves applying
criteria to the recommended actions to sort them into an action plan. These
criteria will include practical matters such as cost and funding availability as well
as community preferences. The action plan will detail where the City should be
focusing in the short, medium and long-term, while allowing for some flexibility to
respond to opportunities and urgent needs. Currently, a PRC Ad hoc committee as
well as the full Parks and Recreation Commission are working on drafting these
criteria. A working draft version includes the following criteria:
Community Preference: top priorities from community input
Addressing Existing Gaps: fills an identified geographic, activity or service
gap in the system
Responding to Growth: evolves the system to accommodate projected
growth, demographic and activity changes
Resource Impacts: capital and operations implications and opportunities
Multiple Benefits: advances more than one of the master plan’s principles
Timeline
The master planning process was initiated in January 2014 and is expected to be
completed in Summer of 2016. A draft of the master plan will be developed for
comment in late Fall 2015. Through vetting with boards and commissions and City
Council a final draft will be produced. Staff expects to present the final draft to
Council for approval in Spring 2016.
Resource Impact
Funding for this project is provided by Capital Improvement Program project PE-
13003, Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan.
Policy Implications
The proposed master plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy C-26
of the Community Services and Facilities element which encourages maintaining
City of Palo Alto Page 7
park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that
encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure
adaptability to the changing needs of the community. The Comprehensive Plan
Policy C-28 sets guidelines based on the National Recreation and Parks
Association Standards for locating and developing new parks. This standard is
being reevaluated given the difficulty to develop new parks within the City.
Environmental Review
This is a planning study and therefore exempt from California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA guidelines.
Before improvement projects and recommendations are implemented as capital
improvement projects, an environmental assessment will be completed in
conformance with the provisions of CEQA.
Attachments:
Palo Alto PTOSR Council Update June 2015 (DOCX)
1 | P a g e
To: Palo Alto City Council, Peter Jensen and Elizabeth Ames
Cc: Daren Anderson and Rob de Geus
From: Ryan Mottau, Lauren Schmitt and Ellie Fiore, MIG
Re: Project Update for City Council
Date: August 12, 2015
Since the last Council presentation on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
(PTOSR Plan), the project team has developed the system and needs analysis through data
collection, community outreach, stakeholder engagement and collaboration with the Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC).
The first phase of work was focused on assessing the physical and programmatic system
followed by a multi-pronged community outreach effort. Recent work has been focused on a
comprehensive review of data collected and analyzed to date.
This data summary will directly inform future recommendations and projects to be reviewed by
the PRC, community and Council. MIG, working with staff, has presented a matrix of data and
resulting needs to the PRC at their April meeting. Moving forward, the success with creating
this comprehensive reference product will help the planning team and the PRC in developing
and reviewing recommendations.
This informational update provides a review of work completed to date, an overview of the
current status of the project and a discussion of the next steps and project schedule.
Community Outreach
Guided by the Public Engagement Plan developed at the outset of this planning process, and
with support of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), MIG successfully solicited detailed
input and ideas from hundreds of community members through a variety of methods including:
Online community survey (over 1,100 responses)
Online map-based survey (over 475 individuals)
Community workshops (3)
On-the-ground “intercept events” (6)
Stakeholder advisory group meeting
Attachment A
2 | P a g e
Meetings with community-based organizations and representatives
Events and input opportunities were promoted in a variety of ways, including the City
newsletter, website and social media accounts; e-Blasts to the community services mailing list,
stakeholder advisory group, and community-based organizations; and with flyers and signs in
parks. Intercept boards and in-park signage included a QR code that took users directly to the
Mapita questionnaire. Community workshops were also promoted with newspaper ads and on
public access television and PRC members were asked to promote input opportunities through
their own networks. The project website (www.paloaltoparksplan.org) includes updates,
document downloads and links to the online questionnaires.
Community Survey
MIG worked with the City Staff Project Team to launch an online community survey to better
understand community priorities. The survey was based on earlier input from the community
and the analysis of the system. The PRC and Staff Project Team reviewed the survey and it was
available online from November 17 through December 19, 2014. It was also available in hard
copy in Spanish and in English.
Q: How important is the enhancement/ addition of the following recreation programs and features in Palo Alto?
Community Stakeholder Meetings
MIG has met with several community-based organizations, parks and recreation interest groups
and other interested community members to identify key needs, assets and opportunities for
the Plan and to build the network of community members engaged in the process.
3 | P a g e
Community Workshops
MIG facilitated a series of three community workshops, on October 28, 29 and December 2,
2014 that engaged a total of 60 community members. These workshops provided residents
with an opportunity to provide more specific input on aspects of the system that they would
like preserved or improved.
Online Interactive Map Tool
Using the web-based Mapita application, community members were able to answer a series of
questions and provide geo-tagged comments on specific parks and locations throughout the
City. Over 475 individuals provided park-specific feedback using this tool. Extensive comments
on park quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities for dozens of parks were collected.
Comments on every City park were received using this interactive tool.
Stakeholder Advisory Group
A Stakeholder Advisory Group was convened in the summer of 2014. This group of
approximately 30 community members represents a diverse range of interests and community
groups in Palo Alto. The first of three meetings with this group was held in June to introduce
the Plan; discuss issues, needs and opportunities; and identify community engagement
opportunities.
Intercept Events
A unique element of this project was the use of intercept events in which MIG staff and PRC
members engaged visitors outdoors at parks, farmers markets and community events. PRC
members were able to extend MIG’s reach of this effort and overall, six intercepts captured
comments from over 200 people. A summary of the input received from the intercept events is
available on the project website.
4 | P a g e
Analysis of the Community and the System
Working closely with City staff and the PRC, MIG has developed several products that
document and analyze the existing parks, trails, recreation and open space assets in Palo Alto as
well as the policy and demographic environments in which the Plan is being developed.
Early work was focused on the inventory of parks and facilities, other related City efforts and
the demographic analysis of the community. More recent and ongoing work on analysis of the
system includes evaluation of recreation program options; site evaluation of each park in the
system; a revenue analysis; a high-level sustainability review of policies, practices and
operations; and a geographic analysis to identify any gaps in the system.
The following interim work products were developed by MIG, reviewed by staff and the PRC
and are (or will be) posted to the project website
Planning Environment Summary
This document includes a review of guiding documents, related plans and programs, and city
policies and practices. The Summary reveals facility and program gaps identified by past
planning efforts for consideration in the PTOSR planning process.
Sustainability Review
This work product identifies opportunities to increase sustainable practices associated with the
operation and management of parks and open space within the City. Drawing on best practices
from other cities and agencies, the site tour and inventory findings and staff input, the
Sustainability Review evaluates the City’s current policies, programs and practices and identifies
opportunities to increase sustainability across 13 indicators.
Program Review and Analysis
This working draft document makes recommendations for high-level strategic directions and
key findings about Palo Alto’s programming
areas, populations and facilities, and
identifies gaps and overlaps. The Review
includes recreation programs offered by the
Community Services Department as well as by
private and community providers.
Geographic Network Analysis
MIG used a Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) model of the streets, sidewalks, trails
and pathways to illustrate the geographic
reach of each park, reflecting the way people
move through the city. Model outputs show
Interactive Map Sample
5 | P a g e
the desired travel distance (¼ or ½ mile) to park sites and particular recreation opportunities
and show where service gaps appear.
The image above shows an example of ¼ (brown) and ½ (tan) mile walking distances from parks
in Palo Alto. This model was further refined using the public comments on barriers (such as
busy streets and intersections), desired activities, and the paths people use to travel to and
from parks. This analysis will dovetail with the extensive input from park users in Palo Alto and
the project team’s review of each park site to inform recommendations and priority
improvements in the next phase of the project.
Existing Conditions Maps
The MIG team visited each park site to document and evaluate existing conditions and consider
possible improvements and developed an existing conditions map for each of the City’s parks
that includes key features, opportunities and constraints and site-specific public input.
Data and Needs Summary
During Spring 2015 the planning team has been working closely with the Parks and Recreation
Commission to review the extensive data generated from the planning process and brought in
from other City and community efforts. This work has culminated in the Data and Needs
Summary Matrix and a comprehensive binder of all data sources identified by the planning
team. These two tools provide the reference material for developing recommendations that are
supported directly by the data sources.
Next Steps and Estimated Timeline
Online Prioritization Exercise Summer-Fall 2015
Community Workshops: Fall 2015
Draft Plan: Winter 2015
Council and PRC Review: Pending Council and Commission schedules
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 31, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Appointment of One Candidate to the Utilities Advisory Commission
for One Unexpired Term Ending April 30, 2018
On Monday, August 31, 2015 the Council will vote to appoint one Commissioner to the
Utilities Advisory Commission for One Unexpired Term Ending April 30, 2018.
Voting will be by paper ballot. The first candidate to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be provided to Council Members directly.
The Candidates are as follows:
James Baer
Arne Ballantine
Louis “Lou” Borrego
Ramarao Digumarthi
Hilary Gans
Timothy Gray
Yidyabhusan “Bhusan” Gupta
Mark Harris
Natalia Kachenko
Walter Loewenstein
Marianne Wu
BACKGROUND
The City Council is scheduled to interview eleven candidates for the Utilities Advisory
Commission on Wednesday, August 26, 2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: UAC Baer, James (PDF)
Attachment B: UAC Ballantine, Arne (PDF)
Attachment C: UAC Borrego, Louis (PDF)
Page 2
Attachment D: UAC Digumarthi, Ramarao (PDF)
Attachment E: UAC Gans, Hilary (PDF)
Attachment F: UAC Gray, Timothy (PDF)
Attachment G: UAC Gupta, Vidyabhusan 'Bhusan' (PDF)
Attachment H: UAC Harris, Mark (PDF)
Attachment I: UAC Kachenko, Natalia (PDF)
Attachment J: UAC Loewenstein, Walter (PDF)
Attachment K: UAC Wu, Marianne (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
)
Personal Information
Name: james e Baer
Address: 555 Bryant Street #348, Palo Alto CA 94301
Cell Phone: 650-814-7709
0 Home 10office Phone:
E-mail: jimbaer@paloaltolanduse.com
Are you a Palo Alto Resident?181Yes0No
)
l}.J:T.V 01· PA t•P1 .1., • ·t-.LO Al1'0.CA en T CLERl\'S OFFICE
f 5 JUL 30 AM fl: 2(i):
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City �alo �. who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes�No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?�YesONo
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of
their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.
Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in
Palo Alto which you believe is likely to;
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?�Yes[:JNo
Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?l8:,lves0No
How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission?
0community Group
0 Email from City Clerk
D Palo Alto Weekly
Other: Email from manager in Utilities Departmetn
Doaily Post
Deity Website DFlyer
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional
registration:
JD/MBA Stanford 1978
Practice law in Palo Alto 1978-1986
Largest Palo Alto developer/consultant by number of projects well over 125
lnvovled with Commercial development adn construcion of many new homes
Served on 25 Palo Alto and community Non-Profit Boards including Peninsula Open
Space Trust, American Leadership Forum
founder of two sustainable design nonprofit organizatoins: Wave One; and Downtown
Palo Alto Net Zero Energy
I own only 4 commercial properties so my conflict by having some few buidligns that
may be subject to City laws or energy policies will not influence my decision about
how to be effective with new ordinances and incentive programs.
Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission
) )
Employment
Present or Last Employer: self
Occupation: real estate consultant exclusively in Palo Alto
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
I have served on 25 community nonprofit organizations including Peninsula Open
Space Trust, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Avenidas, American Leadership Forum,
provide a schedule of nonprofit organizatoins for which I have served on the Board.
Currently on Gil Friend's Advisory Board for his energy and environmenal policies
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
I have been the most active participant in sustainabliiy programs for Downtown Palo Alto
having founded Wave One in 2008
Page 2
Utility Advisory Commission
) )
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archive here: LINK.
the City council action on retaining the Feed in Tarrif fee for solar energy generated
privately
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission
achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?
I would like to work on legislation that can compel energy reduction or use of renewable
energy and electric car and bicyle use enhancement. I would also want ot work on
effective incentive programs . I think it is time to phase in compulsory sustainable design
and renewable energy legislation. Compatable to federal American with Disabilties
compulory changed to buildings, the initial response was difficult but ADA has phased
into full implementation and acceptance as a primary feature of plannign new or
renovated properties, with some sensible exemptions. I think we need to lead with
legislative outcomes.
Page 3
Utility Advisory Commission
) )
4. Utllltles Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
I have no experience with City utilities documetns other than the Feed in Tarrif
Ordinance for renewable solar energy installations.
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first
obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not
be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
J8J. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
information instead.
Address:
Cell Phone:
0 Home 1Doffice Phone:
E-mail:
Signature: ___ Q.....-tt�-tt�----�-_.__ ____________ oate: July 2a, 201s
Page4
Utility Advisory Commission
) )
JAMES E. BAER
A LIFE SERVING NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
) )
1. Acterra, Action for a Healthy Planet: Advisory Board.
(oldest Palo Alto environmental organization -many shared projects).
2. American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley: Class V.
(twenty community leaders from Santa Clara County are appointed to this national
organization for one year for shared leadership and community enhancement
training programs. ALF is now in it's 20th year).
3. American Prairie Foundation: Initial Advisory Board.
(based in Bozeman Montana, CEO sought inspiration and funds from Silicon Valley
leaders. Yi dozen planning sessions in Montana. Now, with nearly 500,000 acres
naturally preserved for Bison and native animals).
4. American Red Cross, Palo Alto Chapter: Advisory Board.
(expanding outreach and consideration of facility needs and locations.)
5. Avenidas, Senior Care and Services: Board Member.
(active on Board for Senior Services and with a second facility in Mt. View.
6. Chamber of Commerce, Palo Alto: Board Member.
(as one of 4-5 most knowledgeable and most politically effective, Jim is often given
assignments.)
7. City of Palo Alto appointed member of committee to evaluate Stanford's General
Use Permit.
(advocate policies for Stanford areas controlled by Santa Clara County, not by Palo
Alto.)
8. City of Palo Alto School Board Audit Committee for Bond for Excellence: Board
Member
9. Downtown Environmental Action Project (DEAP): Founder, Board Member.
(Founder of highly publicized early efforts -recycling for all of Downtown.
Successful recruitment of 75% of Downtown businesses. Jim funded about $75,000
as the exclusive donor.)
10. Grand Boulevard Task Force: Advisory Board.
(Nationally recognized and nationally and locally funded public transit work on how
El Camino should be zoned and developed in San Mateo County and Santa Clara
County with transit and business nodes coordinated.)
11. Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford: Board Member.
(Stanford University Board to help guide and place students for public service
internships.)
12. Home Equity Loan Program for Seniors; Senior Coordinating Council: Board
Member.
(early legal Reverse Mortgage program funded by Hewlett and Packard foundations
that has raised $10M for Avenidas and allowed seniors to remain in their homes
with no family disputes. Jim helped with necessary California usury laws for HELPS
and recruited family lawyers to structure a safe program.)
13. Leadership Palo Alto: Board Member & Instructor.
(organization conducted monthly teaching sessions about Palo Alto organizations
and progressive policies and how to become strong community leaders. We
spawned many Council Members and other prominent leaders.)
14. Mid-Peninsula Support Network: Founder Board Member.
(this was the first Battered Women's consulting organization that soon provided a
local shelter in North Santa Clara County.)
,_ ) )
15. Oshman Family Jewish Community Center: Board Member.
(critical member of real estate and construction team for $300M project -and
remains on Board.)
16. Palo Alto Community Fund: Advisory Member.
(foundation that makes grants to Palo Alto community and non-profit organizations
with some counseling of organizations or volunteering for core features some
organizations.)
17. Palo Alto Housing Corporation: Board Member.
(Palo Alto's oldest affordable housing developer, operator and advocate for low
income housing. Jim often performed sophisticate legal tasks and helped negotiate
with some providers of housing under City mandate.)
18. Palo Altans for Government Effectiveness; Founder and Board Member.
(during period of high community policy divisiveness, PAGE held neighborhood
meetings and wrote articles and editorials for local newspapers.)
19. Project Victory: Board Member.
(Dispute Resolution activists and author of "The Great Turning".)
20. Peninsula Open Space Trust: Board Member
(Most successful private purchaser of coastal or forested land using easements or
protective covenants for 1000s of acres and, perhaps $500,000,000 raised for local
preservation. I was also pro bono attorney for a few projects)
21. Santa Clara County Community Foundation: Advisory Board
(One of the largest Foundations in California -joined with San Mateo County
Foundation and is now Silicon Valley Community Foundation. I helped with early
strategy and Palo Alto presence.)
22. Street Soldiers & Omega Boys' Club: Advisor.
(Dr. Joe Marshall now joined by Dr. Clarence Jones (MLK close friend and MLK's
personal lawyer and speech writer now author) provide a safe place for schooling,
dining and substitute parenting for seriously at risk gang youths -176 have now by
2012 completed college and 1000s have been saved from prison or death or
violence. What an honor to become a close friend and advisor to Dr. Marshall
and Dr. Jones.)
23. Wave One, Businesses Leading Environmental Change: Founder, Board Member.
(Small Businesses Leading Environmental Change founded by Jim in 2007 to enlist
and certify over 100 business in Downtown Palo Alto to comply with County and
other energy use and environmental standards. Jim has funded this organization
with over $300,000 as its exclusive donor.)
24. Women in Transition: Founder, Board Member.
(Executive Director, Celeste Brody, DeAnza faculty, recruited Jim as pro bono
attorney & Board Member to help women recently divorced, relocating, or changing
jobs to find counseling, affordable housing and employment.)
25. Downtown Palo Alto Net Zero Energy: Founder and Advisor
', )
Honors:
1990: Business Environmental Award; Conservationist of the Year.
1991: Child Care Task Force Initial Honoree.
1991: City of Palo Alto Conservation Recognition.
2001: Canopy, Trees for Palo Alto Achievement Award.
)
2011: Tall Tree Lifetime Achievement Award as Outstanding Business Professional; Chamber of
Commerce, City of Palo Alto, and Palo Alto Weekly.
Teaching:
Adjunct Professor, Stanford Law School: 2004, 2005, 2007 Real Estate Transactions
Lecturer, Stanford University 1972: The Hero In American Literature
Teacher, The Jewish Community Center 1980: The Jewish-American LiteraryHero
City Clerk's Office
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PALO ALTO
LAND USE CONSULTING
Re: Application for Utilities Advisory Commission
To Whom It May Concern:
I did not know how to sign the document electroncially so I provide this readable
version with an original signature by me.
In this period of my partial retirement, I have ample time to be a full participant on
the Commission and can plan future travels that will not include the first
Wednesday of a month. However, I have vacations planned with family that will
have we out of town the first Wednesday of September (US Open in New York)
and the first Wednesday of November (India). Thereafter, I will plan my schedule to
leave the first Wednesday of a month available for the Commission.
Thank you for considering my application.
Sincerely yours,
555 Bryant Street, Box 348, Palo Alto, CA 94301 I CELL: 650.814.7709
jimbaer@paloaltoland.com I www.paloaltoland.com
Employment
Present or Last Employer:
Occupation:
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission
Bloom Energy
Vice President, System Engineering
- Serving ECE (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) advisory board for
Rutgers University
- Participate in volunteer activities at my son's school, Duveneck Elementary.
I have a life-long passion for working to find ways to achieve the highest possible
efficiency in power (generation and usage), water, heating and transportation.
Early in my life, these activities were focused on my activities aboard ship and while
standing watch in the engineering spaces aboard the USS Florida. Later in my life, I
have had the opportunity to focus my career on development of highly efficient
distributed generators.
I recognize that for anyone making a set of utility decisions involves an extremely
complex set of decisions. Among the complexities, I realize that there is challenges with
selecting among several potentially impactful options -- and also the importance of
continuing a strategy long enough to achieve meaningful results.
Because I have had the opportunity to work on utilities at many scales (multi-megawatt
scale in the Navy; multi-kilowatt to megawatt scale in recent years in engineering
development; and kilowatt scale with my family at home), I believe my background sets
me up to contribute to the efforts of Utilities Advisory Commission.
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK.
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?
Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission
I am extremely interested in the electrification initiative being pursued by the
Commission.
Shifting point-of-use applications to electric equipment clearly places Palo Alto in a
position where the highest possible methods of generation can be brought to bear.
At the same time, I can certainly see the challenges with achieving this objective. When
considering the energy budget of a typical household, electrification of vehicles changes
a huge portion. Yet, I can also appreciate the infrastructure strain, local load pocket
issues and time-of-use considerations among other complexities must be carefully
considered.
My specific goals in serving the Commission and Palo Alto would be to do my best to
ensure that sufficient information is always available to recommend Commission
strategies and choices to overcome challenges.
I have come to appreciate that often when considering complex challenges such as
utility optimization, it is an over-simplification to assume that very careful attention has
not already been paid to important considerations.
I work hard in all of my activities to ensure that information is shared and presented in
ways which allow everyone to participate in decisions.
Page 1
Utility Advisory Commission
Personal Information
Name: Louis (Lou) J. Borrego
Address:
Cell Phone:
_X_ Home / _x_ Office Phone: Home: Office:
E-mail:
Are you a Palo Alto Resident? _X_ Yes __ No
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes _X_ No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? _X_ Yes __ No
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.
Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to;
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes _X_ No
Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes _X_ No
How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission?
_X_ Community Group
_X_ Email from City Clerk
__ Palo Alto Weekly
__ Daily Post
__ City Website
__ Flyer
Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration:
Education: MBA courses completed, Santa Cara University
Bachelors of Science- San Jose State University
High School – Palo Alto Senior High School
Work Experience: Over 40 years experience in proposing to the US Government and negotiating
resulting contracts.
Page 2
Utility Advisory Commission
Employment
Present or Last Employer: Lockheed Martin Advance Technology Center (Palo Alto, Ca.)
Occupation: Contracts Negotiator, Staff
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Participated in the Ventura Association neighborhood organization in 1970, 1980 AND 1990.
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? The ability to identify problems and suggest ways to correct them with the community in mind. I feel that the use of utilities as a whole is not very clear to many residence of the city and more time should be taken to explain the way the City is bandling the utilities . A lot can be done with meetings in various locations in the city and with flyers. As we are all aware, the cost of utilities is dear to all of us.
Page 3
Utility Advisory Commission
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a
Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK.
Unable to open LINK.
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I think the Palo Alto Utilities organization should be more transparent to the residents of the city. The residence city as a whole has suspensions of how utilities used are measured and the resulting charge for there use.
Page 4
Utility Advisory Commission
4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not
be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
_x_ I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
information instead.
Address:
Cell Phone: 650-776-6142
Home I Office Phone:
E-mail: ljborrego1@comcast.net
Signatu� Date: _7/30/15 ____ _
Page5
Utility Advisory Commission
) )
Personal Information
Name: Ramarao Digumarthi
ClJY OF Pf\lO l\IJO. CA enY CLERK'S OPFlCE
Address: 3744 starr king circle, Palo Alto, ca
Cell Phone: 650-796-1039 15JUL 28 PH 3: 52
[8]Home 10omce Phone: 650-424-1304
E-mail: Rdigumarthi@yahoo.com
Are you a Palo Alto Resident?l8]Yes0No
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City 9f.Ji'alo �. who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes�No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? Ovesl8J No
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of
their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.
Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in
Palo Alto which you believe is likely to;
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?OYeslE!No
Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yes[81No
How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission?
Ocommunity Group Ooaily Post
0Email from City Clerk Deity Website
0Palo Alto Weekly 0Flyer
Other: From a Friend
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional
registration:
I have PhD from Aero/Astro Dept. of Stanford University. I have worked in Power
generation industry, and successfully supported the development, performance
evaluation and bringing to market of a novel concept of improving gas turbine based
power production. I also worked in renewable energy industry in to understand and
model the wind turbine performance and design.
Page 1
Utility Advisory Commission
)
Employment
Present or Last Employer: Lockheed Martin ( last employer)
Occupation: Sr. Staff Engineer
)
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
I am active member of local AYSO organization. I am also member of local PTA of both
of my children schools (GUNN High and Fairmeadow Elementary). I am also a member
of Amnesty international.
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
I am interested electrical and water resources utilization. My interest is in improving
efficiency of use and production electrical energy. As a long term Palo Alto resident, I am
always interested in utility cost from customer point of view to purchase renewable
electrical power. With my back ground in power generation (both gas based and
renewable), I would be very much interested in long term electrical purchase (in the
current drought) and utilization.
Page2
Utility Advisory Commission
) )
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archive here: LINK.
Cost-effectiveness of electrification is interesting presentation.
Presentation is basically increasing the electrical power utilization efficiency with point of
view of non-changing carbon foot point. It is good if all electrical generation is of zero
carbon foot-print, but most of the electrical generation is not renewable and it would be
interesting to explore reduction of the carbon foot-print with increasing utilization of
renewable energy. This point i� well explained by Commissioner Eglash comments. I
agree with his comments. I would like to explore reduction of carbon foot-print in terms of
societal effect of city's electrification concept.
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission
achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?
I would like to see UAC work towards customer friendly negative carbon foot-print. Being
locally carbon neutral is good, the impact of it on the rest of the society also need to be
taken into effect. The effect of carbon neutral stand on twenty four hour basis need to be
evaluated ,i.e., the effect of peak utilization of electrical utilization and its effect on total
carbon foot print.
Page3
Utility Advisory Commission
,JI, ··i. )
4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
I have not read any of these reports and will read them if I am appointed to serve on the
commission.
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first
obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
J8L I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
.0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
information instead.
Address:
Cell Phone:
0 Home 1Qoffice Phone:
E-mail:
Page4
Utility Advisory Commission
Employment
Present or Last Employer: SBWMA aka RethinkWaste
Occupation: Contracts Manager
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
As a founding member of Palo Alto Green Energy, I have been active in the effort to
promote the anaerobic digestion of food waste at the Palo Alto waste water treatment
facility. I was an appointed member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force that explored use of
the City's composing facility, the land at Bixby Park, and the POTW for managing the
City's own organic materials and participated in producing a report that has been used in
the current waste water treatment plant planning.
I am an active member of Acterra located in Palo Alto and have participated in the
Business Environmental Awards Network (BEN) and a GIS mapping project San
Francisquito Creek.
I have lived in Palo Alto since 1991 and and civic minded and engaged in the
community.
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
The PAUAC has the role providing advice on the use of funds to provide electric, gas and water services in
a way that provides good value for the rate payer and for the protection of the environment. As an
environmental engineer, I perform this same role on a daily basis in my current employment for the South
Bay Waste Management Authority, a JPA composed of 12 cities directly north of Palo Alto in San Mateo
County where am seek to provide municipalities the planning, administration and rate setting support for of
the solid waste/recycling services all while ensuring that the public funds as spent efficiently to maximize
convenience and environmental benefit.
Additionally, over the past 9 years in my position I have had hands-on experience managed several large
projects including:
-the $55M demolition and construction of new solid waste handling infrastructure and buildings.
-the installation of one of the peninsula's largest PV systems (750 kW),
-design and installation of a 10,000 gallon rainwater harvest tank and garden,
-consideration of a $2M battery/energy storage system to shift electrical load,
-installation of a $200K LED lighting retrofit project, analysis
-planning for conversion of a 100 truck fleet and 1 M gallon per year diesel fuel station to CNG.
-and,I a current project involves developing a project to convert the Agency's organic waste stream into
energy using anaerobic digestion technology. This $30M project will boost the diversion from current of
50% to one of the highest in California and beyond the State's 75% waste diversion goal.
I believer that my current work and interest in environmental conservation lends itself to provide assistance
and advice to the goals of the Palo Alto Utilities.
Page2
Utility Advisory Commission
Personal Information
Name: Timothy Gray
Address:4173 Park Blvd.
Cell Phone: 650 493-3000
l8J Home 1Doffice Phone: 650 858-2738
E-mail: Timothygray@sbcglobal.net
Are you a Palo Alto Resident?i8]Yes0 No
GllY OF fDALO Al.JO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
15 HAR -2 AH Ill: 34
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢.li>alo �. who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes�No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?IE}YesONo
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of
their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.
Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in
Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; ·
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8JNo
Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yesl&!No
How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission'?
0community Group
0 Email from City Clerk
0 Palo Alto Weekly
0Daily Post
OcityWebsite
0Flyer
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional
registration:
Certified Public Accountant, Consultant to Large Companies throughout the nation, avid interest in Environmental impact of
community energy policies, customer of Palo Alto Natural Gas Vehicle station, Palo Alto Home Owner, and Participant in Palo Alto
Green.
Page 1
Utility Advisory Commission
Employment
Present or Last Employer: Treasury Advocates, Self Employed,
Occupation: Consultant to San Mateo Medical Center and other hospitals.
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
Active advocate of fairness, transparency, and integrity in local government.
Frequent speaker at City Council Meetings.
Former candidate for Palo Alto City Council.
Palo Alto Utilities customer for 20 years.
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
I am interested in pursuing and maintaining zero emission in the least costly basis.
I am interested in being an advocate for the residential customers. This would include
making sure that all transactions between the Utilities Enterprise and the Palo Alto
General Fund are fairly reflected in arm-length transactions, are transparent, and fairly
reflect the economics of the transactions.
As a former journalist, I have experience in communicating information of community
interest.
As a Corporate finance leader, I am practiced in communicating complex economic
transactions in sim le and understandable terms that deliver a common understandin
to stake-holders with all levels of experience.
My corporate career has been dedicated to promoting a customer-focus approach to
service in all areas of professional performance.
Page2
Utility Advisory Commission
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archive here: LINK.
The conversion of Palo Green into a new way to engage citizens in purchasing green
energy and generally speaking, opportunities to purchase carbon offsets.
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission
achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?
I would like to prove and communicate to the Utility customers that they are receiving
the lowest rates possible as a result of innovative and efficient operations of the Utility
Enterprise.
I would be very interested in finding the economic balance that would allow the City to
move forward with undergrounding utility lines, and to promote the roll-out of greater
access to the fiber-optics network in an economically responsible way.
Advocate for efficient Utility operations to preserve local ownership of the Utilities, and to
deliver an "ownership dividend" to residential and corporate customers.
To the extent possible, I would advocate for policies that increased solar and promoted
alternative energy sources, within reasonable economic contraints. I would champion
co · · to within very pragmatic
parameters.
Page3
Utility Advisory Commission
4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
I have general awareness of these concepts, but have not studied or had experience
with these plans.
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first
obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not
be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
JEI. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
. . .
Address:
Cell Phone:
0Home 100ffice Phone:
E-mail:
Page4
Utility Advisory Commission
Personal Information
Name:
Address:
Cell Phone:
__ Home / __ Office Phone:
E-mail:
Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.
Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to;
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No
Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No
How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission?
__ Community Group
__ Email from City Clerk
__ Palo Alto Weekly
__ Daily Post
__ City Website
__ Flyer
Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional
registration:
Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission
Employment
Present or Last Employer:
Occupation:
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK.
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?
Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission
4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk.
OR
I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead.
Address:
Cell Phone:
__ Home / __ Office Phone:
E-mail:
Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _____________
Page 4 Utility Advisory Commission
Personal Information
Name: Mark Harris
Address: 1417 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cell Phone: 650 327-7066
IZJ Home 10ornce Phone:
E-mail:
Are you a Palo Alto Resident?�YesO No
15 JUL 29 PM 3: 39
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢..fi>alo �, who
are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?LJYes�No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? 18Jves0No
California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of
their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.
Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in
Palo Alto which you believe is likely to;
1) engage in business with the City,
2) provide products or services for City projects, or
3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yes!Z!No
Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?OYeslZJNo
How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission?
Ocommunity Group O oaily Post ll!Email from City Clerk OcityWebsite
D Palo Alto Weekly D Flyer
Other: Utilities staff member. We discussed water rates and he encouraged me to apply.
List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional
registration:
Page 1
Utility Advisory Commission
Employment
Present or Last Employer: Sequoia Union HSD. Woodside High School -retired
Occupation: Math Teacher
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
I have been initmately involved with Kara, a premier grief support organization located in
Palo Alto since 1980. I served on the board of directors from 1993-2008 and served as
secretary, treasurer and president. I am currently chair of the advisory committee.
I have been a member of the Palo Alto Mediation Program since 2001 and served as
co-chair. I am currently an emeritus member.
I am a dues paying member of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association. As a
family, we contribute time and money to such organizations as the Palo Alto Community
Fund, the Peninsula Open Space Trust, the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula and
the Junior League. I have also served on the Duveneck Site Council and as a cub scout
den leader.
My most recent Civic involvement was as a Commissioner for the City's Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Commission from 2010-2012. I served as chair of the Finance Committee
and co-chair of the Public Safety Working Group.
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
One of the unique and outstanding aspects of our Community (among many!) is that we
own and operate our municipal utilities. I was very fortunate to work for the City of Palo
Alto for 14 years, 11 of which were in the Utilities Department and subsequently as
Utilities Director for the City of Mountain View for 5 years. I was directly involved in most
of the issues facing Utilities today and was part of initiating many of the current efforts.
I would like to be part of the effort to enhance an already outstanding operation to
continue to demonstrate how local control can create high value, responsive, critical
services in a very business like manner. I have always found Utilities issues significant
and compelling and very consistent with my environmental, engineering and business
background. I have the time, energy and experience to be a contributing member of the
Utilities Advisory Commission and would be honored to serve.
Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archive here: LINK.
This is a difficult question because there are many that I am interested in. However, the
most current issue of interest to me was the item discussed at the June meeting
regarding proposed water rates for 2015. The issue, as it became public in a
subsequent late June mailer to all Utilities customers, was presented in a very complex,
confusing and incomplete matter. The issue of water rates under the current drought
situation is one of a myriad of issues including financial integrity of the Water Enterprise,
supply reliability and community response to the drought. This is of particular interest
not only to me, but the entire community. I really felt the information should have been
presented better and the rate issue could have been dealt with in a less convoluted
manner.
I can discuss further if invited to interview for a Commission appointment. I want to
emphasize that the drought, related actions and rate implications are very sensitive
issues. It is important that the City show leadership and clarity on how it will address the
drought. I appreciate the fact that the City has mandated only a few very practical and
reasonable water use restrictions and lets its customers figure out other measures to
meet our reduction goals. However, I feel to maintain confidence in the City's
leadership, that all aspects must be clear. A better job could have been done regarding
rates and after talking with staff they tended to agree. Here is an area where I feel I cano
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission
achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?
In looking over the Utilities Strategic Plan, there are a multitude of goals for the City,
Commission and staff to address.
Several goals that are of particular interest to me. One area is water -its reliability, cost,
quality and both short and long term supplies. I am interested in deployment of
reclaimed work. Having worked with it more than 30 years, I am concerned that it has
not been utilitized more to date, in spite of several major intervening drought cycles.
Secondly, I recall that a few years ago we had a major Citywide electricity outgage due
to a plane crashing into our one transmission line. There was considerable discussion
regarding construction or procurement of an additional feed. I have not heard much
information on it recently, but would like to be assured that it has been addressed or see
this item resolved.
To assist in making progress on these and other issues, as a new commissioner I would
start by finding out from the Commission's Chair what specific goals have the highest
priority to the City as directed by the City Council. It would then be up to me to come up
to speed on these issues through discussions with other commissioners and the staff. If
there is goal or two that I have a particular interest in or experience with, I could play a
lead role in that area when asked by the chair. To assure progress, these items should
have agenda time at each Commission meeting.
Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission
4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
I have perused these documents. Suffice it to say, they are complex and filled with
substantial information which will take some time and study to fully understand so that I
can provide meaningful input as a commissioner.
I reviewed parts of these in the past but the ones I have the most familiarity with are the
Utilities Strategic Plan and the Urban Water Management Plan. These are documents I
actualy .worked with, although in a less comprehensive and sophisticated form, when I
was part of City of Palo Alto staff and the Utilities Director in Mountain View.
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first
obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
.t!J. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
information instead.
Address:
Cell Phone:
0 Home 1Doffice Phone:
E-mail:
Signature: __ !)&/. ______ · _. ___ K_ . .___�.,,,,....· ........ 11_.-_____ Date: _7-_29_-2_01_5 _
Page4 Utility Advisory Commission
)
1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why?
I view this as an opportµnity to contribute to my local community integrating conservation,
community, culture and commerce in developing sustainable practice
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archive here: LINK.
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission
achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this?
Implementing elements of lean management that integrates set of activities designed to achieve re;3sonable
waste reduction and energy conservation using minimal resources and funds
Consolidating commission commitment to empowerment, education, and environmental awareness programs,
4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
. The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission
)
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first
obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not
be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR ® I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
information instead.
Address: Palo Alto resident
Cell Phone: n/a 0 Home I 0 Office Phone:
E-mail:
Signature: Date:
Page3
Utility Advisory Commission
Employment
Present or Last Employer: £ l e&�v � c. �w e. R e?e� J:�74-! t ..J-..e.) Co 10u.3.taS
Occupation: A€/;,� f "'-1i"'-e.W'-' a-ul '1-rril,le� P��r'c.,.+
Describe your involvement In community activities, volunteer and civic organizations:
µ,� 0 W'" ew;L ? \.wl."" '4" � i e �
r' i<Uv ., J 'f N wf �o lLo cV \ (;7' } l l 'I � (}
1. What Is It about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific Interest to you, and why? fV\ \t- � l� I"� s> �., v.-L U &-e. w � � l;,.
5-o-c.� � Q_ll\.-e.VI.'(� � . .e-le.&-t.-.'c. ·l� vJ.tftv
ewtrk.zJ,, � sa.ie.3:�-cu.Jh.i/e.� �eeka-0� .. .., �
J.ewi.c:;,1'' c, � i'vt:fe,�4F� ��
Page2 I l!lllht Artvle>nn• r.nmmi<><>inn
\
2. Please describe an Issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular Interest to you an� describe_why _you are Interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
4. Utllltles Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
11 documents Is not required for selection.
Employment
Present or Last Employer: General Electric Company
occupation: Managing Director, GE Ventures
Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am on the advisory board for several different organizations. I have been on the
Advisory Board of the Cleantech Open since the organization was founded in 2005. It is
a non-profit organization with the mission of supporting energy innovation and
entrepreneurship. In addition to helping provide Board level advice on strategy and
planning, I have been an active mentor for the community and judge for their
competitions.
In addition, I am on the Advisory Board for the University of British Columbia where I act
as an advisor for the Dean of Applied Science (Engineering and Nursing) on strategic
plan and initiatives. I am also a Charter Member of the C100 which supports Canadian
entrepreneurs with mentoring and networking in the bay area and helps build a bridge
between start-up companies in Canada and the bay area.
Finally, I have two daughters (ages 8, 12) attending local schools in Palo Alto and I
volunteer at their schools.
1. What Is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and
of specific interest to you, and why? I am interested in serving on the Utilities Advisory Commission because it has the ability
to meaningfully impact the residents and businesses of Palo Alto and the broader
community. Management and development of energy and water resources are
important issues and I would like to support my local community develop and execute
plans.
I bring significant relevant experience across a number of dimensions. I have expertise
in a broad array of energy and water technologies through my background in
engineering and my investing experience focused on energy and industrial technology. I
also have significant experience with communications infrastructure and technologies as
both a working engineer and start-up technology executive. Finally, I have deep
experience with planning and operations as a management consultant, start-up
executive, and start-up investor and board member.
Page2
Utility Advisory Commission
2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest
to you and describe why you are interested In It. If you have never been to a Commission meeting
you can view an archive here: LINK
The UAC addresses important issues that are of interest to me. One recent example is
the cost-effectiveness of electrification options for appliances and passenger vehicles in
single family residential homes. This is a great example of some of the key questions
around energy -how can we minimize our environmental impact while still maintaining
reliable and economic options for our residents. The issue also requires decision
making while future technology options (e.g. role of energy storage to firm renewables)
are still unknown. As a result, this issue is very important to both our individual residents
and our broader global community. In addressing these kinds of issues, Palo Alto has shown its willingness and capability to lead on finding a path to low-impact
environmental energy options while making sure that our energy supply remains secure
and cost-effective.
The UAC also has a very unusual charter and addresses a very wide spectrum of topics.
I am also very interested in the Fiber-to-the-premise initiative. In addition to my
background in energy technology, I also have deep background in optical
communications. The proliferation of high bandwidth communications infrastructure has
really transformed our economy and extending the capability to the premise has the
potential to be similarly disruptive. However, it is critical that new services are provided
in a manner that is fair and equitable to all residents and does not inadvertently
disadvantage residents with lower resources.
3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission
achieve, and why? How would you accomplishing this? If appointed, I would like to see the
Continue to lead on clean energy goals while maintaining energy stability and cost
effectiveness
• Prioritize resource efficiency and explore new opportunities in smart infrastructure
Maintain focus on ensuring that residents are treated equally and policies do not
inadvertently penalize less advantaged residents.
To achieve these goals, I would speak with current Commissioners and staff to
understand current priorities and plans and would then work in partnership with them
(and city council as appropriate) to set appropriate priorities and execution plan for new
initiatives.
Page3
Utility Advisory Commission
4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have
experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these
documents is not required for selection.
The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK
The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK
The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK
Urban Water Management Plan LINK
Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan
Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK
I do not have direct experience with any of these documents
Consent to on the of Palo Alto Website
California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the
home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first
obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website.
The full code can be read here: LINK
Read the code, and check only ONE option below:
.Q I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact I have read and understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo
Alto City Clerk.
OR
.t!l I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address
from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am
providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact
information instead.
Address:
Cell Phone:
0Home 10office Phone: .
E-mail: marianne.wu@gmail.com
Signature: Date: 7 /30/2015
Page4
Utility Advisory Commission
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6013)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Amendment 2 to Metropolitan Group Contract
Title: Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract C14153012 with
Metropolitan Planning Group for Support of Planning Review of Individual
Review and Architectural Review Applications Due to Increased Workload
and Unanticipated Staff Vacancies, Increasing the Contract by $350,000 for a
Not to Exceed Amount of $500,000 over a Three Year Period
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve
Amendment Number 2 to Contract C14153012 with Metropolitan Planning Group to support
Planning review of Individual Review and Architectural Review Applications, increasing the
contract limit by $350,000 to an amount not to exceed $500,000 over a three year period, and
simultaneously terminating three other Planning On-Call Contracts totaling $156,000.
Executive Summary
The Planning and Community Environment Department (PCE) routinely uses consultants to
secure specific expertise and to help when the number of applications received creates an
unusual volume of work or staff vacancies are such that assistance is required. The
Metropolitan Planning Group has been providing these services and their contract will soon be
exhausted if not amended. Simultaneously, staff proposes to terminate three other “on call”
contracts which are not being utilized.
The department’s workload tends to fluctuate seasonally and is currently at the high point of
the year. If the seasonal peak subsides as anticipated, there will be sufficient funding for this
contract increase within the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) department’s Fiscal
Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget. Should the need for consultant support remain high or
increase, the Department may need to return to Council to request additional funding.
Background & Discussion
PCE has historically maintained contracts with several consultants to provide various on-call
City of Palo Alto Page 2
planning services. In recent years, the department has relied on on-call service providers to
work on special projects requiring particular areas of expertise or to address increases in
workload, particularly as development activity increased.
Following a competitive solicitation and selection process, Council approved five on-call
environmental and four on-call planning consulting contracts in February, 2014 (Staff Report
4018). These contracts are for a three year period of time, expiring February, 2017. The on-call
planning consultation contracts are with: Arnold Mammarella, Architecture and Consulting; The
Planning Center/DCE; Dudek; and Metropolitan Planning Group.
On-call planning consultants are used as project managers to manage applications for planning
entitlements or as independent technical consultants. Although the contracts are for a period
of three years, the department took a cautious approach, limiting contract capacity to modest
amounts and carefully increasing them as necessary. This provided the department an
opportunity to see which consultant would work best with current workload needs without
overextending the City’s contracts. When consultant assistance is needed, consultants are
chosen from the contracted group based upon their experience, specific expertise, availability,
and cost per activity or project. Based upon activity, the Metropolitan Planning Group contract
was amended to a capacity of $150,000 (Staff Report 5478). Since the City’s planning
department is still not fully staffed and the robust economic climate continues, the department
is experiencing a greater need for consultant support with projects for which Metropolitan
Planning Group is best suited.
Two of the environmental on-call contracts and one of the planning on-call contracts have not
been used. The department has not had need of their expertise and does not anticipate
additional need in the foreseeable future. The total of these contracts is $156,000. The
department will terminate these contracts and reallocate available funding to the revised
contract with Metropolitan Planning Group.
Based on the types of work and the consultant’s experience in these areas, the Metropolitan
Planning Group is most suited to provide the support needed by the department at this time.
Due to increased development activity and unanticipated staff shortages, the department
needs additional Metropolitan Planning Group contract support immediately. The amount of
assistance needed will exceed the contract limit unless this contract is amended. Staff requests
Council’s authorization to amend the contract accordingly.
Resource Impact
With the addition of $350,000 to the Metropolitan Planning Group contract and the
termination of $156,000 worth of on-call contracts as described above, the net impact in
contract support is $194,000. Since workload shifts seasonally, staff anticipates that the
workload is currently at its seasonal peak and will subside such that sufficient funding for this
contract increase is available within the Planning and Community Environment department’s
Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget. Should the need for consultant support remain
City of Palo Alto Page 3
high or increase, the department may return to Council to request additional funding.
Attachments:
Attachment A: MGroup Contract Amendment 2 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
2 of 3 Revision April 28, 2014
SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Amendment on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP,
INC.
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION
DocuSign Envelope ID: 48AD16C5-6F88-4430-AE3B-7033AE0F746A
PRESIDENT
3 of 3 Revision April 28, 2014
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule
attached as Exhibit C-1.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$500,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment
would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall
be at no cost to the CITY.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.
Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional
services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in
writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the
services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 48AD16C5-6F88-4430-AE3B-7033AE0F746A
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6004)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Proposed Improvements
Title: Review and Approval of Concept Plan Line Alignments for Proposed
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the Concept Plan Line alignments
for the Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects as shown in Attachment A.
Executive Summary
Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way are classified as existing Bicycle Boulevards within the Palo Alto
Bicycle and Transportation Plan 2012. Together, these two streets comprise an essential
north/south corridor between El Camino Real and Alma Street, providing connections to
downtown Palo Alto, Stanford University, Palo Alto High School, the California Avenue Business
District, and Mountain View. The Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way proposed enhancements will
provide continuous, low-stress on-street bikeways with travel time and safety improvements to
support healthy transportation. The Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way concept plans include short
segments on Stanford Avenue, James Road, and Maclane Street for bikeway network
connectivity.
The proposed corridor improvements incorporate focused bicycle enhancements and traffic
calming measures to reduce auto speeds, as well as stop sign removal, repaving, and
improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. Additionally,
the proposed project includes enhanced crosswalks and curb extensions to improve the
pedestrian environment along the corridor. The existing tree canopy combined with new
landscaping will promote shade and reduce heat island effects for comfortable walking,
running, and bicycling opportunities.
This project is currently funded through the Concept Plan Line stage with the intention of
identifying preferred treatment options and placements. The Concept Plan Line serves as the
basis for the Environmental Assessment and Design Phase, helping to determine the level of
City of Palo Alto Page 2
effort for a contract to complete this additional work, which is a prerequisite to construction.
Fehr & Peers is the lead consultant team for this project.
Background
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012
The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) 2012 includes a Proposed Bikeway
Network of multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards, enhanced bikeway facilities, bicycle lane
facilities, and bicycle routes. The BPTP also includes a list of priority projects that should be
considered for implementation to help prioritize local and regional funding. The plan has
stated goals of increasing bicycle traffic for local and total work commutes by 100% by 2020 by
providing improved facilities for bicyclists along the proposed bikeway network, which
facilitates both north-south and east-west connectivity throughout Palo Alto. A copy of the
Proposed Bikeway Network is provided in Attachment B.
Implementation of the BPTP started in 2013 with the City Council authorizing up to $1.2M per
year over five years as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to help implement the
plan. With this commitment of funds, 21 projects are currently being studied and designed for
implementation, including the Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects,
which were initiated in 2014. This report summarizes the recommended improvements to the
Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way corridors. A City Council study session is scheduled for October
to allow for an overall update/discussion of current bicycle projects and BPTP implementation.
Bicycle Boulevard Purpose and Benefits
The City pioneered the creation of the first “bicycle boulevard” – turning Bryant Street, a
residential street, into a street that prioritized bicycle safety and circulation in 1982. The
Comprehensive Plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a “low volume through-street where
bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are
minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and other
impediments to bicycle travel. The removal of stop signs is especially important in Palo Alto,
due to the large number of stop signs on local and collector streets.”
Key characteristics that make Bicycle Boulevards attractive and safer for people who bicycle
are:
• Low traffic volumes
• Low vehicle speeds
• Discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic
• Free-flow travel for people on bicycles by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle
boulevard at intersections wherever possible
• Traffic control to help bicycles cross major streets
One important feature of bicycle boulevards that greatly improves cycling efficiency is the
reduction in the number of stop signs; this measure improves travel time and reduces fatigue.
Reducing cyclist fatigue increases the feasible length of a trip by bicycle, and is especially
City of Palo Alto Page 3
important to people who are hauling trailers, carrying children, groceries, and so forth, thereby
encouraging more trips by bicycle.
Discussion
Approval of Concept Plan Lines is the first step in the design phase of a project. A Concept Plan
Line identifies the type and approximate location of civil improvements but excludes focused
design details such as hardscape and landscape measures. The Concept Plan Line identifies the
locations of civil improvements that influence the amount of review required for California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance.
Development of a Concept Plan Line normally takes three to four community meetings to help
shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Focused traffic
data collection is also included as part of the Concept Plan Line development and the results are
shared with the community as part of the community outreach process. Following approval of
the Concept Plan Line by the City Council, staff will complete the Environmental Assessment
under the current contract.
A contract amendment is required prior to Final Design. Final Design includes up to two
community outreach meetings to show how the previous planning work and community
feedback has resulted in the various elements included with the project. Final Design concludes
with completion of construction plans, engineer’s cost estimate, and a bid package to enable
construction once a funding decision has been made. As noted in the Resource section below,
the City has included funding in its Capital Improvement Plan for bike plan implementation, and
these funds could be used to support the Park Boulevard/Wilkie Way project if grant funds are
not available.
In 2012, the City and Stanford University submitted a joint application including the Park Bicycle
Boulevard project to the County of Santa Clara for funding from a Stanford Mitigation Fund set
up to spend $10.4 million to mitigate impacts on public recreational facilities due to Stanford
University’s expansion permitted by the 2000 General Use Permit. The Park Bicycle Boulevard
project was not awarded funding. In 2015, the County of Santa Clara is anticipated to allocate
$4.5 million in newly available funds in the Stanford Mitigation Fund.
Community outreach and participation has been instrumental to concept plan development
since the initiation of the Wilkie Way and Park Boulevard projects, including Farmer’s Market
outreach on California Ave in April and May 2014, a Bike-Along tour in April 2014, community
meetings in June 2014, October 2014, and March 2015, and presentations at Palo Alto
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) meetings. Sample outreach materials are
enclosed as Attachment C.
Traffic data collection for the Park and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard projects was
completed May 13 – 27, 2014, using video cameras to track bicycle and pedestrian demand
and mechanical tube counters to collect automobile speed and volume data. Highlights of
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the traffic counts and speed data are shown in Table 1 below. Park Boulevard has
surpassed Bryant Street as the City’s most traveled bicycle route . Pedestrian
counts are highest near California Avenue Caltrain Station.
Table 1
Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Speed
Segment Average Daily Traffic 85th Percentile Speed
Bicycle Ped Auto Auto
Park Blvd/Cambridge Avenue 1804 533 n/a n/a
Park Blvd/Sherman Avenue 1547 1185 2000 30
Park Blvd/north of Meadow 652 273 1129 30
Park Blvd/south of Meadow 310 159 264 31
Wilkie Way/north of Meadow 474 175 n/a n/a
Wilkie Way/Tennessee Lane 732 197 1403 29
James Rd/east of El Camino Way 373 277 n/a n/a
Miller Avenue/Monroe Park 433 204 766 n/a
Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2014
The following is a summary of the recommended improvements to the Park Boulevard and
Wilkie Way corridors by segment. This narrative is supported by the Park Boulevard and Wilkie
Way Concept Plans, enclosed as Attachment A.
Park Boulevard Proposed Improvements by Segment
Castilleja Avenue to California Avenue
This section of Park Boulevard has existing bicycle lanes. Motor vehicle traffic is blocked
through a partial street closure on Park Boulevard between Oxford Avenue and College Avenue
and full street closures on College Avenue at Park and on Castilleja Avenue at Park Boulevard.
Enhancement of the existing full closure at Castilleja Avenue will make use of existing roadway
space to provide enhanced landscaping and pathway features adjacent to Peers Park and
further discourage vehicles from using this route to access Castilleja Avenue. Wider bicycle
entrances to the Park/Castilleja connection and at the partial street closure near Oxford Avenue
will better serve cyclists with trailers. At Park Boulevard and Stanford Avenue, removal of the
all-way stop and installation of a landscaped traffic circle with all-way yield control will improve
travel time and reduce rider fatigue. The existing concrete median islands near Oxford Avenue
will be reconstructed. A curb extension at Cambridge Avenue will provide an additional marked
crossing location for neighborhood pedestrians. A high visibility bicycle lane adjacent to the
Mollie Stone loading zone will reduce conflicts with trucks. Redesign of the gates on the
California Avenue undercrossing connecting to Park Boulevard will permit passage for bicycles
towing trailers, tandem bicycles, and tricycles.
Stanford Avenue: El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
City of Palo Alto Page 5
During the City’s Safe Routes to Schools assessments, participants identified a need for
improvements to Stanford Avenue and James Road, which provide key connections to the Park
and Wilkie Bicycle Boulevards. Stanford Avenue and James Road were included in the Bike-
Along Tour and concept plan development process. A Stanford Avenue concept is included in
this proposal which requires additional community input to refine and finalize. Staff will
conduct outreach in late September and October once school is back in session.
California Avenue to Lambert Avenue
South of California Avenue, Park Boulevard has bicycle lanes up to Lambert Avenue. Motor
vehicle volumes and parking occupancy and turnover are higher in this segment due to the
more commercial nature. This project will improve Sherman Avenue crosswalks to provide a
consistent look and feel with the new California Avenue crosswalks. A rapid flashing beacon and
raised crosswalk is recommended at Grant Avenue, where a recently approved project will
extend the curb. A high visibility crosswalk at Sheridan Avenue will serve walkers accessing
Caltrain. Between California Avenue and Page Mill Road, the bicycle lanes have already been
widened. High visibility green bicycle lane treatments have been implemented to help mitigate
the conflicts near Oregon Expressway. The bicycle lanes between Page Mill Road and Olive
Avenue are being widened by a project currently under construction. Prohibiting left turns from
Sheridan Ave to Park Boulevard is recommended to avoid sudden merges across the bicycle
lanes to access Oregon Expressway. Wider bicycle lanes are proposed between Olive Avenue to
Lambert Avenue for consistency and to reduce door zone conflicts. Curb extension is proposed
at Olive Avenue. A decorative pavement treatment and raised median with landscaping is
proposed at Lambert Avenue to support removal of stop signs at this intersection.
Lambert Avenue to Maclane Street
Bicycles lanes end at Lambert Avenue as Park Boulevard transitions to a calm, residential
neighborhood. A partial street closure stops southbound traffic at Chestnut Avenue and an
island with a bicycle pass through prohibits motor vehicle through traffic on Park at Margarita
Avenue. Wider bicycle entrances at Chestnut Avenue and Margarita Avenue will improve flow
for bicycles. Stop sign removal on Park Boulevard at Fernando Avenue will assign the right-of-
way to the Bicycle Boulevard and maintain the stop for Fernando Avenue.
Installation of speed tables on Park Boulevard between Matadero Avenue and Maclane Street
will calm traffic. Stop sign removal on Park Boulevard at Ventura Avenue will assign the right-of-
way to the Bicycle Boulevard and maintain the stop for Ventura Avenue. Removal of the
centerline stripe between Wilton Avenue and Maclane Street will calm traffic. Stop sign
removal on Park at Maclane Street will assign the right-of-way to the Bicycle Boulevard and
maintain the stop for Maclane Street.
Maclane Street connection to Wilkie Way
Installation of a landscaped median, removal of stop signs on Maclane at 2nd Street, and
addition of stop signs on 2nd Street will prioritize Maclane Street over the less traveled 2nd
Street, while requiring vehicles to travel at reduced speeds through the intersection.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
El Camino Real to Castilleja (new)
Staff recommends extension of the Park Bicycle Boulevard to El Camino Real to improve access
to Stanford University at Serra Street. Installation of a high visibility bicycle box to provide a
safe waiting space for cyclists at El Camino Real is the only improvement recommended for this
segment. Staff will conduct outreach on this proposed treatment in late September and
October once school is back in session in tandem with Stanford Avenue outreach.
Wilkie Way Proposed Improvements by Segment
Meadow Drive to W Charleston Road
Curb extensions at Meadow Drive will enhance the walking environment. Speed tables on
Wilkie Way between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will slow motor vehicle speeds and
support the removal of stop signs on Wilkie Way at James Road, Wilkie Court, and Carolina
Lane. New stop signs are proposed on minor streets Wilkie Court, James Road, and Carolina
Lane, in effect flipping the existing stop signs, to assign priority to the Bicycle Boulevard.
Landscaped medians and curb extensions will further calm traffic on Wilkie Way. At W.
Charleston Road, installation of high visibility bicycle boxes on Wilkie Way will reduce queuing
conflicts between turning motor vehicles and bicycles.
W Charleston Road to City of Palo Alto Limits
Installation of speed tables will calm traffic on Wilkie Way between Charleston Road and the
Wilkie Way Bridge to Miller Avenue. New stop signs are proposed on minor streets Duluth
Circle and Whitclem Drive to assign priority to the Bicycle Boulevard. A high visibility treatment
is proposed across Wilkie Way at the entrance to the bicycle and pedestrian bridge. Bollard
removal is proposed at the Wilkie Way end of the bridge to remove obstructions and reduce
conflicts between path users. On the south end of the bridge, the Bicycle Boulevard continues
on Miller Avenue to the City of Palo Alto limits, where it connects with a Mountain View bicycle
route. Landscaped medians are proposed on Miller Avenue at Monroe Drive and Miller Court to
reduce motor vehicle speeds on this wide street.
James Road to El Camino Way
James Road is an important bicycle route connecting Wilkie Way to El Camino Way and the
Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. Restriping of James Road at El Camino Way and removal of
four (4) parking spaces is proposed to reduce conflicts between turning motor vehicles and
bicycles. Restriping will create new 6’ lanes for bicyclists on the block leading up to the El
Camino Way and James Road intersection.
Community Review
Generally community feedback has been positive; however the following issues have been
identified:
Increasing traffic volumes near Cal Ave is changing character of Park Boulevard,
City of Palo Alto Page 7
resulting in a less comfortable environment for cyclists and walkers
Removal of stop signs may lead to increased speeds
Pedestrian bulb outs cause parking loss
Extend Park Bicycle Boulevard to El Camino Real.
Staff have integrated proposed improvements into the final concept plans to respond to these
comments, including: (1) additional speed tables from what was originally proposed to keep the
speeds lower; (2) additional crosswalks and a flashing beacon on Park Boulevard near Cal Ave;
and (3) proposing bulb outs at locations where vehicle parking should be restricted to improve
visibility at intersections. Staff will conduct one additional community meeting near Peers Park
to vet changes made since the last community meeting. This meeting will focus on the Stanford
Avenue segment and on the proposed Park Boulevard and El Camino Real intersection
treatment.
Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Review
Staff has brought proposed Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way improvements to the Palo Alto
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) for input several times. The projects were
most recently discussed at PABAC on August 4, 2015. Previous concept plan line iterations
were brought to PABAC just before or after community meetings. In general, PABAC members
provided their thoughts and comments on the treatments proposed, and provided input on
individual preferences of certain treatments. Numerous comments and suggestions from
PABAC were provided through the meetings. Some of the more significant comments for this
corridor include the following:
Drop high visibility green back sharrow from use network-wide. Reserve for site-specific
application at conflict zones
Assign right-of-way to Bicycle Boulevard as much as possible at intersections with low
volume streets
Widen entries and exits from landscaped street closures to accommodate bicycles
Improve visibility at intersections with red curb installation and small-scale parking
removal
Study pedestrian crossing activity near 3101 Park Boulevard (Groupon), consider new
mid-block crosswalk
Staff have incorporated these suggestions into the final concept plans or staff’s overall work
program.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
Staff presented the proposed improvements to the Planning and Transportation Commission on
June 10, 2015 and the Commission unanimously recommended their approval by the City
Council. The Commission also requested that staff consider the following items, which have
either been incorporated into the proposal, the presentation, or staff’s overall work program:
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Collaborate with City of Mountain View on connection of Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard
to Mountain View bicycle network
Study increasing size of traffic circle at Stanford Avenue and Park Boulevard to further
calm vehicle traffic
Study potential enhancement of the James A. Hawkinson Memorial near the Wilkie Way
Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge
Incorporate collision data and additional count data into project presentation
Policy Implications
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 (BPTP) identifies and prioritizes the
development of the Bicycle Boulevard network. BPTP objectives that are furthered by the
development of the Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard projects are:
Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by
2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively).
Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order
to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020.
Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed
streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces
to promote healthy, active living.
Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and
accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities.
Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources
through integrated design and planning.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the
development of the Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard projects include:
Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Create a sustainable transportation system that emphasizes walking, bicycling, the use of public
transportation, and other methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of single-
occupancy vehicles.
Goal T-2: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling
Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including
public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-
modal transit stations.
Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards.
Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space
by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Program T-32: Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near
corners, bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas.
Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector
residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic
circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures.
Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets
Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide
transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-
of-service at intersections.
Resource Impact
Minor improvements including striping adjustments for the segment Park Boulevard between
Castilleja Avenue and California Avenue will be implemented through an upcoming repaving
project on Park Boulevard in 2016. Funding for final design of other required improvements is
available on Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PL-04010, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan Project. Staff will bring a contract amendment to complete Final Design for Council
approval following approval of Concept Plan Lines. PL-04010 may also support construction if
grant funding is not available.
Timeline
The Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevards are recommended for final design and
construction in the coming year.
Environmental Review
Physical improvements proposed as part of both bicycle projects discussed in this report will be
subject to environmental review based on the Concept Plan Lines.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way Concept Plans (PDF)
Attachment B: Bicycle + Ped Plan Proposed Bikeways (PDF)
Attachment C: Outreach Sample (PDF)
Castilleja Ave / Park Blvd
Figure 1
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
DETAIL 'A'
LANDSCAPE AREA
STORMWATER PLANTER
TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH LANDSCAPE AREA
Bicycle Boulevard Improvements
Churchill Ave to College Ave
SIGN CHART
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
SIGN CHART
Park Blvd
Figure 2
Bicycle Boulevard Improvements
College Ave to Olive Ave
DETAIL 'A'
DETAIL 'B'
Park Blvd
Figure 3
Bicycle Boulevard Improvements
Lambert Ave to Ventura Ave
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
SIGN CHART
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
TYPICAL SPEED TABLE PROFILE
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
SIGN CHART
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH LANDSCAPE AREA
Park Blvd
Figure 4
Bicycle Boulevard Improvements
Ventura Ave to Charleston Rd
TYPICAL SPEED TABLE PROFILE
Wilkie Way
Park Blvd to W. Meadow Dr
Figure 5
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
GREEN-BACK SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH LANDSCAPE AREA
SIGN CHART
Wilkie Way
W. Meadow Dr to Whitclem Dr
Figure 6
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
GREEN-BACK SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH LANDSCAPE AREA SIGN CHART
TYPICAL SPEED TABLE PROFILE
Wilkie Way
Miller Ave
Figure 7
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
STREET FURNITURE SPACE
ROADWAY RAISED TO EXISTING
SIDEWALK HEIGHT
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
SIGN CHART
TYPICAL SPEED TABLE PROFILE
Wilkie Way
James Road
Figure 8
BIKE LANES AND SHARROWS
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
SIGN CHART
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
Stanford Avenue - El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
Park Boulevard/El Camino Real Intersection
Figure 9
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
NEW CURB
STREET FURNITURE SPACE
ROADWAY RAISED TO EXISTING
SIDEWALK HEIGHT
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
SIGN CHART
Recommended Facilities and Conditions | 6-3
Alta Planning + Design
Chapter 6
Map 6-1. Proposed Bikeway Network
Stanford Avenue,
Park Boulevard
& Wilkie Way
Bicycle Boulevards
How can I get
involved?
• Visit the bicycling page on cityofpaloalto.org to learn more
about this and other corridors that are part of the Palo Alto
Bicycle Boulevards Project.
• Attend community outreach meetings. Visit cityofpaloalto.org
for current information on meeting times and locations.
• Attend Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings on the first
Tuesday of the month at 6:00pm at the Cubberly Community
Center, Room H5. Visit the Bicycle Advisory Committee page at
cityofpaloalto.org for more info.
• Take our online survey: gis.fehrandpeers.com/apps/PaloAlto
(Survey starts mid-May 2014)
What is a bicycle boulevard?
Bicycle boulevards are streets with high
bicycle usage and low vehicle traffic.
On the surface, they may look like any
other residential street. However, they
often include bicycle boulevard signs,
traffic calming elements which slow
vehicles, improved crossing devices at
busy intersections, and/or pavement
markings such as “sharrows”. Bicyclists
typically ride in the travel lane on bicycle
boulevards, rather than to the right of the
travel lane. This works well on bicycle
boulevards because of the low vehicle traffic and because these streets
are typically not wide enough to accommodate bicycle lanes along with the
travel lanes and parking lanes.
About the Palo Alto Bicycle
Boulevards Project
The 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
designates several streets as bicycle boulevards in
Palo Alto. However only one of those corridors actually
has street features that really characterize it as a
bicycle boulevard and make it particularly inviting to
bicyclists, compared to other residential streets. This
project aims to make improvements to several streets
in Palo Alto that will enhance their
character as “bicycle boulevards”.
What are the limits of this project?
The Park Boulevard, Stanford Avenue, and Wilkie Way bicycle boulevards
are shown in the map below and are proposed on:
• Castilleja Avenue from Churchill Avenue to Park Boulevard
• Park Boulevard from Castilleja Avenue to Charleston Road
• Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
• Maclane Street from Park Boulevard to Wilkie Way
• Wilkie Way from Maclane Street to Wilkie Way Bicycle Bridge
• Miller Avenue from Wilkie Way Bicycle Bridge to Del Medio Avenue
Par
k
B
l
v
d
.
W. Cha
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
.
Chur
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
.
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
.
These corridors run near several schools and landmarks including Palo
Alto High School, Stanford University, JLS Middle School, and the San
Antonio Shopping Center. They also connect with the California Avenue
and San Antonio Caltrain Stations as well as several railroad crossings
(Churchill Avenue, California Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road,
San Antonio Road).
Wil
k
i
e
W
a
y
Mac
l
a
n
e
S
t
.
Stanford Avenue,
Park Boulevard
& Wilkie Way
Bicycle Boulevards
Bike-Along
What:Bike-Along
Tour of the proposed Park Boulevard, Stanford
Avenue, and Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard
Projects. This ride also includes a tour of the
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update project
between Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue.
When:10 AM, Saturday April 26th,
2014
Where:Meet at the Palo Alto High
School Lot
at Churchill Avenue and Castilleja Avenue
Questions:Call the City of Palo Alto at (650) 329-2442 or
email transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
Churchill Ave.
Stanford Ave.
at El Camino Real
California Ave.
Bryant St.
at Oregon Expwy
Bryant St.
at Matadero Creek
Bryant St.
at Meadow Dr.
Park Blvd.
at Charleston Rd.
Miller Ave.
at San Antonio Rd.
Park Blvd.
at Lambert Ave.
Wilkie Way
at Charleston Rd.
Castilleja Ave.
at Park Blvd.
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
.
Meadow Dr.
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
.
Maclane St.
Mil
l
e
r
A
v
e
.
Wilk
i
e
W
a
y
Whitclem Dr.
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
Stanford Ave.
Ca
s
t
i
l
l
e
j
a
A
v
e
.
START/FINISH
Out-and-Back
Ou
t
-
a
n
d
-
B
a
c
k
Stop Location
Stanford Avenue - El Camino Real to Park Boulevard
Park Boulevard/El Camino Real Intersection
Figure 9
LEGEND
SHARROW
NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN
NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2)
R1-2
YIELD SIGN
R1-1
STOP SIGN
SIGN CHART
TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH LANDSCAPE AREA
TYPICAL SPEED TABLE PROFILE
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6017)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Extend the term with PCJPB for Rail Shuttle Bus Admin.
Title: Approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement with the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Administration to
Extend the Term for One Year and Add $81,670 to Provide Community Shuttle
Service on the Existing Embarcadero Shuttle Route from July 2015 till June
2016
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
amendment to the Rail Shuttle Bus Administration Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board (JPB), extending the term of the agreement through June 30, 2016 and adding
$81,670 to the contract to cover the City’s Embarcadero shuttle operating costs during the
period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.
Executive Summary
The City and the JPB have an agreement under which the JPB provides the Embarcadero
Caltrain shuttle service, which is partially funded by the JPB and partially funded by the City.
The proposed amendment to the agreement provides for continued service in the current fiscal
year, with the City paying 32.5% of the total cost of operating the shuttle.
Background
In 1999, the City and JPB entered into the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration agreement for
the provision of shuttle bus services in Palo Alto, as part of the JPB shuttle bus program. In
2014, JPB staff updated and standardized the original Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration
Agreement from 1999 and a new base agreement was executed on August 18, 2014. The
agreement provides that the agencies may extend the term of the agreement upon mutual
consent.
The JPB agreement contains terms and conditions for the Embarcadero/Baylands Caltrain
commuter peak period shuttle route, which is part of the Caltrain commuter shuttle program
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and subsidized by the JPB. While the Embarcadero shuttle service is considered part of the
City’s shuttle program and is partially funded by the City, the service is provided by an operator
under contract to the JPB, and the JPB funds a majority of the service.
The Embarcadero shuttle route is one of three Palo Alto shuttle routes. The other routes are
the Crosstown route and the East Palo Alto route. In June 2014, the City Council approved a
three year contract with MV Transportation to provide service for Crosstown and East Palo
Alto/Caltrain shuttle routes. The Crosstown shuttle service is funded exclusively by City of Palo
Alto and the East Palo Alto/Caltrain shuttle route is funded by City of East Palo Alto.
Discussion
The first amendment to the agreement (Attachment A), provides for continued shuttle services
for the Embarcadero Route from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Staff was not able to
agendize this item for Council approval prior to the end of the fiscal year; however, JPB has
continued to provide uninterrupted shuttle service for Embarcadero Route during the interim
until the contract extension is approved by the City.
The cost of the Embarcadero/Baylands commute period shuttle service for twelve months from
July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 is estimated to be $251,650. The JPB's maximum
contribution for Shuttle Service during this term of the Agreement will be $169,980, which is
Sixty-Seven point Five Percent (67.5%) of the estimated total operating costs for the Shuttle
Service as determined by the JPB.
The agreement with the JPB stipulates that the City reimburse the JPB, Thirty-Two point Five
percent (32.5%) of the total actual costs of operating the Shuttle Service, which is estimated to
be $81,670, subject to a final adjustment.
In previous years, JPB’s financial contribution has been 75% and City’s financial share 25% of
the total operating costs of the shuttle. However, due to changes in the shuttle schedule in
October 2014, the number of service hours increased from 11.87 hours to 13.14 hours per day.
At this time, JPB is able to provide a 75% contribution only when service hours are less than 12
per day. The City’s share has been increased to 32.5% to cover additional costs due to increased
number of service hours.
As a part of the agreement, the City is also expected to conduct a marketing program, at its sole
cost, to promote the shuttle service internally and report the results to Caltrain on a quarterly
basis. The City has provided the marketing plan as shown in Exhibit C of the agreement,
attached. The City may supplement this marketing plan based on input from the consultants
Nelson Nygaard, who are currently developing a 5-year plan for the City’s shuttle program.
Resource Impact
Staff anticipated an increase in the cost of this shuttle service for Fiscal Year 2016 and budgeted
accordingly. Thus funding included in the Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget for the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Palo Alto Shuttle program is sufficient to cover the service and operating costs for the
Embarcadero Shuttle. No additional resources are required. The execution of this agreement
with the JPB will not impact the contract with MV Transportation that provides service for the
Crosstown and East Palo Alto/Caltrain shuttle.
Policy Implications
This request is consistent with existing Council direction to continue and expand the Palo Alto
shuttle project. Staff are beginning work on a 5-year shuttle plan which will review
opportunities for shuttle program expansion and improvement based on transportation
demand management goals for Downtown and other commercial centers.
Environmental Review
On August 2, 1999, the City Council approved a Negative Declaration finding the shuttle project
would not result in any significant environmental impact. Funding continuation of an existing
service is categorically exempt from review pursuant to Section 15301 (Class One, Existing
Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Caltrain Joint Powers Board Agreement Amendment No. 1 (PDF)
Attachment B: Marketing Plan for Embarcadero Route (DOCX)
Attachment C: Amendment Exhibits (PDF)
Agreement JPB Embarcadero PA - Extension FY16_080415 1
10851647.1
Amendment No. 1
To
RAIL SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD AND CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR
EMBARCADERO CALTRAIN SHUTTLE
THIS AMENDMENT modifies the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement (Agreement), which was effective August 18, 2014, by and between the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (“JPB”) and City Of Palo Alto (“Lead Organization”).
The JPB and the Lead Organization entered into the Agreement, whereby the Lead
Organization participates in the JPB shuttle bus services program; and
The Agreement is set to expire on June 30, 2015; and
The Parties desires to extend the Agreement for a one year period; and
The Parties desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of this First Amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED to amend the Agreement as follows:
1.Section 2 of the Agreement, Lead Organization, is amended by adding the followinglanguage as the second paragraph:
During the 12 month extension of the Agreement, commencing July 1,
2015 and ending June 30, 2016, the Lead Organization shall provide the projected minimum Thirty Two point Five percent (32.5%)
financial share.
2.Section 4 of the Agreement, Term, is amended by adding the following language as
the second paragraph:
Effective __________, 2015, the term of the Agreement shall be
extended for 12 months commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30,
2016.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2015
ADRIENNE TISSIER, CHAIR PERRY WOODWARD, VICE CHAIR JOSÉ CISNEROS MALIA COHEN JEFF GEE ROSE GUILBAULT ASH KALRA TOM NOLAN KEN YEAGER
JIM HARTNETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Attachment A
Agreement JPB Embarcadero PA - Extension FY16_080415 2
10851647.1
3. Section 5 of the Agreement, Maximum Contribution; Payment, is amended by adding the following language as the second paragraph:
During the 12 month extension of the Agreement, commencing July 1,
2015 and ending June 30, 2016, the JPB's maximum contribution (which includes contributions from all other funding agencies involved, if any) for Shuttle Service during the base term of this
Agreement shall not exceed One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty dollars ($169,980) or Sixty-Seven point Five Percent
(67.5%) of the estimated total operating costs for the Shuttle Service as determined by the JPB, whichever is less.
4. Section 6 of the Agreement, Lead Organization’s Payment is amended by adding the
following language as the second paragraph:
During the 12 month extension of the Agreement, commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016, Lead Organization shall pay Thirty-
Two point Five percent (32.5%) of the total actual costs of operating
the Shuttle Service. Lead Organization's share shall equal Eighty-One
Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars ($81,670), subject to a final adjustment.
5. Section 14 of the Agreement, Liaison is amended by adding the following language
after the Lead Organization’s Liaison information:
When the primary Lead Organization’s Liaison is unavailable, a secondary contact shall be:
Lead Organization's 2nd Liaison: Jessica Sullivan
Transportation Planning Manager (650) 329-2453
Jessica.Sullivan@CityofPaloAlto.org
6. Effective July 1, 2015, the following Exhibits have been deleted and replaced by
revised Exhibits:
EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF SHUTTLE SERVICE
EXHIBIT C MARKETING PROGRAM
EXHIBIT D FUNDING BENCHMARKS
EXHIBIT F INDEMNITY INCLUSION & INSURANCE ADDITION
Except for those changes expressly specified in this First Amendment, all other
provisions, requirements, conditions, and sections of the underlying Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
Agreement JPB Embarcadero PA - Extension FY16_080415 3
10851647.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the date first written above with the intent to be legally bound.
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT CITY OF PALO ALTO
POWERS BOARD
By:By:
Name:Name:
Title:Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
JPB Attorney
DO NOT SIGN - USE SUPPLIED
LETTERHEAD ORIGINAL.
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto
Embarcadero Shuttle Marketing Plan
Fiscal Year 2015-2016
The Embarcadero Shuttle is operated and maintained by Samtrans as part of the
Caltrain Commuter Shuttle program in partnership with the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto
is responsible for local marketing to help promote shuttle us and increase ridership. This
marketing plan outlines the activities that Palo Alto will undertake.
Online Tools
Palo Alto will maintain a website for the shuttle program where users may view
and download current shuttle schedules: www.cityofpaloalto.org/shuttle
Palo Alto will maintain shuttle route information on Google Maps, Bing Maps
and Apple Maps to assist riders in their trip planning activities.
Social Media Outreach
Palo Alto will periodically promote shuttle information on its social media outlets
including, but not limited to, Facebook and Twitter
Palo Alto will periodically send out email reminders to registered neighborhood
groups to remind the public of the availability of the Palo Alto shuttle program.
Email noticed will also be coordinated with the Chamber of Commerce to help
promote the shuttle as a commuter resource.
Palo Alto will provide periodic Press Releases and Newspaper Ads to help
promote the shuttle program
Shuttle Stops Facilities
Palo Alto will maintain existing shuttle stop signage and install benches where
supported by adjacent property owners
Shuttle Schedule Flyers
Palo Alto will be responsible for the printing and distribution of shuttle flyers to
interested community residents. Palo Alto will delivering hard copies of existing
shuttle route schedule at the following locations quarterly:
Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Palo Alto Schools-Jordan Middle, Palo Alto High and Castilleja Schools
Palo Alto Libraries and Community Center
Employees/tenants at Palo Alto Technology Center (Baylands Business
Park)
Senior Centers upon request
5943677.1 2
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF SHUTTLE SERVICE
(7/1/15)
Schedule subject to change with Caltrain permission.
5943677.1 3
EXHIBIT C
MARKETING PROGRAM
City of Palo Alto
Embarcadero Shuttle Marketing Plan
Fiscal Year 2015‐2016
The Embarcadero Shuttle is administered by Caltrain as part of the Caltrain Shuttle Grant
Subsidy program in partnership with the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto is responsible for local
marketing to help promote shuttle us and increase ridership. This marketing plan outlines the
activities that Palo Alto will undertake.
Online Tools
Palo Alto will maintain a website for the shuttle program where users may view and
download current shuttle schedules: www.cityofpaloalto.org/shuttle
Palo Alto will maintain shuttle route information on Google Maps, Bing Maps and Apple
Maps to assist riders in their trip planning activities.
Social Media Outreach
Palo Alto will periodically promote shuttle information on its social media outlets
including, but not limited to, Facebook and Twitter
Palo Alto will periodically send out email reminders to registered neighborhood groups
to remind the public of the availability of the Palo Alto shuttle program. Email noticed
will also be coordinated with the Chamber of Commerce to help promote the shuttle as
a commuter resource.
Palo Alto will provide periodic Press Releases and Newspaper Ads to help promote the
shuttle program.
Shuttle Stops Facilities
Palo Alto will maintain existing shuttle stop signage and install benches where
supported by adjacent property owners.
Shuttle Schedule Flyers
Palo Alto will be responsible for the printing and distribution of shuttle flyers to
interested community residents. Palo Alto will delivering hard copies of existing shuttle
route schedule at the following locations quarterly:
Palo Alto Medical Foundation;
Palo Alto Schools‐Jordan Middle, Palo Alto High and Castilleja Schools;
Palo Alto Libraries and Community Center;
Employees/tenants at Palo Alto Technology Center (Baylands Business Park); and
Senior Centers upon request .
5943677.1 4
EXHIBIT D
FUNDING BENCHMARKS
As of July 1, 2015
Following are the funding benchmarks the JPB is encouraged to meet, for the Shuttle Service to
be considered for competitive funding in future grant cycles:
1. Less than $175,000 per ton of emissions reduced (based on BAAQMD evaluation
criteria);
2. Cost per Passenger: Less than or equal to $4.00 per passenger; 3. Riders per Service Hour: Greater than or equal to 10 riders per service hour;
THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
5943677.1 6
EXHIBIT F
INDEMNITY INCLUSION
5943677.1 7
5943677.1 8
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6057)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Agreement to Modify Dispatcher Schedule
Title: Adoption of a Resolution to Incorporate a Side Letter With the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) to Allow a Change in the Police
Dispatcher Schedule from a 4/11 Schedule to a 4/12 Flex Schedule
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
BACKGROUND
Recruitment and retention of Public Safety Dispatchers is an ongoing challenge for the Police
Department. The current dispatcher schedule was implemented in 2003. Over the past 18
months, staffing has been impacted by several unexpected resignations (dispatchers moving
out of the area) and two probationary dispatchers not completing training. The remaining staff
has been working an inordinate amount of overtime which, in the long-term, is detrimental to
the operation. In order to provide a more balanced schedule for employees, the City proposed
to SEIU Local 521 (SEIU) a change of schedule from 11-hour shifts to 12-hour shifts. The City
met with SEIU and SEIU agreed with the City’s proposal. A copy of the unsigned agreement is
attached. A fully executed document will be provided at place on Monday, August 31st.
DISCUSSION
Over the past 18 months, the dispatch staff in the Emergency Communications Center has been
well below budgeted personnel levels due to a number of factors including retirements and
resignations. Police management is actively recruiting and hiring new employees but the
minimum training period for a dispatcher is 10 months. As a result, employees are being
mandated to cover both planned and unplanned shortages to ensure minimum staffing for the
Emergency Communications Center, which also plays a key role in retention of qualified
applicants. Currently, there are 14 full-time Dispatchers and two Dispatcher trainees with an
anticipated completion of training in October 2015.
To fully staff the current 4/11 schedule a total of 18 dispatchers are required with the Lead
Dispatchers working on circuit full time. A 12-hour schedule can be managed with 16 full-time
Dispatchers if each dispatcher works four hours of overtime per pay period. Implementing the
4/12 schedule will allow the Dispatchers to take most of their regularly scheduled time off and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
reduce mandatory overtime in the Center. The Lead Dispatchers will still be working
supervisors with 14 Dispatchers assigned. Once the two Dispatcher trainees are ready for
assignment in October, the Supervisors will serve their intended purpose, providing oversight
and quality assurance to the line Dispatchers from four to six hours per shift.
The Police Department researched the efficiency of shift types for dispatch and found in a
recent study of Stanislaus Regional 9-1-1 by Matrix Consulting Group in January 2015, that 12
hour shifts are the most efficient.
The 4/10 work schedule is 25% less cost-effective than either the 5/8 or 3/12 schedules. The
least effective schedule from a cost perspective is the 11-hour shift program. Interestingly, the
12-hour shift schedule is the most cost effective from the total number of staff positions
required because of the additional 104 work hours per annum that are potentially provided by
this staffing model. In instances where this additional time is not worked, the “efficiency” of the
12-hour shift is equivalent to the 8-hour shift.
The City met with SEIU leaders to discuss the change in the schedule and SEIU agreed to the
City’s proposal. SEIU and the City agreed to move the Dispatch Unit from 11-hour shifts to 12-
hour shifts. Floaters and holiday accruals shall be accrued at 12-hour increments. For purposes
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the workweek shall begin and end in the middle of a 12-
hour shift, such that every 14-day pay period includes two workweeks of 42 hours each. Every
hour worked in excess of 40 hours in paid status in a FLSA workweek shall be paid at time and
one-half. The 12-hour schedule regularly includes two hours of overtime pay in every
workweek (four hours per pay period), assuming all hours are in paid status as defined in the
Memorandum of Agreement. Please see attached Exhibit A-Side Letter to the 2013-2015 SEIU
Memorandum of Agreement.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Under the current schedule, the Dispatchers were required to complete 78 hours of annual
training to meet the required 2,080 full-time hours annually. Those hours will be reduced to 12
hours annually (the State Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST)
requirement) in the new schedule and each Dispatcher will work an additional 66 hours in the
911 Center. Due to the change in training hours, the anticipated reduction in overtime is 1,056
hours (16 Dispatchers times 66 hours) or approximately $57,000. The required amount of
overtime of four hours per dispatcher and pay period amounts to 1,664 hours or $89,000. It is
anticipated that this required overtime is necessary due to staff scheduled and unscheduled
time off regardless of the shift schedule change. Therefore, it is anticipated that this shift
change will result in overall savings to the City due to staff being dedicated 66 hours annually to
dispatching related duties that were previously used for training. If this side letter is approved
and the shift change implemented, staff will monitor the overtime expenditures during the next
few months and adjust the overtime budget for the 911 Center as part of the Fiscal Year 2017
Proposed Budget.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This does not represent any change to existing City policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
SEIU Side Letter Final - Dispatcher Schedule (PDF)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D6BFD5F-45FE-4F85-899A-59A16D46BE65
SIDE LETTER TO THE 2013-2015
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
AND
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
7
SEIU Local 521 and the City of Palo Alto hereby agree to move the Dispatch Unit from 11 hour shifts to 12
hour shifts. Floaters and holiday accruals shall be accrued at 12 hour increments. For purposes of the FLSA,
the workweek shall begin and end in the middle of a 12-hour shift, such that every 14-day pay period
includes two workweeks of forty-two hours each. Every hour worked in excess of 40 hours in paid status in a
workweek shall be paid at time and one half. The 12-hour schedule regularly includes two hours of overtime
pay in every workweek (four hours per pay period), assuming all hours are in paid status.
The City of Palo Alto shall limit vacation bidding to two dispatchers per shift side and may only include one
holiday, unless emergency dictates otherwise. The City also agrees to protected weekends, which is defined
as the weekend that precedes a bid vacation and the weekend post bid vacation, unless emergency dictates
otherwise. Turnaround time between shifts shall be 10 hours, unless emergency dictates otherwise. The City
shall contact SEIU 521 as soon as operationally possible in the event of an emergency that affects protected
weekends or turnaround time as described in this paragraph.
This side letter Agreement replaces Exhibit C of the City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 MOA effective
December 1, 2013-December 1, 2015.
For SEIU Local 521
Daniel Becker, SEIU
Date: 8/20/2015
~::~ ~2ENA9992C74'1D!i .•
Lynn Krug, Chapter Chair
Date: 8/20/2015
For City of Palo Alto
Subject to City Council Approval
[~~
Kathy Shen, Chief People Officer
Date: 8/19/2015
Natalie Korthamar, Mgr. Labor Relations
Date: 8/19/2015
Debra Burger
Date: 8/19/2015
Charlie Cullen
Date: 8/19/2015
Approved as to Form:
~LJ::r$"'q~ By: •58aCl5220•3'DC ...
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 31, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the
Pilot Batting Cages Project at Former PASCO Site at the Baylands
Athletic Center (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff
absent)
This was originally heard by the City Council on Monday, August 17, 2015 and was approved
without any changes. The vote was 8-0 Council Member Scharff absent.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Baylands Athletic PIO (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
NOT YET APPROVED
ORDINANCE NO. _____
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT FOR TWO BATTING CAGES LOCATED AT THE FORMER PASCO SITE
AT THE BAYLANDS ATHETLIC CENTER
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or
development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for
park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a
plan therefor.
(b) The former PASCO site at the Baylands is dedicated to park purposes.
(c) The City intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements within the
former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center, as shown at Exhibit “A”. The improvements include, without limitation, the following:
(1) Construction two batting cages.
(2) Converting one standard parking stall to a handicapped parking stall.
(d) The improvements do not require removing any vegetation or trees.
(e) The improvements described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit
"A" are consistent with park and conservation purposes.
(f) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit "A”.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for construction of improvements
within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center and hereby adopts the Plans, attached hereto at Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements
within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the construction of the new batting cage facilities at
the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines section 15303.
1
150423 jb 00710593
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________ Director of Administrative Services
2
150423 jb 00710593
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 31, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for
Improvements at Monroe Park(FIRST READING: August 17, 2015
PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent)
This was originally heard by the City Council on Monday, August 17, 2015 and was approved
without any changes. The vote was 8-0 Council Member Scharff absent.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Monroe Park PIO (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
130416 dm 00710210
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving
and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Monroe Park
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building,
construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with
respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be
prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore.
(b) Monroe Park is dedicated to park, playground, and recreational space.
(c) The City intends to authorize the construction of certain park
improvements within Hopkins Park, as shown on the Monroe Park Landscape
Improvement Plan (the “Plan”), attached as Exhibit “A,” including:
(1) Installation of new playground equipment;
(2) Installation of new pathway;
(3) Installation of new light poles;
(4) Installation of new irrigation;
(5) Installation of new landscaping; and
(6) Installation of new benches, drinking fountain, bike rack, and trash
enclosures
(d) The Project will be constructed in a manner as to avoid protected trees
and other sensitive natural resources, if any. In addition, the existing park uses will be
restored following the completion of construction of the Project.
(e) The Project is consistent with park and recreation purposes.
(f) The Council desires to approve the Project, described above and as more
specifically described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A.”
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of the
improvements at Monroe Park, and it hereby adopts the Plan, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A,” as part of the official plan for the construction of the park improvements at
Monroe Park.
130416 dm 00710210
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct the facilities at
Hopkins Park is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
130416 dm 00710210
Exhibit “A”
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 31, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts(FIRST READING: August 17,
2015 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent)
This was originally heard by the City Council on Monday, August 17, 2015 and was approved
without any changes. The vote was 8-0 Council Member Scharff absent.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Byxbee Park PIO (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and
Adopting a Plan of Improvement for Byxbee Park Hills
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction
or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City
for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and
adopt a plan therefor.
(b) Byxbee Park Hills is dedicated to park purposes.
(c) The City intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements within
Byxbee Park Hills, as shown at Exhibit “A”. The improvements include, without limitation, the
following:
(1) Construction of new trails;
(2) Construction of native habitat islands;
(3) Construction of pedestrian bridge;
(4) Construction of group gathering node;
(5) Installation of new park benches;
(6) Installation of new interpretive and way-finding signs; and
(7) Construction of burrowing owl habitat areas (pending regulatory
approval)
(d) The improvements do not require removing any trees.
(e) The improvements described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit
"A" are consistent with park and conservation purposes.
(f) The Council desires to approve the project’s improvements described above and as
more specifically described at Exhibit "A”.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the plan for construction of improvements
within the Byxbee Park Hills and hereby adopts the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts,
attached hereto at Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements
within Byxbee Park Hills.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the plan for construction improvements identified
in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts is categorically exempt from environmental
1
150511 jb 00710621
NOT YET APPROVED
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
150511 jb 00710621
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
L-1
SITE AMENITIES AND SIGNAGE LAYOUT
1
3
5
6
8
9
MAYFIELD SLOUGH
RWQCP
7
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
56
6
7
7
7
7
9
3
ACCESSIBLE TRAIL
MAINTENANCE PATH
EXISTING BAYSHORE TRAIL GROUP GATHERING NODE
PROPOSED BRIDGE BENCH(ES) LOCATION
PROPOSED VEGETATIVE ISLAND(S) POSSIBLE FUTURE VEGETATIVE ISLANDS (PENDING PILOT EVALUATION)
POTENTIAL BURROWING OWL HABITAT LOCATION
ROCK-LINED DRAINAGE SWALES
MEASURE E AREA (+/- 10 ACRES)
EXISTING BRIDGE TO REMAIN15
6
7
8
9
4
3
2
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SCALE: 1”= 300’
0 150’ 300’ 600’
1
A
C
C
C
C
D
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
A SIGN TYPE, REFER TO SHEET L-3 FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
L-2
VIGNETTE SKETCHES AND PHOTOS OF AMENITIES
10’ WIDE PATHWAY WITH
MAINTENANCE CLEARANCE ON BOTH SIDES
SMALLER VEGETATIVE ISLAND,
3’ MAX. ABOVE GRADE, TO
PRESERVE BAY VIEWS
LARGE VEGETATIVE
ISLAND, 3’-8’ ABOVE
ADJACENT GRADE
NOTE: REFER TO “REVEGETATION PROPOSAL”
BY JEAN LUM HOY (9/2013) FOR ADDITIONAL
VEGETATION ISLAND UNDERLAYMENT
REQUIREMENTS
VIEWING PLATFORM
WITH SEGMENTAL
SEATWALL BENCH
VIEWING PLATFORM
WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH
EXISTING COBBLE
DRAINAGE BED
VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
A
A
VEGETATIVE ISLAND,
TYP.VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL
SEATWALL BENCH
COBBLE DRAINAGE SWALE
PROPOSED TRAIL BRIDGE
STACKED SEGMENTAL BLOCK WALLS WITH DRAINAGE CULVERTS AND ROCK RIP-RAP
PROPOSED BENCHWOODEN SLATS ON CURVED STEEL FRAME, WITH OPTIONAL DEDICATION PLAQUE
PLAN ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING WITH VIEWING AREA
PLAN ‘B’: GROUP GATHERING NODE
SECTION ‘A’: THROUGH VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING AND VIEWING PLATFORM
PERSPECTIVE ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING
SEGMENTAL SEATWALL
BENCH
VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
COMPASS ROSE FORMED WITH STEEL
HEADER AND D.G.
(CONTRASTING
COLOR)
WOODEN BENCHES
SITUATED AROUND
OUTER EDGE
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
A PARK ENTRY SIGNAGE B PARK INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
C TRAIL MARKER SIGN D PARK REGULATION SIGN
TO BE USED AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO INTERPRET UNIQUE NATURAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC FEATURES, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR PARK VISITORS.
INDICATES WHERE USER IS LOCATED AT ON AN ILLUSTRATIVE SITE MAP. SHOWS ALL TRAILS AND THEIR DISTANCES, AND SITE AMENITIES. INDICATES IMPORTANT PARK-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS.
VEGETATIVE ISLANDS PLANT LIST
SPECIES COMMON NAME Artemesia californica CaIifornia SagebrushArctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist’ Pacific Mist ManzanitaArctostaphylos ‘Pumila’ Dune ManzanitaAtriplex lentiformis brewerii Coastal QuailbushBaccharis pilul. ‘Pigeon Point’ Coyote BushCeanothus maritimus Bluff LilacCeanothus thrysifIorus Blue Blossom LilacEriogonum fasciculatum CaIifornia BuckwheatEriogonum nudum Naked BuckwheatEriophylIum staechadifoium Yellow YarrowLimonium perezii Sea LavenderLeymus cond. ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild RyeLupinus chamaissonis Coastal Silver LupineMimulus aurantiacus StIcky Monkey Flower Muhlenbergia rigens Deer GrassPinus contorta v. contorta Shore PineSalvia mellifera Black Sage
A
B
C D E
F G H
I J K
L M N
O P Q
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
L-3
PARK SIGNAGE DETAILS AND PROPOSED VEGETATION ISLAND PLANT MATERIAL
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 31, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Revised Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City
Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and
Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes
and a Verbatim Transcript of all Council and Council Standing
Committee Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense Minutes
Recommendation
Adopt the attached revised Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Municipal Code Section
2.040.160 - City Council Minutes to require action minutes and a verbatim transcript of all
Council and Council Standing Committee meetings, and delete the requirement for sense
minutes.
Background and Discussion
On May 6, 2015 the City Council discussed the recommendation from the Policy and Services
Committee to move to Action Minutes and the video of Council and Council Standing
Committee meetings as the official record of those meetings. The Council endorsed the
recommendation and added an additional requirement that Verbatim minutes be prepared and
made digitally available to the public, with hardcopies provided on request. At the May 6, 2015
meeting, Council directed staff to return to Council on consent with an ordinance amending
Municipal Code Section 2.040.160 reflecting these changes.
Since the May meeting, the Clerk’s Office has been preparing Verbatim transcriptions. In
reviewing the length of time it takes to prepare the transcripts, Verbatim minutes are averaging
4 hours of transcription time per each hour of meeting. Sense minutes were averaging 3 hours
transcription time per each hour of meeting. This has increased costs by $33.00 per hour, or
for a 5 hour meeting we are spending an additional $165.00. As an example, the June 15, 2015
Council meeting lasted for 7 hours and 52 minutes, there are 144 pages of Verbatim
transcription and the cost to transcribe that meeting is $1,043.00.
Staff continues to do a cursory review of the transcriptions to insure that names are spelled
correctly, acronyms are correct, and any formatting issues are addressed. In addition, where
the transcriptionist states that something was “inaudible”, the Clerk’s Office staff listens to the
tape to see if we can capture what was being said.
Page 2
On August 17, 2015 Staff brought a proposed Ordinance changing the official meeting minutes
from Sense Minutes to Action Minutes. Council requested a change to the Ordinance in that
the City Clerk will agendize the Action Minutes for Council approval. A revised Ordinance
reflecting that change is before the Council for approval as Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Revised Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council Minutes)
(PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
*REVISED*
150820 sh 0140136 1
ORDINANCE NO. ________
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.040.160
(City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes and a Verbatim
Transcript of all Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings, and Delete
the Requirement for Sense Minutes
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
A. On May 6, 2015 the City Council discussed the recommendation from the Policy
and Services Committee to move to action minutes and the video of Council and Council
Standing Committee meetings as the official record of those meetings. The purpose of this
change is to increase the accuracy and decrease the time and cost of preparing the Council’s
official record of action. The Council endorsed the Committee’s recommendation and added an
additional requirement that verbatim minutes be prepared and made digitally available to the
public, with hardcopies provided on request.
B. Action minutes are to be approved by Council in “real time” during the meeting,
as Council motions are transcribed, projected for viewing by the Council and the public, and
adopted, rejected or amended by Council.
SECTION 2. Section 2.04.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.04.160 City council minutes.
(a) The minutes of the council shall be kept by the city clerk. The minutes shall be
neatly typewritten or printed in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each particular
type of business transacted set off in paragraphs, with proper subheadings.
(b) The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed and all actions taken
at regular or special meetings of the council. The minutes shall be sense action minutes. As
soon as possible after each council meeting, the city clerk shall post draft action minutes on the
City’s website and transmit a copy to each council member. and need not be a verbatim
transcript of the proceedings. Sense minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of
the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as speak upon a
particular matter under discussion. A record shall be made of the names and addresses of
persons addressing the council, together with a brief summary of their remarks indicating
whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to compel registration as a condition to attendance at a meeting.
*REVISED*
150820 sh 0140136 2
(c) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings shall also be prepared. As soon as
possible after each council meeting the city clerk shall cause a copy of the minutes to be
forwarded to each council member, the city manager, other officers and department heads of
the city, all newspapers of general circulation within the city, and be made available to the
public at the front counter in the city clerk's office, the table and bulletin board in the council
chambers, and all city libraries, except the Children's Librarythe verbatim transcript shall be
made publicly available digitally and hard copies available upon request.
(d) At the meeting following publicationposting of the draft action minutes, council
minutes shall be agendized by the city clerk for the council's approval. Corrections to the
minutes shall be made at the meeting. Council members may submit their corrections in writing
or orally to the city clerk's office before the time of the meeting. The city clerk shall distribute a
written copy of all corrections received during regular business hours to all council members at
the meeting.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*REVISED*
150820 sh 0140136 3
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 31, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of Ordinance 5326, Amending Chapter
16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to
the California Energy Code (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015 PASSED:
8-0 Scharff absent)
On August 17, 2015, this item was brought back to the City Council for adoption after receiving
changes from the California Energy Commission. As required by State law, staff submitted the
adopted ordinance to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for approval prior to codification
and enforcement. The CEC had requested non-substantive, clerical changes to the Ordinance
No. 5326 to clarify the Council’s intent to adopt requirements more stringent than the
statewide California Energy Code standard (Cal. Code of Regs. Title 24, Part 6). On August 17,
2015, it passed with a vote of 8-0, Council Member Scharff absent.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment: Attachement A: Draft Energy Code Ordinance (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
NOT YET APPROVED
1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and
Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California
Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings
and Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal is hereby amended by
repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.17 and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows:
16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
16.17.010 2013 California Energy Code adopted.
The California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations
together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and
hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set
forth herein.
Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and
regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
2008, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 Ordinance No. 5064 of the City of Palo Alto and all other
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly
repealed.
One copy of the California Energy Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of
the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto.
16.17.020 Violations -- Penalties.
Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of
Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any
violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense,
and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section.
16.17.030 Enforcement -- Citation authority.
The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by
the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the
authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for
violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2)
NOT YET APPROVED
2
building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer.
16.17.040 Local Amendments.
The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced
provisions of the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the
cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter.
16.17.050 Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code.
Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code is added to read:
(a) For all new single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential
construction: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy
Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at
least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design.
(b) For all single-family residential, multi-family residential, and nonresidential tenant
improvements, renovations, or alterations, one of the following must be satisfied:
(1) Performance Path: The performance approach specified within the 2013
California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of
the proposed building exceeds the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, when
expressed as a percent savings, by at least 5% for single-family residential,
10% for multi-family residential, and 5% for nonresidential tenant
improvements, renovations, or alterations.
a. Exceptions. The requirements in this section shall not apply to the
following projects:
(1) Multi-family residential renovations or alterations of less
than 50% of the existing unit square footage that include
replacement or alteration of only one of the following:
HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or
lighting system.
(2) Single-family or two-family residential additions or rebuilds
of less than 1,000 square feet.
(3) Non-residential tenant improvements, alterations, or
renovations less than 5,000 square feet that include
replacement or alteration of only one of the following
systems: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water
system, or lighting system.
(2) Prescriptive Path: Projects that involve any of the following building
NOT YET APPROVED
3
components must use the prescriptive measures described below:
Residential
Single-Family
Cool Roofs
(Alterations Only)
Applies to complete roof
alterations that are not considered
repairs.
Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28
Exterior Walls
(Additions Only)
High performance walls (u-factor = 0.048 or lower)
Multi-Family
Roofs
(Alterations Only)
Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28
Non-Residential
Cool Roofs
(Alterations Only)
Steep Slopes - Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.34
Low Slopes - Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.7
Steep Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.34
Low Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.7
Indoor Lighting
(Additions and Alterations)
15% below Title 24 Standard Lighting Energy Usage
16.17.060 Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings.
Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings is amended as follows:
(a) Subsection 110.10(a)1 is amended to read:
1. Single-family residences. New single family residences shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 110.10(b) through 110.10(e).
(b) Subsection 110.10(b)1A is amended to read:
A. Single Family Residences. The solar zone shall be located on the roof or
overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a
permanently installed solar electric system having a nameplate DC power rating,
measured under Standard Test Conditions, of no less than 1000 watts.
EXCEPTION 2 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a
permanently installed domestic solar water-heating system meeting the
installation criteria specified in the Reference Residential Appendix RA4 and
with a minimum solar savings fraction of 0.50.
EXCEPTION 3 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with three stories
NOT YET APPROVED
4
or more and with a total floor area less than or equal to 2000 square feet and
having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet.
EXCEPTION 4 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences located in
Climate zones 8-14 and the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in
Title 24, Part 2 and having a whole house fan and having a solar zone total area
no less than 150 square feet.
EXCEPTION 5 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Buildings with a designated solar zone
area that is no less than 50 percent of the potential solar zone area. The
potential solar zone area is the total area of any low-sloped roofs where the
annual solar access is 70 percent or greater and any steep-sloped roofs oriented
between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north where the annual solar
access is 70 percent or greater. Solar access is the ratio of solar insolation
including shade to the solar insolation without shade. Shading from obstructions
located on the roof or any other part of the building shall not be included in the
determination of annual solar access.
EXCEPTION 6 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences having a solar
zone total area no less than 150 square feet and where all thermostats comply
with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding
to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the
enforcing agency.
EXCEPTION 7 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences meeting the
following conditions:
A. All thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are
capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior
to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency.
B. All applicable requirements of Section 150.0(k), except as required
below:
i. All permanently installed indoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in
TABLE 150.0-A or 150.0-B and is installed in kitchens, bathrooms, utility
rooms, and garages at a minimum.
ii. All permanently installed lighting in bathrooms is controlled by a
vacancy sensor.
EXCEPTION to EXCEPTION 7Bii: One high efficacy luminaire as
defined in TABLE 150.0-A or 150.0-B with total lamp wattage
rated to consume no greater than 26 watts of power is not
required to be controlled by a vacancy sensor.
iii. Every room which does not have permanently installed lighting has at
least one switched receptacle installed.
NOT YET APPROVED
5
iv. Permanently installed night lights complying with Section 150.0(k)1E
are allowed.
v. Lighting integral to exhaust fans complying with Section 150.0(k)1F is
allowed.
vi. All permanently installed outdoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in
TABLE 150.0-A or 150.0-B and is controlled as required in Section
150.0(k)9Ai and iii.
(c) Subsection 110.10(c) is amended to read:
(c) Interconnection pathways.
1. The construction documents shall indicate a location for inverters and
metering equipment and a pathway for routing of conduit from the solar zone to
the point of interconnection with the electrical service. For single-family
residences the point of interconnection will be the main service panel.
2. Residential buildings shall provide conduit to support the installation of future
solar requirements. The conduit shall be located adjacent to the solar ready area
and shall extend from the roofline and terminate at the main electrical panel.
3. The construction documents shall indicate a pathway for routing of plumbing
from the solar zone to the water-heating system.
(d) Subsection 110.10(f) is added to read:
(f) Existing tree canopies. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of
this section, the Solar Shade Act of 2009, and the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance
(Chapter 8.10), the most protective of existing tree canopies shall prevail.
16.17.070 Infeasibility Exemption.
(a) Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that
makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request
an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the
Applicant to show infeasibility.
(b) Application. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes such circumstances exist, the
applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance
with the Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate
the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered
project and the circumstances that make is infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter.
Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted green
building ordinance and/or California Building Standards Code;
NOT YET APPROVED
6
(2) There is conflict with other City goals, such as those requiring historic
preservation or the Architectural Review criteria;
(3) There is a lack of commercially available materials and technologies to
comply with the requirements of this Chapter;
(4) Applying the requirements of this Chapter would effectuate an
unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional
application to the property.
(c) Review by Architectural Review Board (ARB). For any covered project for which an
exemption is requested and Architectural Review is required by the ARB, the ARB shall
provide a recommendation to the Director or designee regarding whether the
exemption shall be granted or denied, along with its recommendation on the project.
(d) Granting of Exemption. If the Director, or designee, determines that it is infeasible for
the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter based on the information
provided, the Director, or designee, shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of
compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the Director, or
designee, shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted, the
applicant shall be required to comply with this Chapter in all other respects and shall be
required to achieve, in accordance with this Chapter, the threshold of compliance
determined to be achievable by the Director or designee.
(e) Denial of Exemption. If the Director determines that it is reasonably possible for the
applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request shall be denied
and the Director or designee shall so notify the applicant in writing. The project and
compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this Chapter prior to
further review of any pending planning or building application.
(f) Council Review of Exemption. For any covered project that requires review and action
by the City Council, the Council shall act to grant or deny the exemption, based on the
criteria outlined above, after recommendation by the Director.
16.17.080 Appeal.
(a) Any aggrieved Applicant may appeal the determination of the Director regarding the
granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.070.
(b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Development Services Department not later
than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal
shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal.
(c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the
provisions of Section 18.77.070(f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in
its entirety.
NOT YET APPROVED
7
SECTION 3. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the
California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-
first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Development Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
NOT YET APPROVED
8
NOT YET APPROVED
9
Exhibit A
FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2013 EDITION
Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may
make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California
Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require
that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in
the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the
City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is
reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which
were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of
Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments
to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and
have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required
findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation,
including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings.
Code: Cal Green
Section Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See
below for keys)
100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach
Code
C & E
110.10 Mandatory Requirements For
Solar Ready Buildings
C
NOT YET APPROVED
10
Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code
of Regulations
C
This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic
conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and
welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush
covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the
geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which
departure from California Energy Code is required.
Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in
rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and
businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped
Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG
emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its
share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels
used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate
change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put
at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses 1 public facilities, and Highway 101. Due to decrease
in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than
some other communities in California.
E Energy efficiency enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental
and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation
and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all
development. The provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals:
(a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings;
(b) Increase resource conservation;
(c) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate;
(d) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city;
(e) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; and
(f) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems.
G
T
This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo
Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This
fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near
Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated
mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of
these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may
experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which
includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed
to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for
repair of damaged properties following a local emergency.
The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which
makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the
San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the
City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a
NOT YET APPROVED
11
major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is
highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create
hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Codes is
warranted.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5911)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 7.7 Acre Area at Foothills Park
Title: Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Regarding Possible
Uses for the 7.7 Acre Area at Foothills Park
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff recommend that Council approve the following
course of action regarding use of the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land at Foothills Park:
1. Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study before making any specific
recommendations for possible future use of the newly dedicated park land.
2. Direct staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission to finalize a
recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre parcel after the hydrology study
is complete.
3. Direct staff to evaluate the impacts of the recommendation to Council on the Acterra
Nursery lease, which includes a provision allowing for termination of the lease with a
90-day notification.
Background
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family to be used for
conservation, including park and recreation purposes. The Lee family retained an estate on the
property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased the land to
a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel.
On March 24, 2014, Council, on an 8 - 0 vote (Scharff absent), directed staff
(Attachment B – Minutes March 24, 2014 Regular Council Meeting, Item 10) to:
1) Return to Council with a Park Dedication Ordinance for this City-owned land adjacent
to Foothills Park (Attachment C – Park Dedication Ordinance);
2) Outline the major options for the best uses of this land and estimated costs of such
uses;
3) Present to the Parks and Recreation Commission alternatives for public uses along
City of Palo Alto Page 2
with natural landscape restoration for their review and for public input;
4) Establish a timeline for permanently opening the land to the public; and
5) Draft a letter of appreciation acknowledging the contribution of the Lee family to the
City of Palo Alto (Attachment D).
On August 18, 2014, items one and five were completed with Council passing an ordinance
dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land and by sending a letter of appreciation
acknowledging the contribution of the Lee family to the City of Palo Alto. Since Fall 2014, Staff
and Parks and Recreation Commission have worked closely to facilitate the development of
ideas for specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park per Council
direction. A Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc committee was formed to help with the
process of collecting public input on the issue.
In October 2014, four Ranger-led tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A
total of 9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public outreach
meeting was held at Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on
ideas for how to best use the newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger-led tour
prior to the meeting. Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the
public outreach meeting. At the meeting, and at each of the tours, the history and the
challenges and restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were discussed. (Attachment A -
public’s comments and suggestions.)
Three major themes were expressed from the public on the tours and the public meeting:
Theme 1: Recreational Activities
Concepts ranged from adding a campground, picnic area, structure for special events, and an
off-leash dog area.
Theme 2: Restoration
The public suggestions regarding possible restoration strategies varied greatly. Concepts ranged
from simple restoration involving planting native grasses and some trees, to significant
restoration involving de-channelizing Buckeye Creek to restoring the original meandering creek
flow and removing the overburden soil to restore the area to one contiguous valley.
Theme 3: Sustain the Acterra Nursery
There were numerous comments supporting the Acterra Nursery on the site. There were also
some suggestions about providing space for an additional environmental partner.
Challenges for Developing the 7.7 Acre Parcel
There are a number of challenges related to developing the 7.7 acre parcel:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Buckeye Creek
Buckeye Creek originates in Foothills Park at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley and passes
through the 7.7 acre parcel. The channelized creek has experienced significant down-cutting
resulting in creek erosion. These eroded sediments wash down the creek and deposit in the 7.7
acre parcel during the rainy season. The collected sediments must be removed two to three
times every year to prevent flooding. The adjacent Open Space Maintenance Shop in Foothills
Park was flooded in 1983. The City created a raised berm along Buckeye Creek, adjacent to the
shop, to protect it from the creek overflowing. The shop area occasionally floods during
extreme high rain events (once every few years) as a result of poor drainage away from the
shop and road.
The amount of sediment that accumulates in the 7.7 acre parcel and needs to be removed
varies greatly from year to year. Some years, when it is fairly dry, no sediment is removed from
the culverts. On years with average rainfall it can vary between 30 and 100 yards of sediment.
On extremely rainy years there can be as much as 500 to 600 yards of sediment removed. Some
of the sediment has been used to fill in the slopes of the 7.7 acre parcel, some on the valley
floor, and some was taken off site.
The removal is especially important before the creek flows through culverts at the west end of
the site. This is the last opportunity to clear the sedimentation before heading into the large
culverts downstream. The sediments vary from fine to large sands and gravels. Nearly all of the
fine, nutrient rich silts wash downstream and do not drop out in this area.
The private resident whose property borders the 7.7 acres has managed the creek sediment
removal process up until now at his cost. The City will now be responsible for that work unless
an agreement between the City and the private resident is obtained.
Buckeye Creek Culverts
Buckeye Creek has been channelized in many sections in Foothills Park, including at the (west)
end of the 7.7 acre parcel. Buckeye Creek flows into a series of culverts and then flows under
private property for several hundred feet. The culverts start as a single seven-foot diameter
opening and then reduce down into multiple three-foot culverts. The first large culvert is
approximately seven feet below the valley floor of the parcel. Access to the culvert is currently
not secured, and it would be dangerous if someone ventured down into it or was washed into it
during a rain event. The culvert would need to be secured with fencing and a gate (to allow
access for heavy equipment to clear the culvert of sediment) before the site is opened to the
public.
Some stakeholders have suggested that Buckeye Creek could support steelhead habitat.
Buckeye Creek flows into Los Trancos Creek, which has been documented to have steelhead.
Since a significant portion of the creek is channelized and deeply incised, it has an increased
slope resulting in a high stream velocity. This accelerates erosion and prevents the formation of
City of Palo Alto Page 4
pools and riffles needed for good fish habitat. It is uncertain if there is enough water flow in the
creek to support steelhead.
Current Soil Conditions
When the 7.7 acre parcel was owned by the Lee family, the land was used as a place to store
the overburden (spoils and rock) from the adjacent quarry. The north hillside (on the right side
as you enter the property from Foothills Park) is comprised of highly compacted overburden
from the quarry. The approximately 2.1 acre valley floor (flat area without trees) of the 7.7 acre
parcel has approximately 5 feet of overburden. The compacted and poor soils do not drain well
and make it challenging to grow trees and other vegetation.
The former lessee of the 7.7 acres parcel struggled to sustain and grow trees on the site. The
lessee used extensive amounts of compost to establish redwood trees along the hillside and
edges of the parcel. The trees are stunted in growth, but they have survived.
Staff investigated the option of selling the 5 feet of overburden soil, and the sediments that
deposit in the creek culverts. We shared soil samples from the 7.7 acres parcel with the landfill
staff and were informed that the soil is too rocky to use as landscaping fill. The landfill staff
estimated it would cost the City $20 to $25 per ton to remove from the site.
No Utilities on Site
There are no electrical, water, or sewer lines on the 7.7 acre parcel. Any infrastructure that
requires these amenities would need to factor in the added expense to provide the necessary
utilities.
Hydrology Study
The Fiscal Year 2016 Capital Budget includes funding in the amount of $150,000 for a hydrology
study of Buckeye Creek to analyze and recommend solutions to the historic channelization and
resulting down-cutting and erosion problems. Staff is working to initiate the study quickly so
that it can be completed as soon as possible.
The current schedule for the hydrology study is as follows:
Develop RFP– August 2015
Issue Notice to Proceed- November 2015
Draft report – February 2016
Parks and Recreation Commission/Community meetings to introduce project–April/May
Hydrology study recommendation to Parks and Recreation Commission – June/August 2016
Hydrology study recommendation to Council – September/October 2016
Easements and Other Restrictions
City of Palo Alto Page 5
There is an emergency ingress and egress easement that runs through the parcel to Los Trancos
Road. This easement must be maintained for emergency response and evacuation of Foothills
Park.
Development is limited next to Buckeye Creek. Environmental regulations preclude any
permanent structures or parking lots within 50 feet of Buckeye Creek. (The 50 feet is measured
from the bank of the creek.)
The 7.7 acres is bordered on three sides by a private residence. There is only one public entry
and exit point to the 7.7 acres. It is through Foothills Park, and passes through the Foothills Park
Maintenance Facility and staff parking area.
The flat area of the parcel (approximately 2.1 acres) is the only viable usable space within the
total 7.7 acres for constructing any type of structure. This includes the current .53 Acterra acre
nursery parcel. The remaining portion of the parcel is hillsides, exclusive easements and setback
from Buckeye Creek. The approximate size of this flat area was ascertained through
measurements taken from the City’s GIS system.
The Parks Master Plan
The Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master Plan) is currently being
developed, and will have information that will provide valuable insight to any possible functions
that may be currently underserved in our park and recreation system.
Discussion
On January 27, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the possible uses for the
newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park. Several Commissioners noted
that because of the timing of the hydrology study and the Parks Master Plan, we should not
expect the Parks Master Plan to identify specific direction on how to develop the 7.7 acre
parcel. The Commissioners also noted the Parks Master will provide information about what
gaps and needs throughout the City’s park system that will be helpful in forming a decision
about the future uses of the 7.7 acre parcel.
There was consensus among the Commissioners on three issues regarding the 7.7 acre parcel:
1. The Buckeye Creek hydrology study should be completed before making any
recommendations on how to use the land. The recommendations on how to best
address the hydrology challenges may alter the City’s decision on how best to use the
land.
2. The Acterra Nursery lease should be renewed on a short-term basis so that the City has
the flexibility to act on whatever options and recommendations develop from the
hydrology study.
3. The site should remain closed until after the hydrology study is complete. Investing in
City of Palo Alto Page 6
fencing and supervision to open the site to the public before the hydrology study is not
prudent.
The Commission noted that there is no need for additional Ad Hoc Committee meetings on this
topic, and that staff should return promptly to the Commission with a recommendation.
Attachment E includes the January 27, 2015 Commission staff report and minutes from the
meeting.
On February 25, 2015, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Council approve
of the following course of action regarding use of the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land at
Foothills Park:
1. Fund and implement a Capital Improvement Project to conduct a hydrology study of Buckeye
Creek.
2. Keep the 7.7 acre parcel closed until after the hydrology study is completed.
3. Renew the Acterra Nursery lease for one year so that the lease expiration will coincide with
the approximate timeframe to complete the hydrology study. The lease should include the
option for renewal on a yearly basis for four additional years pending mutual agreement and
City approval.
Staff agrees with the Parks and Recreation Commission that the hydrology study should be
completed before long-term plans for the 7.7 acre parcel are developed. Investing significant
funds to construct any facilities on the site might limit some of the possible recommendations
and solutions that will be proposed by the hydrology plan. Once the hydrology study is
completed (tentatively scheduled for June-August 2016), staff will return to the Parks and
Recreation Commission with the results and recommendations from the study, and work with
the Commission to draft a recommendation for Council regarding the use of the 7.7 acre site.
Staff informed the Commission that their recommendation would be shared with Council as the
preferred option, and that the subsequent Council staff report will also discuss alternative
options for Council’s consideration. Attachments F and G includes the February 24, 2015
Commission minutes from the meeting and staff report.
Because the Acterra Nursery Lease was set to expire in August 2015, their lease was renewed
on April 30, 2015 for an additional five years. The lease renewal includes an option for either
party to terminate the lease with a 90-day notification. Staff discussed the issues with Acterra
regarding the possible implications of the results of the hydrology study and their lease.
Alternative Option
Direct staff to:
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1. Install the necessary fencing and gates to ensure that the 7.7 acre site, including the
Acterra Nursery, is safe and secure.
2. Install a simple loop trail and two park benches.
3. Open the site to the public.
The approximate cost of fencing is $30,000 (this does not include fencing to secure the private
residence adjacent to the parcel. The private resident would be expected to provide their own
fencing). The approximate cost for a basic 1,800 feet loop trail and two benches is $21,000.
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission do not recommend this option, primarily
because the Buckeye Creek hydrology study will inform the City’s decision on how best to use
the land. The recommendations that come from the study could involve relocating the Acterra
Nursery, re-alignment of Buckeye Creek within the 7.7 acres, possible trail configuration
alternatives, and fencing alignment among other park design considerations. Staff and the
Parks and Recreation Commission recommend the City not invest in new fencing, park
amenities, or design work for the area until after the hydrology study is complete.
Commissioners also noted that opening the undeveloped site, in advance of the Buckeye Creek
hydrology study would not be the best use of resources, as Foothills Park has 15 miles of
existing trails, multiple first-come first-serve picnic areas, Boronda Lake, and multiple habitat
types that are readily available for visitors to explore and enjoy.
Staff perspective is aligned with the Commission, adding that best management practices for
opening new park land involves designing and preparing the area prior to opening it up to the
public, whereby recreation uses, public access and areas for conservation and habitat
restoration are thoughtfully and intentionally defined. Byxbee Park Hills and the Pearson
Arastradero Preserve provide two examples of Palo Alto open space areas that remained closed
to public use for a period of time until the areas were designed and constructed.
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission greatly appreciate the value of dedicating the
7.7 acre parcel as park land; this action protects the land for park, playground, recreation or
conservation purposes. Staff is committed to working expeditiously on the Buckeye Creek
hydrology study, and to work further with Parks and Recreation Commission and public
thereafter, on a well-informed thoughtful recommendation for use of the 7.7 acres for Council
consideration.
Timeline
Buck-eye Creek Hydrology Study Summer 2015- Spring 2016
Return to the Parks and Recreation
Commission with results from the Hydrology
Study to determine, with further public input,
possible next steps for the 7.7 ares site
Fiscal year 2017
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Resource Impact
The FY2016 Capital Budget includes $149,000 for PG-15000, Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study.
There are no further resource impacts for the staff recommendation.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A - Public Comments for Foothills 7.7 Acres (PDF)
Attachment B - March 24, 2014 Council Minutes (PDF)
Attachment C - Park Dedication Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment D - Letter from Mayor to Lee Family (PDF)
Attachment E - January 27, 2014 Commission Minutes (PDF)
Attachment F - February 24, 2015 Commission Minutes (PDF)
Attachment G - February 24, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
Public Meeting
Subject: Gather community input on how to use the 7.7 acre area
Date: October 18, 2014
Location: Foothills Park
Eighteen people signed the sign‐in sheet. There were some late arrivals. Total number of
meeting participants was about 27.
Public Suggestions:
1. Open sided building for various special events. Ideally allowing horses. It would bring
more people into the park. Possible uses could include hay rides, weddings, etc. The
fact that there is a large flat area is a positive.
2. Note that the 5’ of overburden soil (this is the material that was excavated from the
adjacent quarry) that was placed on the 7.7 acres limits the restoration options. The
overburden material is not good for growing plants. Alternatives to restoration should
be considered. It would take a lot of effort to restore. Bounded with only one entry is
also a challenge. We need to think outside the box.
3. The flat area is good thing. It would be a good location for a primitive campground with
limited amenities. We could use the existing amenities, such as the restrooms at Oak
Grove and the parking near Oak Grove picnic area.
4. Move the existing park maintenance building into the 7.7 acre area, and restore the site
where the maintenance building is currently sitting. The maintenance yard is the entry
to this space, and the entry should be attractive.
5. All options considered for this space should retain the Acterra nursery, and build on
access to the nursery. The nursery should be instructional, not just commercial.
(someone notes that classes of children do visit the nursery).
6. There are numerous benefits of the nursery, and it should be maintained on site.
7. There should be a place holder for option of including a Canopy tree nursery at the site.
8. It would be great if there was public access into this area through Los Trancos Road.
Don’t do anything that would preclude or prevent future connectivity through this site
to the rest of Foothills Park.
9. Restore original creek. Consider removing the overburden soil and restoring the area to
one contiguous valley. It would take a long time, but with time and grants it is possible.
10. Leave the site alone. Just add a simple trail.
11. Concern about emergency exit from the park. How is an individual inside the park
supposed to escape the area if there is a gate that can only be opened by emergency
response staff?
12. Acterra nursery should be allowed to stay on the site because it is a benefit to the City.
13. Make sure this issue is covered by the press (Weekly). It will ensure that more people
are aware of the discussion.
14. The Parks Master Plan may identify needs that cannot be met with our existing space in
the park system. Keep this area open for needs that are identified in the Master Plan.
15. Keep Acterra Nursery on the site.
16. Support the Acterra Nursery and expand the stewardship and educational
opportunities.
17. Use the area for athletic fields.
18. Question about how often the campground and group picnic area are booked? (Staff
explained that during summer weekends the campground and group picnic area are
fully booked.)
19. Camping could be a great use for this site.
20. Cabin camping with platforms would be a good use for the site. It would increase winter
camping.
21. Consider removing the eucalyptus trees from the site.
22. Adding something like the Oak Grove Picnic Area and including some new trees.
23. Include placeholders for connectivity.
24. Restoration could bring lots of grant money.
25. Canopy tree nursery
26. Creek restoration concept. There are lots of grants for this kind of work.
27. Improve the soil and let nature take its course. Remember, this is a nature preserve.
28. Respect the neighbors to this site. Need to take into account noise issues for whatever is
considered for this area. You wouldn’t put a campground right next to other neighbors’
homes anywhere else in the park system, so why would you do it in this situation?
MINUTES
Council Member Holman preferred to maintain a rate of 5 percent. She
inquired whether any percentage of the increase could be directed to specific
programs.
Ms. Stump explained Council Member Holman was suggesting a special tax,
which required two-thirds approval by the voters.
Council Member Schmid noted the Motion directed elimination of the large
volume discount paid by nine specific commercial users. The Motion did not
eliminate the discount for other future commercial entities.
Council Member Berman agreed to delete the words "nine commercial."
Mayor Shepherd felt there was no reason not to modernize the UUT. She supported elimination of the large volume discount.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
10. Colleagues' Memo From Council Members Burt, Holman, and Schmid
Urging Colleagues to Dedicate New Parkland in the Foothills.
James Keene, City Manager, reported in 2011 John Arrillaga approached
Staff with an unsolicited proposal to acquire long-term access and use of 7.7
acres gifted to the City "for conservation including park and recreation
purposes" by the Lee family in 1981. In January 2012 Mr. Arrillaga
expressed interest in leasing the property for 25 years. His expressed
interest was to secure long-term access to the property. Staff discussed
potential options and requirements for a lease and a purchase. A May 2012
appraisal of the property set a value of $175,000. The City informed
Mr. Arrillaga it would not consider selling the property at that appraised
price. Additional offsetting parkland and a higher sale price could be factors
in any City consideration of selling its interest in the 7.7 acres. On June 4,
2012 and September 18, 2012 the Council held Closed Sessions on the
topic. Staff clearly indicated a policy session would need to be scheduled for
public discussion of options and issues as part of any decision to proceed.
The City informed Mr. Arrillaga that any sale of public land could involve the
Surplus Property Act and would be subject to local bidding requirements.
Mr. Arrillaga withdrew his proposal.
Council Member Holman noted the consultant in the first Study Session of
the evening indicated that every square foot of parkland was valuable in a
built-out community. Many colleagues did not realize this land existed or
that it was City owned. She requested coauthors of the Colleagues Memo be
allowed to make comments prior to public speakers.
Page 20 of 27
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 3/24/2014
MINUTES
Mayor Shepherd indicated coauthors could provide relevant comments in
response to Council questions.
Enid Pearson supported dedication of the 7.7 acres as parkland. She
recalled that Mr. Lee offered the City the quarry and additional lands;
however, the City opted not to take his offer. She suggested Staff and the Council review other lands for possible dedication as parkland.
Geoff Paulsen, member of the Lee family, was appreciative of the
relationship between the Lee family and the City. The land provided a
valuable emergency access route. The property was flat and amenable to
access by the elderly and disabled, provided a variety of habitats, and allowed connection to the network of Foothills trails.
Emily Renzel was pleased dedication of the property as parkland was
presented. The site offered interesting possibilities for consolidating natural
areas.
Winter Dellenbach shared stories about Deer Meadow and the lack of
dedicating property donated to the City as parkland.
John Lindon was interested in adding a trail that connected the property with
trails from Foothill Park. He offered to provide a substantial portion of the
cost to construct a foot bridge for the trail.
Herb Borock supported the proposal to dedicate the 7.7 acres as parkland.
He provided additional history regarding the City's decision not to purchase
additional land from Mr. Lee.
Doria Summa urged the Council to dedicate the 7.7 acres as parkland.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to direct Staff to: 1) return to Council with a park dedication
Ordinance for this City-owned land adjacent to Foothills Park; 2) outline the
major options for the best uses of this land; 3) present to the Parks and
Recreation Commission alternatives for public uses along with natural
landscape restoration for their review and for public input; 4) establish a
timeline for permanently opening the land to the public; and 5) draft a letter
of appreciation acknowledging the contribution of the Lee family to Palo Alto
parks.
Council Member Holman felt a letter of appreciation was overdue.
Council Member Schmid was not aware the property was restricted to
conservation and recreation until Mr. Arrillaga made his offer to the City.
Page 21 of 27
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 3/24/2014
MINUTES
The property was beautiful. He had no doubt the public would support
dedicating the property as parkland and opening it to public access as
quickly as possible.
Council Member Klein supported parkland dedication. The deed restriction
limiting use to conservation and recreation did not expire and would apply to any owner of the property. Dedication added another layer of protection for
the property. The Motion appeared to be inconsistent with the Parks, Trails,
Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) process. The property
should be included in the Master Plan process.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to delete item numbers 3 and 4 in the Motion and add to the end of item
number 2, “and estimated costs of such uses”.
Council Member Klein felt the Council should move deliberately in order to
determine the City's needs. He expressed concern that the public might not
be interested in additional parkland, as the usage of Foothill Park had been
declining for a long period of time. The issue needed additional study before
the City spent funds to develop the land.
Vice Mayor Kniss visited the property earlier in the day. In order to access
the property, one had to pass a maintenance yard, cross property leased to
Acterra, and then cross barren land. The property should be incorporated
into the Master Plan process. She presumed the parking lot and
maintenance yard would need to be moved in order to extend the meadow.
If the Amendment was not adopted, she hoped the Council would reconsider
evaluating the property in terms of the Master Plan process.
Council Member Burt did not believe the Amendment provided guidance to
move the issue forward. Recommendation Number 3 did not prescribe an
action or an outcome. Recommendation Number 2 could include potential
costs. Recommendation Number 4 requested the establishment of a
timeline. He would not support the Amendment. The property was located
along a valuable riparian corridor and presented an opportunity to restore a
rich, natural habitat. Acterra would embrace the opportunity to participate
in restoration of the natural area.
Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Klein and Vice Mayor
Kniss' comments. The Amendment did not diminish the importance of
property.
Council Member Berman inquired whether Recommendation Number 3 would
be part of the Master Plan process or a separate process.
Page 22 of 27
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 3/24/2014
MINUTES
Darren Anderson, Open Space, Parks and Golf, indicated the Council would
provide that direction. Staff would present updates to the Parks and
Recreation Commission (PARC) regarding the Master Plan.
Council Member Berman suggested the Motion could be revised to include
the property in the Master Plan process without disrupting the objectives of the Motion.
Council Member Holman did not accept the Amendment as an incorporation,
because it eliminated the creation of a timeline for the land becoming public.
She wanted a timeline for public access to the property. PARC could
determine how the property best fit in the Master Plan process. PARC should provide the Council with guidance regarding integration of the property into
the Master Plan process.
Council Member Berman reiterated that Staff was seeking Council direction
and the Council was referring it to PARC.
Council Member Holman felt the PARC was the lead body in the Master Plan
process. She could not state whether the property should be part of the
Master Plan process or an independent process.
Council Member Berman referenced an email from Acterra regarding its
nursery located on the property and requested Staff comment.
Mr. Anderson noted Acterra used approximately 1/2 acre for its nursery. He
did not believe that use was inconsistent with conservation and recreation
uses. Any action regarding Acterra's nursery would depend upon PARC and
Council decisions regarding use of the area.
Council Member Berman was pleased by the prospect of Acterra being
allowed to continue use of the property.
Mr. Anderson wished to continue the successful relationship with Acterra.
Mr. Keene added a firehouse was located in the park. An Acterra shed could
be accommodated as well.
Council Member Berman would support the Motion. He encouraged PARC to
include the property in the Master Plan process if that was appropriate.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the yellow house on the property was the
Lee's home when they lived on the property.
Mr. Paulsen believed the house was moved onto the property and utilized as
the gardener's home.
Page 23 of 27
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 3/24/2014
MINUTES
Mayor Shepherd understood Mr. Arrillaga was attempting to make the old
quarry habitable; however, the property was the staging area for
Mr. Arrillaga's work. She expressed concern that the Motion did include a
provision for estimating costs. She preferred to retain Acterra's use of the
property. The Motion did not address many of her concerns. She referenced problems with maintaining Buckeye Creek. She would support
the Amendment.
Council Member Schmid would not support the Amendment. Many issues
needed to be resolved. The Amendment would delay any action on the
property.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-4 Berman, Burt, Holman, Schmid no, Scharff
absent
AMENDMENT: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council
Member Klein to add “and estimated costs of such uses” into item number 2
of the main Motion.
Council Member Holman suggested identification of costs should be a
separate recommendation. Costs would be identified after PARC review.
Council Member Berman felt costs should be estimated first to aid PARC's
analysis of options.
Council Member Holman would not accept the language.
Council Member Klein believed as responsible stewards the Council should
know costs prior to considering uses.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt the costs should be considered in order to best restore
and utilize the land.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-1 Holman no, Scharff absent
Mayor Shepherd noted one of the neighbors maintained Buckeye Creek, and
inquired whether the City could collaborate with the neighbor on that work.
Mr. Anderson suggested opening the property to the public could cause
neighbors to fence their properties and, thus, remove the incentive for the
neighbor to continue the work.
Mayor Shepherd asked if the City would need additional equipment at the
property.
Mr. Anderson responded yes.
Page 24 of 27
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 3/24/2014
MINUTES
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether there was any possibility for neighbors to
continue some maintenance on the property.
Mr. Anderson indicated Staff would need to discuss it with neighbors.
Mayor Shepherd believed the City would need a plan for maintenance once
the property was opened to the public.
Mr. Keene understood the Council would direct Staff to work through the
Commission process regarding options. Council Member comments did not
prescribe or limit options; therefore, other resources could be leveraged.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
STATE LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION
11. Endorsement of AB 1799 - (Gordon) to Modify State Law Governing
Funding for the Long-term Stewardship of Mitigation Properties by
Public Agencies.
James Keene, City Manager, believed Staff could have proceeded with the
item under existing Council policy guidelines. Requiring local jurisdictions to
prefund the lifetime care and maintenance of a mitigation would necessitate
a significant amount of cash. Assemblyman Gordon's bill included some
qualifications to ensure local governments could meet standards and
requirements. This was an important piece of legislation to support
environmental initiatives and to have them be practicable.
Stephanie Munoz stated the State forced actions onto cities without taking
responsibility for funding those actions. The Council should recognize the
reasons for the State's demands.
Herb Borock did not believe the Council should take action without having
the bill for review. There would be other opportunities for the Council to
state its position, after it had reviewed the bill. The summary language was
too broad. The bill would be applied retroactively.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Shepherd to direct
Staff to send a letter of support on the City Council’s behalf to Assembly
Member Rich Gordon in support of Assembly Bill 1799 (AB 1799).
Vice Mayor Kniss indicated the law would modify State law governing
funding for the long-term stewardship of mitigation properties by public
agencies.
Page 25 of 27
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 3/24/2014
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
Ordinance No. __________
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Dedicating 7.7 Acres of Land Adjacent to Foothills Park
For Park, Playground, Recreation or Conservation Purposes
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 22.08.410 of Chapter 22.08 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby added to read, as follows:
“22.08.410 Lee Property – Addition to Foothills Park.
That certain parcel of land known as the Lee Property (addition to Foothills Park), as
delineated and described in Exhibit A-28 and attached hereto, is hereby reserved for park,
playground, recreation or conservation purposes.”
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance does not meet the
definition of a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Section 21065; therefore, no environmental impact assessment is
necessary.
//
//
//
//
1
140708 sdl 00710425
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon the expiration of thirty (30)
days from its passage.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
2
140708 sdl 00710425
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
EXHIBIT A-28
All of that certain real property being a portion of the Rancho El Corte De Madera, situate in the
City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and being more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a ¾-inch iron pipe at the northeasterly corner of that certain tract of land
described in the deed from Russell V. Lee, et ux, to Richard Stanford Lee, et ux, dated December
30, 1956, and recorded December 3 1956 in Book 3696 of Official Records at page 382,
Records of Santa Clara County, California; thence S. 15° 24’ 19” E. along the easterly line of said
tract 1083.65 feet; thence S. 72° 08’ 48” W. 595.53 feet; thence S. 38° 48’ 32” W. 179.00 feet;
thence 48” W. 593.53 feet; thence S. 12° 01’ 23” E. 488.00 feet; thence 32° 25’ 26” W. 229.44
feet to an iron pipe marking the southwest corner of a quarry, said last-named corner being
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S. 68° 17’ 19” E. 1048.00 feet to an iron pipe; thence
57° 28’ W. 60 feet, more or less, to a fence post marking a corner in the northwesterly
boundary line of the lands of the City of Palo Alto known as “Foothills Park,” as said lands are
described in “Exhibit A” of the agreement between said City and Russell V. Lee and Dorothy
Womack Lee, dated December 8, 1958 and recorded December 10, 1958 in Book 4254 of
Official Records at page 695, et seq., Records of said County; thence following said boundary
line of Foothills Park S. 57° 28’ W. (called 55° 54’ W. in said “Exhibit A”) 435.35 feet; thence
leaving said park boundary, N. 32° 32’ W. 5.00 feet; thence N. 64° 09’ W. 263.50 feet; thence N.
71° 21’ W. 117.50 feet; thence N. 29° 16’ E. 246.32 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
containing 7.70 acres, more or less, and being a portion of the Rancho El Corte De Madera.
3
140708 sdl 00710425
*****NOT YET APPROVED*****
EXHIBIT A-28
APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 22.08 OF TITLE 22, PARKS
(Record of Survey of 7.7 acre site)
4
140708 sdl 00710425
June 2, 2014
Members of the Lee Family
c/o Mr. Geoffrey Paulsen
10557 Randy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014-2037
Dear Friends –
On behalf of the City Council and citizens of Palo Alto, I wish to warmly thank the
members of the Lee Family for the amazing legacy created by Dorothy and Russel
Lee in the creation of Foothills Park, and the expansion of the park with the gift of the
deed of seven additional acres of land in 1981.
More than just a gift of land, the creation of Foothills Park has helped to establish the
deeply held value of stewardship of parks and open space lands that Palo Altoans
cherish so dearly.
Since the Foothills Park opened to the public in 1965, an average of 100,000 visitors
come to Foothills Park each year to picnic, hike, camp, explore nature, appreciate
wildlife and create life-long memories with friends and family. That’s nearly four
million total visitors since the park opened! The 7.7-acres of additional land deeded to
the City by the Lee Family will further enhance the recreational, conservation and
stewardship opportunities for visitors to enjoy.
Although this thank you letter is long overdue, please know how truly grateful our
community is for the vision and leadership Russel and Dorothy demonstrated in their
wish for the Lee Ranch to become a permanently-protected wildlife refuge and park
for the people of Palo Alto.
Very Cordially,
Nancy Shepherd
Mayor
Approved
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
January 27, 2015 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat 13
Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Stacey Ashlund 15
Others Present: Council Liaison Eric Filseth 16
Staff Present: Elizabeth Ames, Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, 17
Lester Hendrie, Peter Jensen 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19
20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21
22
Chair Hetterly: Now that I've read the packet, Item Number 5 on the Master Plan we 23
have scheduled for 45 minutes. I imagine that'll take at least an hour, so let's plan for 24
that. Also, everyone try to be efficient in your comments so that we can move things 25 along. 26
27 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 28 29
None. 30
31
IV. BUSINESS: 32 33
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Special Meeting of December 9, 2014. 34 35
Approval of the draft December 9, 2014 Minutes as written was moved by Vice Chair 36
Lauing and seconded by Commissioner Markevitch. Passed 6-0 37
38
Draft Minutes 1
Approved
2. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair for 2015. 39
40 Chair Hetterly: Every year we select a new Chair and Vice Chair. We start with the 41
Chair. I can describe the role of the Chairperson and then the process for nominations 42
and elections. You know most of what I do here at the table, but also there's a lot of 43
coordinating with city staff, with other commissions, with Council liaison, coordinating 44
meetings, setting agendas, checking in with Commissioners about any issues that they 45
want to add to the agenda, prioritizing work, keeping things moving forward, staying on 46
top of Council action and action in other commissions that's relevant to our work, 47
managing meetings, identifying and building consensus, trying to keep us on message as 48
we're sorting through issues and managing our time, and also keeping on top of the ad 49
hoc committees. We have a lot of ad hoc committees doing work on their own. 50
Checking in with them and figuring out where they are and keeping that work moving 51
forward as well. Another big job for the Chair is planning and directing the Retreat and 52
the joint Council session. Finally, speaking on behalf of the Commission to the Council 53
or to media or whoever. Skills it requires are basically organizational skills, attention to 54 detail, initiative to keep track of what's going on and keep us moving, communication 55 skills, tact and diplomacy, trying to keep track of who has an interest in what and making 56 sure they get heard. That's kind of a nutshell of what the job looks like. For the election, 57 it's pretty simple. I open the floor to nominations. Commissioners can nominate one 58
Commissioner at a time, and each nominee must get a second. A Commissioner can 59
enter your own name into the nomination as well. After each nomination, I'll ask the 60
nominated person if they're willing to accept the nomination. If yes, we continue on to 61
the next nomination. Once there are no further nominations, we'll close nominations and 62
take a vote. There's a ballot in front of you with a list of names, and you pick the one 63
name that you want to elect. Catherine will tally the votes. The newly elected Chair will 64
assume responsibility for chairing the rest of this meeting including election of the Vice 65
Chair, which follows the same protocol. I'll open up to nominations. Are there any 66
nominations? Commissioner Markevitch. 67
68
Commissioner Markevitch: I nominate Commissioner Reckdahl for Chair. I've watched 69
him over the last year really grow into his role. He's very detailed oriented and asks the 70
right questions. I think he'd be a really good Chair. I think it's time for him. 71
72
Chair Hetterly: I'll second that. I think Keith will do a great job. Any other 73
nominations? 74
75 Vice Chair Lauing: You need to ask him if he's going to accept. 76
77
Chair Hetterly: Are you willing to accept the nomination, Commissioner Reckdahl? 78
79
Draft Minutes 2
Approved
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'd be willing. It's not optimal for me; I've got a lot of work 80
commitments. If there's others that would be interested, I would support their interest. 81
82
Chair Hetterly: Any others? 83
84
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'd like to nominate Jen Hetterly. Is there a second? 85 86
Commissioner Knopper: I forget from last year. Are we allowed to ask you if you're 87
interested or do we have to nominate? 88
89
Chair Hetterly: Officially the nomination happens and then we have to say. It's a very 90
awkward process. 91
92
Commissioner Knopper: It is. It's terrible. 93
94
Vice Chair Lauing: I think every nomination should be seconded. I'd be happy to second 95
that and get a response from our current Chair. 96
97
Commissioner Knopper: Yeah, okay. I was going to say it also. 98
99
Chair Hetterly: I would prefer not to do it this year. I have some family situations that 100
need my attention for the next few months at the very least. I don't think I can give it my 101
full attention either. I would decline. 102
103
Commissioner Knopper: Ed. 104 105 Vice Chair Lauing: That died for lack of a second. I think the question is if you can do 106 it. If you're going to be absent half the time, then you're not going to feel good about 107
that. The nomination's there. 108
109
Commissioner Reckdahl: Deirdre, would you be interested in being Chair? 110
111
Commissioner Crommie: I guess I would be, if you don't want to do it or Jen doesn't 112
want to. I guess I would be if no one else wants to do it. 113
114
Commissioner Reckdahl: I nominate Deirdre Crommie. Is there a second? 115
116
Chair Hetterly: I'll second. Any others? We have Commissioner Crommie and 117
Commissioner Reckdahl on the table. If there are no others, we'll close the nominations 118
and go ahead and vote. 119
120
Catherine Bourquin: There's four for Reckdahl and two for Crommie. 121
Draft Minutes 3
Approved
122
Chair Reckdahl: Next, we'll move on to election of a Vice Chair. Commissioner Lauing, 123
could you explain the roles and duties of the Vice Chair? 124
125
Vice Chair Lauing: Yes, and I plan to spend at least 5 minutes in this administration. 126
The Vice Chair role has the obvious responsibility of serving in the absence of the Chair 127 and on any of the things that Jennifer discussed including chairing the meetings. That's 128
happened but rarely in my five-year tenure. Beyond that, it's really up to the Chair to 129
involve the Vice Chair in any way, shape, or form that he or she wants. It can be a very 130
close partnership to do a number of things including planning and organizing issues to 131
come before the Commission. Divide up the workload to help share that workload a little 132
more than just give it all to the Chair. Certainly interface with city staff and also just 133
being a consigliere to the Chair about what should we do, what do you think, etc. That's 134
how the last two Chairs and Vice Chairs have operated, but it doesn't have to be that way. 135
Overall, that's what it is. 136
137
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. We'll open the floor for nominations. Any nominations for Vice 138
Chair? 139
140
Vice Chair Lauing: I'd like to nominate Commissioner Markevitch. 141
142
Chair Reckdahl: Do we have a second? 143
144
Commissioner Knopper: I'll second. 145
146 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Markevitch, are you interested? 147 148 Commissioner Markevitch: I kind of put you on the spot there about workload, so I 149
guess I'll back you up. 150
151
Vice Chair Lauing: My nomination of Commissioner Markevitch is that she has very 152
long experience on this Commission, knows the issues and the process inside and out. 153
She's in the last year of her current term. She also has very specific experience as the 154
Chair, a few years back. As a mentor to a new Chair, that's kind of interesting and very 155
helpful. She knows a lot of the city staff very well and has worked with them in and 156
outside the recreation group. She has very good experience and relationships with 157
multiple Council Members as well, which is helpful. Given our new liaison, maybe she 158
can be a mentor to our new liaison and get him up to speed. That's my statement. 159
160
Chair Reckdahl: Very good. Any other nominations for Vice Chair? Okay. With no 161
other nominations, we'll now vote for Vice Chair. 162
163
Draft Minutes 4
Approved
Ms. Bourquin: Six for Markevitch. 164
165
Chair Reckdahl: Before we start the business, we really should thank Commissioner 166
Hetterly. Last year was her first year as Chairman, and it didn't seem like it. She ran the 167
Commission very well, and we all owe a big debt of gratitude to her because she really 168
took a lot of the load off of us organizing meetings. The meetings were organized and 169 productive, so we thank you for your service. 170
171
3. Report on New 7.7 Acres of Dedicated Parkland at Foothills Park. 172
173
Chair Reckdahl: We have Peter Neal as our first speaker, followed by Claire Elliott. 174
175
Peter Neal: Good evening. I'm Peter Neal, a Palo Alto resident and a long-time 176
volunteer at the Acterra native plant nursery. I actually helped move the nursery into the 177
Foothills Park site in 2003, and I've been there about two days a week for more than 11 178
years since then. I have a pretty good understanding of the nursery operation. I'm also 179
quite familiar with the 7.7 acre parcel. I can offer to make myself available as an 180
information resource any time if necessary during the discussion of these topics. I'd also 181
like to say I recall distinctly the difficulty that Acterra had in finding a suitable location 182
for the nursery. We looked at many potential sites and rejected many potential sites until 183
finally this wonderful place at Foothills Park became available. Since the nursery 184
relocated there, it has expanded dramatically and has become a real focal point and 185
primary supplier for native plant restoration in the local area. It's highly respected within 186
the restoration and native plant communities, not only for the quality of the plants it 187
supplies but also for the professionalism of the service. I might also add that the nursery 188 is an indispensable part of the Acterra Stewardship Program. All plants used in Acterra 189 stewardship activities are grown at the nursery. I would really like to see the nursery 190 lease renewed and the nursery be allowed to stay at this great location for a long time to 191
come. I'd also like to comment on two other proposals, that being the hydrologic study of 192
Buckeye Creek and incorporating the 7.7 acre parcel into the Parks and Open Space 193
Master Planning process. I think it's very important to do those things. I also suggest 194
that no kind of alteration, construction or development be undertaken on the site until the 195
results of those studies can be completed. I just urge us to take a slow but thorough 196
approach to deciding the best thing to do with this property. Thank you. 197
198
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Claire Elliott is up, followed by Alex Von Feldt. 199
200
Claire Elliott: Hi, I'm Claire Elliott. I'm a resident of Palo Alto and have enjoyed using 201
Foothills Park for a couple of decades. Full disclosure, I'm also an Acterra employee, 202
and I work with the Stewardship Program. I support whatever we can do to incorporate 203
that land as parkland, especially if there's a way to restore Buckeye Creek. I think we 204
need to look at the environmental impacts of removing all the sediment that's there, but I 205
Draft Minutes 5
Approved
think that's doable. I think the nursery is a very low profile, low impact use that has a lot 206
of positive benefits especially that we're also helping to steward Foothills Park. Some of 207
the plants for the restoration could come from very close by and they'll be locally specific 208
native plants, which is really important for the co-evolution with local wildlife. That's 209
something that people are understanding more and more, that we're not providing that 210
link between our plants and our wildlife, because there's nothing that can eat the plants. 211 The non-native plants don't support insect life. For example, 96 percent of birds are 212
eating insects when they're feeding them to their young. That's very important for us to 213
have that base of the food chain be moved up through the insect population. The only 214
way to do that in any healthy way is with native plant species. I also think that the 215
nursery could be accessible to the public. It already is at certain times. There's no need 216
to have it closed off to the public. There's not really anywhere to go from there, so I don't 217
see any need to have trails going through the area. On the other hand, I think it would be 218
possible to do. Thank you very much. 219
220
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Next is Alex Von Feldt, followed by Jerry Hearn. 221
222
Alex von Felt: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Alex von Felt, and I'm the 223
program director for Acterra Stewardship Program. I know several of you were out at the 224
site when we had the site visit. For those of you that weren't, Acterra is a Palo Alto based 225
environmental nonprofit that engages and educates the community to restore our local 226
open spaces, parks, and creeks. We've been partnering with the City of Palo Alto to 227
assist with land stewardship since 1996. Basically we get people out to enjoy and restore 228
our valued open spaces. We educate our youth about the importance of preserving these 229
places and the services they provide, so that they can be environmental stewards and 230 make informed decisions as adults. Last year, we worked with over 3,500 volunteers on 231 Palo Alto sites alone including Arastradero Preserve, Foothills Park, San Francisquito 232 Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, Adobe Creek and also several sites within the 233
Palo Alto School District. Over half of our volunteers are youth. Also this past year, the 234
dollar value of this labor was estimated to be about $250,000. On top of that, Acterra 235
secured about $115,000 in other grants that went to the direct benefit of Palo Alto sites. 236
Our nursery supports all of our projects as well as it is a regional provider for other 237
agencies such as the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Midpeninsula Regional 238
Open Space District. We also provide an educational resource. In fact, the California 239
Native Plant Society just had a large conference recently, and one of the sites they went 240
to was our nursery. As Claire mentioned, we are the steward for Foothills Park, and we 241
just recently secured some additional funds to help restore Buckeye Creek. I'd like to 242
voice my support for the staff report, specifically the part about keeping the nursery. We 243
appreciate that. We also support the restoration theme concept and funding the 244
hydrologic study as well as postponing the investment in the infrastructure until we know 245
what the hydrologic study shows us. We are at the nursery site Monday through 246
Draft Minutes 6
Approved
Thursday at least. We'd be happy to keep it open so that people can come visit the site, 247
visit the nursery in the interim until the city decides what to do. Thank you. 248
249
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Next is Jerry Hearn, followed by Emily Renzel. 250
251
Jerry Hearn: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Jerry Hearn. I'm a resident of 252 Portola Valley. I've been associated with Acterra since its inception. Like Peter, I've 253
been involved with the nursery since it was in the backyard of our stewardship manager's 254
home many years ago. Peter also mentioned how difficult it was finding a place, and we 255
really appreciate having the site that we have right now. We work very well with the 256
multiple entities in the Palo Alto system to stay there. I wanted to compliment Daren and 257
the staff on this report. I think it's excellent. I think it was well done and very 258
comprehensive. I wanted to add a few things to what you've already heard tonight. I 259
have worked in the Stewardship Program for many years. Through that I get to know a 260
lot of the kids who are actually doing the work. Let me tell you that the work that they 261
do here leads them into fields well beyond what we would normally expect kids of that 262
age to do. Many of them move on and become conservation biologists. I know some 263
that are climatologists. Some of them are field biologists. All this because of their 264
experiences with Acterra, and that's supported by the nursery. The effect of what's 265
happening here goes far beyond just the community of Palo Alto. As a matter of fact, 266
hopefully it's changing some of the ways that we operate as humans in the world. 267
Turning to the report exactly, I would also strongly recommend that you extend the lease 268
for Acterra for obvious reasons. The hydrologic study is an excellent idea. I also happen 269
to work a lot in the watersheds, the watershed right around San Francisquito Creek. 270
There is definitely steelhead in Los Trancos Creek. Were it possible, they would also be 271 coming up in Buckeye Creek. There is a possibility of some fairly extensive and 272 important restoration to happen there. The study has to happen first. I also happen to 273 side on the committee that's working with the Master Plan project for the parks. I've 274
heard a lot of things that could possibly go on in that area. That 7.7 acres is not an easy 275
area to either restore or to put amenities in for a lot of reasons. However, there have been 276
some relatively interesting ideas. I think before making any changes to the current status 277
beyond opening it up when the Acterra nursery people are there to sort of steward people 278
who want to come in, I think the hydrologic study should be completed and the Master 279
Plan process should be completed so it can inform how that area would be used in a very 280
thoughtful and comprehensive way. Like Peter, I know a lot about this area, and I remain 281
open to any questions or any problems you want to bring up. I'd be happy to be engaged 282
in those. Thank you very much. 283
284
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Next is Emily Renzel, followed by Shani Kleinhaus. 285
286
Emily Renzel: I also think staff did a very thorough job on this staff report. It seemed to 287
me that repeatedly the issue came up of the need to deal with the hydrology of the site 288
Draft Minutes 7
Approved
before doing anything else. The hydrologic study is something that I hope you will get 289
solidly behind. I think it should be the driving force of how this site is worked on over 290
time. We tend to think of doing projects in short timeframes, 5, 10 years. This might be 291
a 50-year project. The first step is to understand the hydrology of the site and to make a 292
long-term plan for how it works before trying to do anything else. Just looking, without 293
knowing all the ins and outs of how things are done, it would seem to me since much of 294 this site has been disturbed, that it might make sense to explore moving the maintenance 295
yard to a portion of that site and use the part that's more contiguous with the current 296
Foothills Park for the kinds of activities that have been requested of group picnic areas 297
and so forth. Primarily if you look at the left side of that picture, it's open space and that's 298
probably what this whole area looked like at one time. Over a longer term it would be 299
worthwhile to look at how to make that work both hydrologically and naturally. While I 300
think it's important to have some concerns about adjoining neighbors, our first process is 301
to protect and enhance the park. As far as Acterra, up until this was park dedicated, there 302
was no issue about temporary use of the site. Over the long term it should be explored 303
whether there are other non-park sites for this kind of activity because it's just like a 304
camel's nose in the tent. When people want to do things, they always want to look to 305
parkland because it's the only land left. I think it's important to treat this as a park first 306
and to deal with the hydrology first. Thank you. 307
308
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Our last commentator is Shani Kleinhaus. 309
310
Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening. I'm Shani Kleinhaus with Santa Clara Valley Audubon 311
Society. Our members frequent the park, and we have some bluebird trails there that our 312
stewards monitor how the bluebirds are using them. Children have the opportunity to 313 bring the box down to look inside, to see the bluebirds as they grow. It's a great thrill for 314 a lot of our people. Some of our programs are with Acterra together. When I visited that 315 site, I remembered Daren was there and he said, "Just imagine if all of this was a restored 316
meadow." I think he was right on. I think the hydrological study is needed to see how 317
this could potentially become a restored meadow. It would be lovely to have Acterra and 318
other groups like ours work on that. I also think that the nursery is a regional resource 319
that we should not give up. Acterra's nursery is really important to a lot of restoration 320
efforts throughout our county. They have a frog pond. One of the things that came up in 321
one of the meetings of the Palo Alto Parks Plan was people said, "Where are the frogs? 322
Bring them back. We want to see the tadpoles. We want to see the frogs. Where are 323
they?" Here is your opportunity to show. Emily's concerned that other organizations will 324
also want to do things there, but there is a possibility of saying this is grandfathered in 325
and no more. I would think that this should be a recommendation, so there wouldn't be a 326
proliferation of all sorts of other activities or maybe just carefully consider any more that 327
want to come in. To me, it would be wonderful to realize Daren's meadow. Thank you. 328
329
Draft Minutes 8
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. That is the end of public comment, so we'll move onto the 330
presentation. Technically this is the ad hoc committee. Daren, I assume you're the 331
president presenting. 332
333
Daren Anderson: Is the ad hoc committee okay with me presenting this? Great. Good 334
evening. I'm Daren Anderson. I'm with Open Space, Parks and Golf. Tonight I've got 335 my colleague, Lester Hendrie, Supervising Ranger at Foothills Park, with me as well. 336
We're here tonight to discuss that 7.7 acre parcel of parkland up at Foothills Park and to 337
receive guidance from the Commission on how best to use this land, help us chart our 338
way forward through the process, and guidance on concepts that you think should be 339
further developed to include cost estimates, if that's the way the Commission would like 340
to move forward. A quick background. In August 2014, Council dedicated this piece of 341
land as parkland and directed the Commission to guide the process through developing 342
options for land use. We hosted ranger-led tours up at the site and held a public meeting 343
to collect suggestions on what the public wanted to see at this location. There were three 344
major themes that came out of this public meeting and outreach that we had done. 345
Primarily there were recreation activities, and there was a variety. All this is in the staff 346
report. Restoration themes. The third being sustain the nursery; it's a vital part of the 347
park, and we'd really like to see it stay. The staff report lists a number of challenges 348
associated with developing this particular parcel. They range from the very poor soil 349
which is about 5 feet deep. It's overburdened; that came from the adjacent quarry. 350
Buckeye Creek flows right through the property and associated sediment, flooding, 351
culvert issues and creek setback limitations. All part of the creek passing through this 352
piece of property. The need for the hydrologic study to address those aforementioned 353
creek issues. The lack of any existing utilities on the parcel. The easements, such as the 354 emergency ingress and egress easement. The fact that it's a one-way entry and exit that 355 passes through a maintenance area. In November 2014, the ad hoc committee provided 356 an update for Council at a joint meeting. The Council had a number of suggestions and 357
questions, all enumerated in the report. The staff report includes a section on feasibility 358
and needs assessment associated with these themes that were generated. I just want to 359
highlight this. This assessment was done by staff; this was not part of the Master Plan. It 360
was predicated on an analysis of our existing facilities, such as our campground. We 361
looked at our reservations and confirmed when it's busy, when it's booked, and when we 362
had extra requests. This is staff analysis and analysis of our existing reservations. For 363
example, on the recreation theme we looked at camping. This was one of the elements 364
we looked at. The demand on camping is there. We've got our existing Towle Camp. 365
When we look at reservations, we know weekends during the summer we always book 366
out. There is demand for more camping at our park, and we could definitely fill 367
additional requests if there was another campground. The feasibility section lists a 368
number of issues that make camping problematic in that area. Likewise for restoration, 369
it's fairly clear the site would definitely benefit from restoration. The need is very clear. 370
It's bare soil basically, compacted, with a few weeds. You can see in the photo of the site 371
Draft Minutes 9
Approved
the adjacent area is heavily treed and wooded. There's a variety of options for 372
restoration. The feasibility of restoration, however, is challenging but not impossible. 373
I've been to restoration workshops where I've seen very compacted, poor soil eventually 374
made proper, healed basically. There's a variety of different ways that could happen, but 375
it would be long and involved. The last page of the staff report includes a list of nine 376
options that the staff and the ad hoc committee have put together, that we thought might 377 foster discussion and help guide the discussion a little bit tonight. Attachment C, there's a 378
number of aerial photographs. If there was a particular amenity that you saw that was 379
generated as part of these suggestions that you thought was really important to add to 380
Foothills, let's say camping or a group picnic area, but you thought it might not be 381
appropriate for the 7.7 acre spot, but you did think it was necessary, Attachment C was to 382
help illustrate there are other areas in Foothills that might be an option to consider. This 383
particular one is a little spot below Station 8 up in Foothills. It's flat, small. You'll see 384
the depiction of what it would look like if you put one of the amenities there. I believe 385
this is a group pavilion area and what it would look like with the Acterra nursery in that 386
spot. Only to illustrate that if there was a particular amenity that you really wanted to 387
have and you didn't think it would fit in the 7.7 acres, this was just another option to 388
consider. There is an aerial photo that shows what it would look like if you placed the 389
group picnic area and a parking lot in the 7.7 acres. This was just an example we took 390
from a Santa Clara County park. This is a group picnic area that would probably 391
accommodate about 100 people. It's covered and a parking lot that would accommodate 392
about that many vehicles is associated with it. Again, it's rough estimates; just strictly to 393
give you an idea what it would look like with these amenities on this property. That 394
concludes the staff presentation. I defer to the ad hoc committee if there is anything else 395
to add. Lester and I are available for questions. 396 397 Chair Reckdahl: Anyone from the ad hoc committee? 398 399
Commissioner Knopper: Thank you very much, Daren and Lester, for leading the group 400
meetings. Obviously this is a hot issue. A lot of people have opinions about it, and 401
there's a lot of different elements that go into making the appropriate decisions as to what 402
this parcel of land could or couldn't be. I wanted to say thank you very much for that. 403
This staff report was extremely efficient and laid everything out so everybody 404
understands all the different parameters and all of the different issues that might preclude 405
us from going in one specific direction. We obviously want to open it up to the 406
Commission for discussion. 407
408
Chair Reckdahl: We'll open it up for questions or comments. Commissioner Crommie. 409
410
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you for the report, Daren, and thank you to the ad hoc 411
committee for your work. I think it's a really well thought out report. I have a couple of 412
comments. First of all, I think what has been missing is the hydrology study. That is of 413
Draft Minutes 10
Approved
paramount importance. We know there are problems there. Despite some kind of 414
attempted remediation, the creek channelization has gotten worse. Those things are 415
definitely deteriorating rather than getting better. For us to make the best use of our 416
natural resources, we need to invest in the study. It just seems like a no-brainer to get this 417
study done. I appreciate you, Daren, having worked on this previously. The last time 418
you proposed it, this wasn't yet dedicated parkland. There's a lot more interest in this 419 now. I hope that will gain traction. I wouldn’t ever want to see a parking lot go into that 420
area. Any activity that needs a parking lot should automatically be crossed off the list. 421
The beauty of this land is it's a continuation of this valley. I don't see why we would 422
want to mess it up with a parking lot. Something that is undervalued in this report is the 423
interest in hiking trails. There's a comment here that it wasn't stated in public meetings, 424
but I do recall people mentioning it. There's a couple of line items, Number 7, it's 425
mentioned in your list of public comments. Line item number 23 for connectivity. I 426
think people are interested also in trails with respect to this idea of it being a rustic 427
campground. The idea is that you would hike in there. I don't think anyone, aside from 428
using it maybe as some children's activity center, was really contemplating having people 429
drive into this area. I don't really support camping at this site, but I do support trails 430
because I support connectivity. Connecting this as one continuous valley, it doesn't have 431
to be some extensive trail system. In supporting the hydrology study, I very much 432
support restoration in whatever way we can do it. It'd probably have to be done quite 433
slowly. The hydrology study would help plan that all out. As far as Acterra goes, I know 434
they provide essential activities for the city, but I do not think it should be assumed that 435
Acterra should be on this site. It's parkland. There are other places Acterra can go if the 436
hydrology study shows that they're in the wrong place. I feel the same way about the 437
maintenance yard. That was recently remodeled, so obviously we wouldn't want to do 438 anything to it too soon. Again, there wasn't a big picture. There wasn't a comprehensive 439 look at this land the last time that maintenance area was remodeled. I think it is in the 440 way, but it happens to be there and I know it was really expensive. Just in terms of long-441
term thinking, maybe it should go somewhere else. The same with Acterra. I would not 442
support renewing their lease for 5 years, not until the hydrology study is done. Maybe 443
some shorter term renewal. That's not to say that Acterra is not incredibly important to 444
our city. Thank you. 445
446
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Lauing. 447
448
Commissioner Lauing: Just a few questions before getting to the options that were 449
discussed. Is it fair to say that under almost all circumstances, unless it were a parking 450
lot, that that 5 feet of stuff has to come off? I didn't quite get if you can put stuff on top 451
of that and get habitat going in there. 452
453
Mr. Anderson: Again, I think that's partly predicated on the outcome of the hydrologic 454
study. That'll dictate some of that. The other part is there are lots of options that could 455
Draft Minutes 11
Approved
go on top. That wouldn't necessarily have to be removed. I was talking with some of our 456
Public Works staff who have talked about you could get rid of some of it. You could 457
reshape and contour parts, bring in new soil for a portion. There are lots of options to 458
consider that don't involve necessarily removing all of it. 459
460
Commissioner Lauing: Okay, that's going to be a huge cost. I just had a detailed 461 question. The water goes through there, and you were talking about how the sediment 462
settles out at the end of the acreage. This is the last opportunity to clear that before 463
getting into the large culverts. If it goes in there, does it just settle in there and that's 464
where it mostly has to get cleaned out of? 465
466
Mr. Anderson: Ideally you're doing the clean outs before that. There are multiple points 467
where you've got access. The adjacent landowner does have his staff person come in and 468
do those clean outs. If you didn't and you had an accumulation of those heavy sediments 469
and you had a big rain flush, yes, it could back up there and eventually clog certain 470
elements either downstream or right there in the 7.7 acres and cause overflow. 471
472
Commissioner Lauing: Thanks for adding that information that that cost has been 473
covered by the owner there. That's important for Council to understand. The hydrologic 474
study, Keith and I are both on the CIP committee, and we battled for that last year. I 475
think there's going to be more receptivity to that. We've got to do first things first, and 476
that's clearly one of the first things. Also, it's great that you just point out that whatever 477
need comes up, it doesn't have to go in that area. There's other places at the park. I think 478
that was really helpful. I don't think, in terms of the context of this report, that we should 479
be too optimistic that the specifics for the 7.7 acres is going to be forecast or identified by 480 the Parks Master Plan, because they're looking at a gazillion acres, and the specific uses 481 of that one is not likely. They might come up with "we need an outdoor place 482 somewhere for meetings," and that's one of ten options as you said. I want to be on the 483
record for that. In terms of general comments, that's it for me. 484
485
Mr. Anderson: I was just going to tag onto one point you mentioned. To highlight again, 486
the Master Plan will be completed November 2015. If we got approval for the hydrologic 487
study, the earliest it could start is July 2015. It would not be completed by the time the 488
Master Plan is. Any studies or any analysis done by the Master Plan would be absent the 489
information from the hydrologic study. 490
491
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 492
493
Commissioner Hetterly: Thanks. First, I want to thank all the speakers for coming 494
tonight. I really appreciate that every time this is on the agenda, a lot of you show up and 495
tell us about what it is that you love about that spot. Just as a lot of folks didn't know it 496
existed, we also don't know much about what Acterra's doing there or what the nursery's 497
Draft Minutes 12
Approved
all about. It would really be helpful for us and for the public to reiterate that at every 498
opportunity that you get. Looking at the ad hoc recommendations, I think we would 499
likely have consensus up here about supporting the hydrology study, and that should 500
come first before anything else. I agree with Commissioner Crommie that five years is 501
probably too long a lease, given that we haven't done that study yet and we don't know 502
what our options are or how quickly we may or may not want to act on something. I 503 would renew the lease but for some period shorter than the five years. I would also not 504
support expanding the scope of the Master Plan to include a lot of work on this topic. 505
Simply because of the timing, I don't think it's very effective. I also don't think it makes a 506
lot of sense to try to invest in fencing and supervision to open up the site to the public in 507
the interim. We've had numerous opportunities for the public to go there. There hasn't 508
been a public clamoring for information, to see what's going on. I don't feel a compelling 509
need to jump through hoops to open it for people to look around. 510
511
Chair Reckdahl: Any other comments? I have a few comments and questions for you, 512
Daren. What was the native condition, say 200 years ago? Would this be a grassland or 513
would there be shrubs there? Do we know? 514
515
Mr. Anderson: I don't have that information. Perhaps Lester Hendrie can comment. 516
517
Lester Hendrie: I showed the pictures to Peter. I did some research just to see the oldest 518
aerial photos I could find, back into the '50s. Excuse me, not the '50s, the 30's I believe, 519
before the quarry was excavated. It was contiguous valley, Los Trancos Valley, where 520
the picnic and the Interpretive Center are. Buckeye Creek had always meandered across 521
it, about in its existing location. It wasn't channelized. 522 523 Chair Reckdahl: That valley was covered with wildflowers or would it be shrubs? 524 525
Mr. Hendrie: The valley had been used for pasture land for quite some time. Just 526
looking through the aerial photographs and the history information, we could not find 527
when Buckeye Creek was diverted against the hillside. It used to flow right down the 528
middle of the valley. In the oldest aerial photographs we could find, it had already been 529
diverted. It was probably diverted at the turn of the century. 530
531
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Also the bathrooms right now that we have at the 532
Interpretive Center and by the picnic areas, are those septic or do we have a sewer system 533
or how do they get rid of the waste? 534
535
Mr. Hendrie: The Interpretive Center at Foothills Park is the last restroom on the sewer 536
system. It ends at that point. The Oak Grove picnic area, the one that's closest to the 7.7 537
acres, is on a septic system. 538
539
Draft Minutes 13
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: If we put a new picnic area in where we wanted a bathroom, would we 540
use septic or would we try and hook up? 541
542
Mr. Hendrie: Yes, it would have to be on septic. 543
544
Chair Reckdahl: How about that alternate location, we'd septic that also? 545 546
Mr. Hendrie: The location below Fire Station 8, that cut slope, would be accessible to 547
sewer. The sewer is between that site and Boronda Lake. It flows along the turf there. 548
549
Chair Reckdahl: If we were to put camping in, would that be a big financial impact? To 550
be able to hook up the sewage versus septic. 551
552
Mr. Hendrie: I don't know what the costs would be, but it's not that far of a run. 75 yards 553
approximately from the flat below Fire Station 8. 554
555
Chair Reckdahl: In the past, have we considered adding camping at all to Foothills Park. 556
557
Mr. Anderson: Many years ago, the former director had considered different options to 558
increase revenue. One of them was adding yurts in and around the existing campground. 559
560
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. That's it. 561
562
Commissioner Hetterly: One more comment? 563
564 Chair Reckdahl: Yes, please. 565 566 Commissioner Hetterly: I meant to comment on the theme concepts that you had 567
outlined in the staff report. Generally speaking, I'm probably leaning most supportively 568
towards the habitat restoration. Buckeye Creek dechanneling is a really interesting 569
prospect. I think that if we were to displace Acterra, I would want to make it a priority to 570
find them another suitable location. Just for the ad hoc's benefit as you keep thinking 571
about that. Thanks. 572
573
Chair Reckdahl: What? Go ahead. 574
575
Vice Chair Markevitch: I don't know what our next steps are for this report. Do we take 576
this to Council with our findings? 577
578
Mr. Anderson: I'll be looking to the Commission for guidance on that. Specifically we 579
have to come back for a recommendation from the Commission before we come back to 580
Draft Minutes 14
Approved
Council for something. If that's what you want to do. If you wanted to do a study session 581
with Council, whatever the Commission would like, I'd be glad to help facilitate. 582
583
Vice Chair Markevitch: If I recall, I think we did want to do a study session with Council 584
at some point. I'd also like to see, before we do that, a "back of the envelope" on the 585
groupings. If it's a campsite, what would the rough costs be? If it's restoration of the site 586 to wild lands, what that would be. That type of thing. I know, for example, we can't 587
relocate the maintenance yard because of the fact that there's an underground gas tank 588
there, and that would be prohibitively expensive. It would be nice, because it gives us 589
more to think about and to discuss with the Council. 590
591
Commissioner Lauing: I'd like to put a question back to the ad hoc. Did you guys give 592
any weight to any of these or are they equally weighted? That's the first question. The 593
second question is, because of this good work of saying there are alternative spaces, it 594
seems like that's another level of analysis that should be—come to think of it, now that 595
we see that, it'd be better to be away from the personal residence of Mr. Arrillaga and 596
stuff like that. Maybe three of these go off of here relative specifically to the 7.7 acres. 597
598
Commissioner Knopper: Before I address what you said, I want to slightly disagree with 599
what you just said. I know that there was a possibility of a discussion/study session with 600
Council that was requested at our joint meeting in December. That's almost putting the 601
cart before the horse. Until we do the hydrologic study and find out what is possible and 602
what are the environmental impacts, it's almost impossible to make suggestions as to 603
what should actually happen there. There's a lot of creek setback requirements, the 604
channelization, the sediment, if we get rain again and it floods. There's so many things 605 that would have impact, that if we make a suggestion and people just sort of lock into, 606 yes, we need a picnic area, and then we realize after we do that study, well, you know 607 what? That just doesn't make sense now. Then we have to sort of backtrack. 608
609
Vice Chair Markevitch: I agree with you on that. The two things that are going to drive 610
these decisions are the hydrologic study and the costs of each option. Getting back to 611
what Ed had asked, we did not weight these. We just put them all out there, because we 612
just wanted a discussion amongst the Commission members to get their ideas. We didn't 613
want to sway them one way or another. These pictures of the other options for the 614
campgrounds and other areas of the park, I don't want to start getting into a "let's redesign 615
the entire park." We need to stick to the 7.7 acres. It's comforting to know that if there 616
are other options out there, it could be done. It's just something to think about. 617
618
Commissioner Knopper: The other issue that I wanted to bring up is I too agree that we 619
shouldn't dive too deep into the MIG because of the weird timing of the report. However, 620
the benefit of having all of that download and that strategic information is that we will 621
see what gaps are in our programming as a city overall. From a broad analysis 622
Draft Minutes 15
Approved
perspective, if we see that we need more campsites in the City of Palo Alto, that could 623
help drive this conversation. It doesn't have to be specific to the 7.7 acres. 624
625
Chair Reckdahl: Rob, do you have a comment? 626
627
Rob de Geus: I just wanted to mention about the study session. Sometimes when we 628 have study sessions with Council, you get nine different opinions about something. This 629
was one of those things. It may have been mentioned by one or two Council Members 630
that a study session might be helpful, but I don't think that was a consensus or direction 631
necessarily from Council. If the Commission or staff are generally in agreement as to 632
what the recommendation is, then a study session probably isn't necessary, rather a staff 633
report that's written together with staff and the Commission should be forwarded to the 634
Council. They can decide, if they agree or disagree, whether they want to engage the 635
Commission in a study session or something else. 636
637
Chair Reckdahl: I'll make one comment here. It seems to me like this is a new toy, and 638
people really want to use this new toy. We have to be careful of saying we want to put a 639
campground here as opposed to putting a campground in the best spot in Foothills Park. 640
If that happens, then we'd choose the spot. If it's not the best spot, we shouldn't do it just 641
because it's our new toy. Commissioner Crommie. 642
643
Commissioner Crommie: I think that the ad hoc has done its role. They met with staff. 644
They studied it. They held a public meeting. They got public input. I don't think there's 645
anything more the ad hoc needs to do other than write a draft of a recommendation to 646
City Council. Having the ad hoc spin off and do anything more would be an 647 inappropriate use of an ad hoc. I picked up on that at our Council meeting. I heard a 648 couple of comments saying, "Is this behind the scenes work or is this your full 649 Commission?" People were asking that. The ad hoc has reported back to us, and we're 650
all fully capable now of commenting on a report they write and suggesting edits, coming 651
together as a Commission and doing that. That's what we've done in the past. We did 652
that when we had our creek and urban trails ad hoc that led to a recommendation. We did 653
it on El Camino Park. 654
655
Commissioner Lauing: I don't mean to interrupt. It may be that the consensus is already 656
here right now from what we've heard. We're ready to recommend that we do the 657
hydrologic study and put the rest of it on hold. 658
659
Commissioner Crommie: In that case, it would just be a step-wise recommendation. 660
There's a lot of meat in this document that we've mulled over. Do we want to say just the 661
hydrologic study or do we want to write a memo saying what we think is important there? 662
Just like in categories. 663
664
Draft Minutes 16
Approved
Commissioner Lauing: I was just trying to summarize what I heard around the table so 665
far. It seems like everything is dependent on that study, before we can prioritize 666
anything. On top of which a lot of this stuff needs fleshing out in terms of cost and so on. 667
668
Commissioner Crommie: We might also give a recommendation on the Acterra question, 669
because we probably should weigh in on that. I didn't hear everyone's opinion on that. 670 I'd like people's advice on whether we think we need to weigh in on that or not. I have an 671
opinion on it. 672
673
Vice Chair Markevitch: I have a point of order on that one. This is a discussion item, not 674
an action item. I don't know if we can take a vote tonight. 675
676
Commissioner Crommie: No, you're right. I meant for that to come back to us; make it 677
an action item next time. We have to decide the scope. You just presented hydrology 678
only. I'd say maybe broaden it out just a little bit. 679
680
Commissioner Knopper: I think that it should be hydrology only. We've been working 681
on this for several months now. Any future decision really is dependent on that. Any 682
element that we pull apart out of the staff report could change based on what the 683
hydrologic study comes back with. That would be very useful information for the 684
Council. It would be definitive. To the point earlier, it does feel a little bit like a new toy 685
that everybody's really excited about and it's fantastic because it's so rare. In a 686
geographically stressed area like Palo Alto, to all of a sudden find new acreage, it's pretty 687
awesome. A thoughtful, scientific, definitive study would provide much needed 688
information. Next steps would logically flow from that. 689 690 Chair Reckdahl: Let's break this off now, and we can talk more about it when we set the 691 agenda for next week at the end of the meeting. Any final comments, Daren or Rob? 692
693
Mr. Anderson: I could use just a little guidance. I heard some suggestions that we start 694
with the cost estimates. That was one of the original ideas from Council, and we've heard 695
it in various different iterations throughout the process. What I was hoping to have is 696
maybe a little guidance on what to get cost estimates on. It's fairly time intensive to get 697
cost estimates for everyone of those. If there was anything that you felt strongly about or 698
guidance or do you want cost estimates for everything? I just need a little guidance there. 699
700
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's going to come after the hydrologic study. It's a waste of 701
time to do it before. It's just something that I felt was important when it was presented 702
later on. If it looks like next month we're just going to vote on the hydrologic study, then 703
it's not necessary now. 704
705
Draft Minutes 17
Approved
Mr. Anderson: Great, thank you. Did you want to see in combination with the 706
hydrologic study a recommendation regarding the Acterra nursery lease renewal? 707
708
Commissioner Lauing: I would say yes. In connection with Commissioner Crommie 709
saying broaden it, we might also want to include what Jennifer suggested about making a 710
statement that we do not think it should be open to the public at this point. 711 712
Commissioner Knopper: I would agree with that. 713
714
Commissioner Lauing: That's an issue that more than one person was supporting, so we 715
need to be clear in our recommendation in that regard. 716
717
Chair Reckdahl: We'll talk about this at the end when we set the agenda, figure out what 718
we want to do next week and what we want to put off. Next month. 719
720
4. Update and Discussion of the Design Competition for the 101 721
Highway/Pedestrian Bridge Project. 722
723
Chair Reckdahl: We have four speakers. Each speaker gets three minutes. Since we do 724
have a lot of speakers, please try and keep it brief if possible. We would like to keep the 725
meeting going. The first one is Alex Von Feldt, followed by Claire Elliott. 726
727
Alex Von Feldt: Hi again. As I said early, I'm Alex Von Feldt with Acterra. The reason 728
why I'm speaking on this agenda item is that Acterra is one of the seven or eight 729
environmental nonprofits that actually reside in the Peninsula Conservation Center. That 730 is a building that was purchased with funds from generous donors in the late '70s or early 731 '80s with the intent that they would rent out the space very cost effectively to local 732 environmental nonprofits. We are in the building. Canopy, Committee for Green 733
Foothills, California Native Plant Society and others. Our building is very close to this, 734
and we actually have many people that work for our nonprofit as well as other nonprofits 735
that bike to work all the time. Having this option is wonderful because, as you all know, 736
when it rains they close the undercrossing from Adobe, so it makes a much longer ride. 737
In looking at the three options that were presented, I'd like to voice my support for Option 738
C for a few reasons. One is just that the profile is much more understated than the other 739
ones. I think it reflects Palo Alto's ethic, if you will, of respecting the land, where 740
manmade structures should be sub-serving, especially in a setting like this with the 741
beautiful Baylands around. It's also, compared to the other options, much more friendly 742
to wildlife. Birds are all around this area. This is a very important estuary as you 743
probably all know. So many birds are migrating around. You see herons and eaglets all 744
the time around here. The other structures look like they would pose a bigger threat to 745
them. I would say I support Option C. Lastly, the way that it interfaces with the 746
Draft Minutes 18
Approved
Baylands, using a native plant pallet. I know the landscape architect that is on that plan. 747
I have confidence that it would be done sensitively. Thank you. 748
749
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Next is Claire Elliott, followed by Emily Renzel. 750
751
Claire Elliott: I'm Claire Elliot. I'm a resident of Palo Alto and a frequent bicycler to 752 work at the Peninsula Conservation Center, because I work at Acterra. I'm absolutely 753
delighted that we're getting closer to having a year-round overpass. I would be curious to 754
hear, I didn't see it in the staff report but I didn't read every word of it, whether anybody 755
actually considered making it less expensive perhaps by using an underpass that was 756
watertight. I don't know if that's done anywhere. We go under the Bay in BART, and it's 757
probably a little late to bring up that option. It seems like it might be cheaper to go that 758
route. It might be kind of cool. It could be translucent, so you could see the fish 759
swimming upstream. That would be one option that maybe no one has considered. I 760
would love to see it connect to Adobe Creek Trail, so that people can avoid going out on 761
West Bayshore. That's very treacherous as you're bicycling down Fabian and have to 762
crossover to get to that underpass. It's a really dangerous spot. If we could have the 763
water district's support and Palo Alto's support, I don't know what it's going to take to be 764
able to bicycle up along Adobe Creek and avoid that road crossing. That would be 765
fabulous. Like Alex, I like the lower profile look if we're going for a bridge, to do 766
something with less bird entrapment and lower expense if possible and lower profile. I've 767
also worked on creek cleanup days along that stretch of Adobe Creek. There's a lot of 768
wildlife in there. I was delighted to see and hear a kingfisher fly up that stretch of creek. 769
It's a really special place, and it's delightful that we're going to get people out there on 770
foot instead of driving to go visit the Baylands. Thank you. 771 772 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Emily Renzel, followed by Irene Steves. 773 774
Emily Renzel: Well, I concur with the last two speakers with respect to preferring Option 775
C, which is the low profile proposal. It's very exciting to see the other proposals, but I 776
think they would be a huge distraction from the beautiful natural areas that we have there. 777
Also they're not consistent with the idea of just enjoying that natural area rather than to 778
be distracted by being in the McDonald's arch or whatever. As I looked at the different 779
videos of these things, the one that's like a canoe kind of lost me. The large one that is 780
the choice of some of these other commissions struck me as being a real traffic hazard. I 781
listen to 740 traffic all the time when I'm driving, because I want to know where I can go 782
and when. We have a lot of accidents along this stretch in Palo Alto; San Antonio, 783
Embarcadero, Oregon. All the time there's traffic backups due to accidents. I worry that 784
putting something that has all these sparkly disks or whatever they are is going to distract 785
drivers and make it an unsafe thing. It's secondary to my concern about having a profile 786
that fits with the concept of Baylands which are low and flat. I urge you to support 787
Option C. 788
Draft Minutes 19
Approved
789
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Irene Steves, followed by Shani Kleinhaus. 790
791
Irene Steves: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Irene, and tonight I'm here to 792
speak on behalf of the Sierra Club. At its regularly schedule monthly meeting on 793
January 26, 2015, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Conservation Committee took up 794 the issue of the proposed Palo Alto bicycle bridge. The chapter's headquarters is located 795
near what is to be the bridge's Bayshore landing point. The chapter has been following 796
the public process, having previously commented in tandem with the Santa Clara Valley 797
Audubon Society. The Conservation Committee unanimously agreed on three points. 798
First, a signature bridge that incorporates aesthetic design features that pose peril to 799
wildlife is a bridge signature that a progressive city such as Palo Alto should have no part 800
of. We see in Options A and B unjustifiable and unmitigable risks to birds. Second, as a 801
national club that is very invested in furthering environmental transportation such as 802
bicycling, we would prefer that bicycle transportation funding be used economically in 803
order to achieve more bicycle infrastructure. We have a long way to go before we feel 804
that we have so much bicycle infrastructure that we can start spending large sums to turn 805
our bridges into public art over freeways. Please consider using half the money to fix the 806
Embarcadero Bridge. Third, our Conservation Committee recommends that Palo Alto 807
proceed with what we perceive as the only Baylands-compatible design, Option C. 808
Option C is humble and brings nature to the city rather than the city into nature. Thank 809
you. 810
811
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Our last speaker is Shani Kleinhaus. 812
813 Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus with Santa Clara Valley Audubon 814 Society. I also live really close to the bridge, and I use the underpass when I walk my 815 dog sometimes. It's near home. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society together with the 816
Sierra Club sent a letter saying that we really worry about birds and risks to birds and 817
how the bridge designs will interact with nature in the Baylands. As we looked at the 818
three designs, we find all of them have issues, but some of them have issues that we think 819
are unmitigable, no way to deal with them. There are two things that kill birds in general 820
in terms of structures. One of them is collision, and collisions occur with transmission 821
towers, with wires. Wires is a big thing, bridges included. And with buildings. Some 822
cities around here started looking at bird-safe design for buildings. There is no reason to 823
put wires in one of the most used areas for birds of this kind. The other thing that causes 824
mortalities is lights. Light pollution is a huge issue, and cities are starting to adopt 825
ordinances for dark sky during migration season and other times. Bridges that have 826
something that includes a lot of light, like the second option, are really dangerous. Even 827
Option C, which we favored because it's lower and it doesn't have those protrusions and a 828
lot of wires only some, has lights at night. We would like to see a change in that. Option 829
A, which looks to us as the most hazardous to birds because of its size and because the 830
Draft Minutes 20
Approved
incompatibility with nature or the sense of space of nature in Palo Alto, if you look at the 831
handouts that you were given, the lights during the evening or during fog can actually, 832
those reflective things that are supposed to mitigate the problem, will probably be not 833
effective. During the night, you don't see anything and birds migrate during the night. 834
That's the time they fly. Only the largest birds actually fly during the day. Most of the 835
birds fly at night. There's energy conservation and many, many other reasons, I don't 836 want to get into it, but almost all the shore birds fly at night. Those are the birds that will 837
fly through there. This is a real, huge risk to them. The other thing is those disks have 838
not been tried. I have seen them used at McClellan Ranch. A different type of disk but 839
still the same idea of a reflective disk that moves around to prevent birds from nesting 840
during construction. We found them to be non-effective in terms of how the birds 841
respond to them. People on the trail and people in the offices are really annoyed. Thank 842
you. I hope you move with Option C recommendation with some modification in terms 843
of lighting and potentially a few others. I'm sure there will be a lot of work with the 844
designers later on. Thank you. 845
846
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Elizabeth Ames is here from the Public Works Department. 847
She's been heading up this study, this contest. I'll turn it over to her then. 848
849
Elizabeth Ames: Thank you. Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Ames, Senior Project 850
Manager with the city in Public Works. I also have Hung Nguyen, he's our project 851
engineer, sitting over here. I was hoping that we could try to structure this meeting where 852
we could show the YouTube videos and then potentially have the design—there's one 853
design team here. Do I have two design teams? We have one design team here, the 854
winning design, Submission A, here. They can talk about their design after the YouTube 855 video. What we've been doing is structuring these as a study session. We would present 856 the YouTube videos and then segue into the design team discussion, if they are here, and 857 then we would have more discussion with the Commission. If you're okay with that. 858
859
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, I'm okay with that. Go ahead. 860
861
Ms. Ames: I also wanted to highlight that Judith Wasserman is here. She is the chair of 862
the design competition. She's also here and available for questions. I wanted to just draw 863
your attention to this comments matrix. I think this is the first page in Attachment F. I 864
don't know it the Commission got the latest—oh, you did get the latest one that has the 865
Public Art Commission comments. 866
867
Chair Reckdahl: We received that by email. 868
869
Ms. Ames: Do you want a hard copy? 870
871
Chair Reckdahl: If you have copies, please pass them around. 872
Draft Minutes 21
Approved
873
Ms. Ames: Yes. I also have the latest comments we had from the public via the city's 874
website, cityofpaloalto.org/101. We have the YouTube videos and then this way to 875
comment on the designs. That's another attachment. Those two documents are relatively 876
hot off the press, so to speak. We have an updated comments matrix, which is the first 877
page of Attachment F in the packet. I was basically taking comments from all the boards 878 and commissions in the month of January on the pros and cons of each design 879
submission. I will forward this over to the City Council. The City Council would then 880
decide on potentially a design on February 23rd. That's the tentative Council meeting. 881
That's the emphasis I was hoping to gain from the Commission. I'm not asking for a vote. 882
Unless you feel compelled to vote, that's fine. We can do a straw poll. I was trying to get 883
comments in general and fill in the matrix, pro and con for each design submission. 884
That's really what I was trying to do tonight, and forward this to Council. The last time I 885
saw this Commission, we talked about the guiding principles with the Park and Rec 886
Commission and we formalized the guiding principles with this Commission, and then I 887
forwarded that over to the City Council. Those guiding principles, I believe, are an 888
exhibit or attachment in the packet. We used those guiding principles and the design 889
guidelines as the guide, so to speak, for the design competition. The City hired AIA 890
California Council to manage the competition. With those materials, they solicited 891
design teams internationally and locally. We got 20 proposals, qualifications, and a 892
design intent. Those 20 proposals were narrowed down to three. Those three teams 893
received a $20,000 stipend to develop the designs that you see now, which are on the 894
YouTube videos. The boards are here as well. We have the design boards and a 895
YouTube video, which was made available to the competition jury, which was the five 896
member jury and the four member ARB panel, so it was a nine member group. This 897 information along with the design competitors, they were all presenting their designs via 898 PowerPoint. The competition jury decided the winning team was Submission A, which is 899 the confluence or arch design, which is over on the far left. Judith Wasserman's the chair 900
of the competition, and she could recap a little bit more about what happened there. With 901
that, we're just taking this information forward to the boards and commissions and we're 902
hoping to get comments from this Commission tonight. 903
904
Chair Reckdahl: I have a question. You said on February 23rd the Council will be 905
talking about this, voting on which design to pick. How is all the board and commission 906
input being transmitted? Are they just getting the same type of thing that we got from the 907
notes? Is there going to be some staff report summarizing it or is it just going to be raw 908
results like we had? 909
910
Ms. Ames: There will be a staff report, and we'll try to generally summarize what we've 911
heard at the boards and commissions. If there's meeting notes, we're going to incorporate 912
those. We have, for example, verbatim meeting notes of the competition itself. I don't 913
know if we get any meeting notes from study sessions. If we do ... 914
Draft Minutes 22
Approved
915
Rob de Geus: We'll have meeting notes on this. 916
917
Ms. Ames: I was going to include the meeting notes from all the boards and commission 918
if possible and a high level recap in the staff report. 919
920 Chair Reckdahl: Very good. Do you want to start with the videos now or do you have 921
more content you want to talk about? 922
923
Ms. Ames: I think that's self-explanatory. The videos say a lot. Then we can go into 924
questions and answers after that. First will be Submission A, which was the winning 925
design. 926
927
[Video presentation] 928
929
Ms. Ames: I believe we have some of the design team members here tonight, so they can 930
speak roughly five minutes on the design. That's what we've been doing on the other 931
commissions and boards. If that's okay with you. 932
933
Commissioner Crommie: Are you going to show the other videos too? Okay. 934
935
Ms. Ames: Just to simplify, we were thinking of having the design team speak now or 936
we can wait. It's up to you. 937
938
Chair Reckdahl: I'd like to see all three videos and then go into comments. Otherwise, I 939 think it'll break it up and stretch it out too much. 940 941 Ms. Ames: Okay, sure. Sounds good. 942
943
[Two video presentations] 944
945
Ms. Ames: We can have the design team ... 946
947
Chair Reckdahl: My preference, unless Commissioners object, would be not to have 948
them give a talk right now. If each individual Commissioner has questions that they can 949
answer, then we'll have them answer at the time as opposed to a presentation. 950
951
Ms. Ames: Okay, sounds good. 952
953
Chair Reckdahl: Any comments? 954
955
Draft Minutes 23
Approved
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a couple of questions to start with. On the last one we 956
saw, "C", the touchdown area on the west seemed to spend more time on what happens 957
when you touch down on the west side. We don't have very much information in our 958
packet on "B" or "C" frankly. It was hard to tell what the surfacing is, whether there's 959
landscaping there. From the video, it looked like it was just a hardscape all along the 960
road there. Can you tell us a little more about what that looks like on the west side? 961 962
Ms. Ames: The west side near the Adobe connection, where it converges there at the 963
Adobe Creek Reach Trail, is very constrained. It's difficult to landscape that area, so 964
we've highlighted that issue in the design guidelines which, I believe, is Attachment E. 965
966
Commissioner Crommie: Can you give us page numbers. 967
968
Ms. Ames: Maybe I highlighted that. Hold on. On page 24 of Attachment E. It shows 969
this constrained area where you've got a small landscape buffer and then you've got the 970
sidewalk. You have a stairwell leading down over by 3600 West Bayshore. Do you have 971
all the that? Do you have the picture of that? 972
973
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 974
975
Ms. Ames: Essentially it's constrained because we have to put the ramp next to the 976
sidewalk. Right next to the sidewalk would be theoretically the curb. That area still 977
needs to be designed. We only gave the design teams a month essentially to come up 978
with these concepts. Those touchdowns or those tie-ins still need to be more refined. 979
This highlights that we still have constrained landscaping area, and we also are showing 980 the bicycles sharing the vehicle lane at that location as well, where the ramp ties into 981 (inaudible). 982 983
Commissioner Hetterly: Given those restrictions and the extent of the design, there's not 984
much variation at this point in what the west side looks like. Is that what you're saying? 985
Between the various plans. 986
987
Ms. Ames: Correct. There's not much variation where the tie-in occurs. 988
989
Commissioner Hetterly: Another question about that last one. The plaza on the west side 990
that's below the loop, what is the surfacing there for the plaza? 991
992
Ms. Ames: I believe that was cement or pervious. They could propose pervious 993
pavement, but I believe it was cement. 994
995
Commissioner Hetterly: It's some kind of hardscape? 996
997
Draft Minutes 24
Approved
Ms. Ames: Yes. 998
999
Commissioner Hetterly: My other question was whether Submissions A and B have stair 1000
access on one or both sides? 1001
1002
Ms. Ames: I believe Submission A has the stairs on the west side. I don't believe it was 1003 located—no, I think it was on both sides. Submission A does have it on both sides. I'm 1004
not sure about "B"; it wasn't clear. 1005
1006
Commissioner Hetterly: Those are all my questions. Thanks. 1007
1008
Commissioner Knopper: For Submission A, since that was the chosen submission, I'd 1009
like to focus on that particular one. Can you address the bird issue that came up a few 1010
times during public comments? Since we are the Park and Rec Commission, I thought 1011
that was important for us to talk about. 1012
1013
Ms. Ames: The design team was really charged with innovative design. I just wanted to 1014
point out that we did have these guiding design principles, Attachment D, which is 1015
innovation, versatility, interconnectedness, and conservation. With this kind of 1016
challenge, the design teams came up with what you saw in the YouTube videos. Part of 1017
that was those bird ... 1018
1019
Commissioner Crommie: That's on page 13. I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to let 1020
the Commission know the guidelines are on page 13 of our handout. 1021
1022 Ms. Ames: This is Attachment D, guiding design principles. Yes, thank you. 1023 1024 Commissioner Crommie: It's really hard to leaf through and find all the attachments in a 1025
moment's notice. Any time you can give us page numbers, it's really helpful. 1026
1027
Ms. Ames: Okay, sorry. Thank you. Page number 13 in the staff report. With that 1028
challenge, each design team came up with the unique concept. Submission A came up 1029
with these disks, these brushed stainless steel disks. That design needs to be studied 1030
further. We would have to ask the teams to provide studies and more evaluation, more 1031
research if that can work as a bird-friendly design. It was an innovation as part of this 1032
submission. It's not something that we got research on or it was proven. 1033
1034
Commissioner Knopper: I think it would be important moving forward to meet with 1035
stakeholders like the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, organizations that work, 1036
study, live, breathe, eat saving and conserving the creatures that would have the greatest 1037
impact for this particular structure. I did like the lighting. That was very unique, that it 1038
was motion. I read that people were concerned about the lighting, and that it was motion 1039
Draft Minutes 25
Approved
driven. If no one's on the bridge at night, it's dark. I thought that was terrific. The bird 1040
issue is something that I would have experts in the field really flesh out to figure out what 1041
kind of material would work best, so we don't hurt anybody in the process. When I mean 1042
anybody, I mean feathered people. 1043
1044
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Lauing, do you have comments? 1045 1046
Commissioner Lauing: Are we at the stage where we're also weighing in for comments 1047
that she writes down or are we just asking questions at this stage? 1048
1049
Chair Reckdahl: At this point, let's go with questions and then we can summarize to give 1050
her material. 1051
1052
Commissioner Lauing: I don't have any questions. 1053
1054
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 1055
1056
Commissioner Crommie: I have a question for Chair Wasserman, if I'm saying your 1057
name correctly. I watched the entire video and read the transcripts. I really digested 1058
what went on in your December 17 meeting. I thought you handled everything really 1059
well. I was a little bit disappointed when the jury was getting ready to vote. The ARB 1060
got to speak first, and I thought they gave some really interesting—I'm addressing this to 1061
you too, Elizabeth, thank you so much. I should have started out by thanking everyone. 1062
This project has been so long in coming. It's just been amazing to watch this evolve. I've 1063
been pleased that I've been able to support it along the way. I think I was probably the 1064 first person to bring this to our Commission's attention. I'm an avid cyclist and 1065 environmentalist. I spend a lot of time in the Baylands, and I had a connection with 1066 PABAC, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. Richard, I can't remember his last 1067
name, who was two or three Chairs ago, fought so hard for this project. It almost died 1068
many times. He really kept it going. I think our Commission actually brought some 1069
visibility to this project. I'm really happy you've come to us. Getting back to that 1070
December 17th meeting, before you guys had your vote, I noticed that the ARB got to 1071
discuss things. It was a joint meeting with the Architectural Review Board sitting there 1072
and also the jury. I didn't get to attend it, but again I got to watch it and read the 1073
transcript. When it came time for the vote, I think that people were a little perplexed by 1074
"B," and people were leaning to Proposals A and C. I was a little bit disappointed 1075
because when it came time to vote, there was an over-emphasis on innovation. Let me 1076
ask this as a question. What did you feel about your purview in terms of looking at these 1077
four categories? You're judging these bridges on four different categories. The first 1078
being innovation, the second versatility, the third interconnectedness, and the fourth 1079
conservation. The conservation stipulates bird-friendly design. Interconnectedness is 1080
just to respect the ecosystem. Versatility is engineering and art and useful for everyone. 1081
Draft Minutes 26
Approved
Innovation is contemporary, creative, original, maybe identifiable as a landmark. I want 1082
to know if you can speak to us on how you as a jury balanced all of those criteria. 1083
1084
Judith Wasserman: That is a very good question, because I don't think that we addressed 1085
them all individually and said, "Okay, which bridge do you think is the most innovative? 1086
Which bridge has the best conservation attitude?" I think we just looked at the bridges as 1087 a whole and discussed how they met the various criteria in the ways that they did it. On 1088
the bird issue specifically, everybody had a case to make. Everybody addressed the 1089
question. It was taken seriously. We felt that since each of them addressed it, that they 1090
were all equal in that range. The team with the flashing disks is here and can answer 1091
your questions about how they're intended to work. They introduced it to us by saying 1092
that they were modeled after the Mylar strips used in vineyards to keep critters, birds in 1093
particular, out of the grapes. They thought that a similar design would keep birds out of 1094
the bridge. I don't know a whole lot about birds, so I don't know whether they would do 1095
that. There was a landscape architect on the jury. People had different points of view, 1096
but we really did look at each one as a whole. If you want me to go into why we ended 1097
up where we ended up, I can do that, but I don't think that's what you want to do. 1098
1099
Commissioner Crommie: No, that's good enough for me. I just wanted a general idea. 1100
Thank you so much. 1101
1102
Ms. Wasserman: I think it might be instructive to find out why these people did, since 1103
that seems to be the biggest argument against that. 1104
1105
Commissioner Crommie: Yes, I will bring up one of them. I'll ask a question. I'm really 1106 concerned with creating something that you have to mitigate. What is bothering me 1107 about "A" is it's creating this problem and then trying to address it. Whereas, "C" doesn't 1108 even create the problem at all. I know "A" is a very talented group. Did you guys do the 1109
Mary Avenue crossing. Many of us have driven under that bridge on Highway 280, 1110
which is a very cathedral-like bridge. Have you done a pedestrian bridge over a 1111
waterway? Did you do anything in Missouri? I don't know if I got that right. Can you 1112
come up a minute? I have a question. I want to know if you've ever designed a bridge 1113
over a waterway or in an estuary. I also want to know why you came up with a design 1114
that you have to spend so much time mitigating for bird safety. Those are my two 1115
questions. 1116
1117
John Litzinger: My name's John Litzinger with HNTB. First off, we'll take 1118
responsibility for Mary Avenue Bridge whether it's good or bad. 1119
1120
Commissioner Crommie: (crosstalk) 1121
1122
Draft Minutes 27
Approved
Mr. Litzinger: It seems to get a lot of positive critique and is still talked about in 1123
engineering circles and even in the communities. As far as bridges over estuaries and 1124
wildlife environmentally sensitive areas, we designed the twin bridges at the Happy 1125
Hollow Park and Zoo that go over the Coyote Creek area. That was using the same 1126
bridge type as what was proposed here as a concept. The whole corridor from the east 1127
side of Happy Hollow, from the parking lot area going across the Coyote Creek area was 1128 all an environmentally critical area. Through that area, the same bridge type, same type 1129
of cable arrangements. We worked with the City of San Jose on that particular project. 1130
Over the course of the design process, we were able to address concerns like that. The 1131
cables that are supporting the bridge, the spacing between the cables can be adjusted, but 1132
then you enlarge the size of the cable to support the weight. There's a balancing act 1133
between art, environment, birds, etc. That's one location in a wildlife area. A second 1134
location is the Lake Champlain Bridge, same type of bridge over a waterway. It's on the 1135
border of Vermont and New Hampshire. So far for the number of years that it's been 1136
there, we've heard no complaints or comments on wildlife and structure conflicts. What 1137
we heard from Elizabeth is through the design process, we could provide studies that 1138
would either address it or mitigate it or show that there's not an issue. It's an issue that 1139
we need to make sure that is addressed with whatever type of bridge used. 1140
1141
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you very much. 1142
1143
Mr. Litzinger: Sure. 1144
1145
HNTB Team Member: May I add to that comment? 1146
1147 Commissioner Crommie: Yes. 1148 1149 HNTB Team Member: I'll be quick. We took the conservation objective very seriously. 1150
In thinking about the project as a whole, not just about the span, the greatest threat to bird 1151
species as well as many other species is actually the loss of habitat. When we're talking 1152
about conservation, I think it's fair to talk about the whole project and the way it affects 1153
bird species, not just about the way it passes over the highway. Our scheme is 1154
differentiated in that we do not place any fill in the Baylands. We actually create Bay 1155
volume. Our scheme anticipates sea level rise, anticipates habitats that these organisms 1156
will need in the future. We reactivate the ecological properties of Bay mud, which lies 1157
underneath the fill that is placed in the Bay with storm water and removing that fill. 1158
There are many ecological components to the design as a whole, looking far into the 1159
future that assures we can do all we can for the species. You asked a very specific 1160
question about why create something that you have to go through a lot of trouble 1161
mitigating. A simple answer to that is that bridge design is very complicated. In this 1162
situation, it's even more complicated. In a larger context, the topic of cost is a driving 1163
consideration. The most structurally efficient, cost efficient way to negotiate this very 1164
Draft Minutes 28
Approved
complicated situation is with an arch. The jury member and engineer on the jury, Steve 1165
Burrows, said the Romans did it pretty well, and it's a very time-tested method. That's 1166
very true. The arch accomplishes all of these challenges very effectively in terms of cost. 1167
It does create a cable-suspended deck. We're showing you one approach. As John said, 1168
that approach can be modified. There's other ways to support that deck with cables. In 1169
the Bay context, it is not an unprecedented structural approach. If you look at the 1170 Berkeley Pedestrian Bridge, equally wide, in a more Baylands condition than this because 1171
it is an active tidal flat and this is really upland areas and it's a flood control basin and so 1172
on. That structure has been in existence for over ten years. It's a cable-supported deck. 1173
As a precedent, it should be looked at closely if you're serious about involving 1174
professionals who study patterns of birds and strike incidents. 1175
1176
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. 1177
1178
Chair Reckdahl: Do you want to say anything? 1179
1180
Vice Chair Markevitch: I don't have any questions. 1181
1182
Chair Reckdahl: I have some questions to go through first, and then everyone gets their 1183
elevator speech of which design they prefer. I first have some questions for Palo Alto 1184
City. On the east side right now, do we have the pictures of east side? As you come off 1185
the bridge, you end up in a "T" right at the current bike path on the west side. Anyone 1186
coming off the bridge is going to have to take a sharp left turn, go across the bridge, take 1187
another sharp left turn to get back on the path. Considering that the bulk of the people 1188
are going from the west side over to the Baylands, why isn't it optimized for someone 1189 going to the Baylands as opposed to dumping you off right next to the freeway there? 1190 Rob, can you bring up the picture? (crosstalk) 1191 1192
Ms. Ames: Are we talking about the west side? 1193
1194
Chair Reckdahl: I'm sorry, east side, on the east side. 1195
1196
Ms. Ames: The east side. The Bay side. 1197
1198
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. When you get off the bridge, there will be a "T" there. Anyone 1199
coming off the bridge now will have to slow down, take a sharp left turn, then go across 1200
the current existing bridge across Adobe Creek, and then take a sharp left going out to the 1201
Baylands. 1202
1203
Commissioner Crommie: I think page 48, sorry, page 28 has a picture of that, of the east 1204
side if our Commission wants to look at it. 1205
1206
Draft Minutes 29
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: Initially when they were looking at possible layouts, there was one 1207
layout that went across the bridge. When it went to the east side, it didn't stop right there, 1208
but it continued going across and crossed Adobe Creek and then dumped you out on the 1209
way to the Baylands. I was wondering why we removed that as an option. 1210
1211
Ms. Ames: Maybe we can look at page 9 of the packet. Attachment B shows the 1212 location of the bridge and the alignment that has this "T" intersection at the San Francisco 1213
Bay Trail. Where the approach ramp meets the Bay Trail, it's like a "T" intersection on 1214
the east side of the Baylands. We had looked at various alignments in the past, namely 1215
the one you mentioned that goes along the creek. We realized that a lot of the users 1216
weren't necessarily going in that direction, towards the Bay. Rather, they might be 1217
commuting. If you're a recreational user, you might be going towards the Baylands. If 1218
the bridge ramp was going parallel to Adobe Creek and terminated by Adobe Creek, that 1219
was one specific direction. This direction where there's a "T" intersection seemed most 1220
versatile, where somebody going north or south could decide at that point and not have to 1221
backtrack if they were going to the north. 1222
1223
Chair Reckdahl: Have we done surveys? I take that route to work, and I see everybody 1224
going back into the Baylands and then heading over to the Googleplex and the Shoreline 1225
Business Park. I hardly see anyone going north. Before we make a decision on the 1226
layout like that, you'd want a survey of where people are going when they cross the 1227
bridge. 1228
1229
Ms. Ames: Most of the users we looked at given the build out of this whole area, say 1230
that's 20 years from now, there's a complete build out on the east side and the west side. 1231 Alta Planning and Design looked at the potential uses and did find that they would 1232 mainly go towards the south. Given that though, we also had issues with the Santa Clara 1233 Valley Water District. They didn't want us crossing over the Adobe Creek channel on the 1234
east side of the freeway. They had a lot of maintenance concerns. With the Santa Clara 1235
Valley Water District concerns along with the desire to have connections both north and 1236
south, leaving it open for the user to decide, the design team came up with this approach. 1237
The design team meaning Alta Planning and Design had done these alignments and 1238
presented these alignments to the commissions and the boards previously, and we came 1239
up with this kind of connection instead of the one that you saw in 2011, which was 1240
parallel into the Baylands and went by Adobe Creek on the east. 1241
1242
Chair Reckdahl: What's problematic is that we're making this bridge with a nice turning 1243
radius so you don't have to slow way down. Then at the end of the bridge where it's flat, 1244
you're off the bridge now. The expensive part is done and we have a "T." Everyone's 1245
going to have to stop and slow their bike down and take a sharp left turn. If you're 1246
making the big arching turn on the expensive bridge and stopping at the end, then 1247
keeping up speed is not nearly as critical on the bridge. 1248
Draft Minutes 30
Approved
1249
Ms. Ames: I could say that we are going to potentially go through site and design 1250
review, and maybe there can be some design considerations to slow down the bikes and 1251
maybe do a better integration and not have this abrupt "T" intersection. There might be a 1252
way to have more of a gradual transition. 1253
1254 Chair Reckdahl: Some type of "V." Another question is on the west side. All the 1255
designs dump you out away from the freeway. If you now are going back northbound, 1256
you're going to have to cross over West Bayshore Road at that point. Are we having a 1257
crosswalk there? Are we just going to have the people play Frogger and jump across the 1258
traffic? There is quite a bit of traffic on West Bayshore. 1259
1260
Ms. Ames: The west side is complicated. When we had our public scoping meeting, 1261
which seems forever, like two years ago, the community asked to open up the Adobe 1262
Creek Reach Trail. 1263
1264
Chair Reckdahl: Which I think is a marvelous idea. I like that a lot. 1265
1266
Ms. Ames: Mainly because this access point on the west is so constrained, maybe West 1267
Bayshore isn't the best connection to the bridge. The community at the scoping meeting 1268
was saying, "Let's open up that maintenance road," Santa Clara Valley Maintenance Road 1269
which we're calling the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. That could be a main entrance to the 1270
west side of the bridge. Yes, this design crossing, if somebody's going north on West 1271
Bayshore, would have to cross over to get to this ramp. There's probably going to be 1272
some kind of crosswalk or some kind of crossing that's safe. That's not part of the 1273 competition. 1274 1275 Chair Reckdahl: At this point, it's irrelevant because all the designs are in the same boat. 1276
Let me move onto some things that are relevant. We have cost estimates for all these. 1277
How real are they? Did all three groups have to submit bases for all their costs or did 1278
they just do their best guess estimates? Are they based on previous built bridges? 1279
1280
Ms. Ames: At this conceptual stage, we still asked for cost estimates. All the design 1281
teams did that. They were roughly in the $8 million range, which included a 10 percent 1282
contingency. The jury also thought that the numbers looked adequate. We don't have 1283
engineering drawings, but we did ask for the teams to have design experience. They had 1284
to have designed and constructed a bridge in the last ten years. The staff feels and the 1285
jury felt that the estimates were okay for now. We'd need to get more cost information 1286
later on. Once you do engineering drawings, you know how deep the piles or columns 1287
need to be. At 35 percent design roughly is usually when you get a solid estimate and 1288
can verify the numbers. At this stage, everybody is saying it's roughly in the $8 million 1289
range. 1290
Draft Minutes 31
Approved
1291
Chair Reckdahl: The experts on the jury concur with that? 1292
1293
Ms. Ames: Yes. The technical advisory panel, which looked at the cost estimates prior 1294
to the competition, didn't have the benefit of seeing the presentations, but they looked at 1295
these estimates prior to the competition, had some commentary on the cost estimates and 1296 had questions. I think the technical advisory panel memo is also in your packet. 1297
1298
Commissioner Crommie: Yes, it is. It's at the end of the ... 1299
1300
Ms. Ames: It's part of Attachment F I believe. 1301
1302
Commissioner Crommie: Yes. I think it's at the very end after the jury makes their 1303
decision. 1304
1305
Ms. Ames: Roughly everyone thought they would basically meet the $8 million 1306
threshold in construction only. 1307
1308
Chair Reckdahl: If we tried to be as cheap and no-frills as possible, what would be the 1309
cheapest bridge that we could put over that spot? Do we have an estimate of that? 1310
1311
Ms. Ames: When we did the feasibility study, which was approved by Council at the 1312
December 2011 meeting I believe, we had an estimate range between $6-$8 million for a 1313
bridge. The $6 million construction estimate was really based on a simple, Caltrans-1314
related bridge. I think it was only 10 feet wide. These bridges are on the magnitude of 1315 18 feet wide, the ones presented tonight. 1316 1317 Chair Reckdahl: If it is only $2 million over, then we are getting some value. I worry 1318
that these $8 million bridges will become $16 million by the time they're built. That's 1319
outside of my pay grade. I have some questions for the designers. These wires on the 1320
network arch are very thin. They're 1 millimeter. Have you worked with that type of 1321
wire before? Have you built an arch like this before? 1322
1323
Mr. Litzinger: Yes. We have several designs that we've done that have been constructed 1324
within the engineer's estimate from the start. We have a lot of confidence in the bridge 1325
type. It's a proven bridge type with low risk of cost escalation along the way. As the 1326
spans change, then you have wires of different sizes. We've done a variety of these with 1327
different wire size types, different densities of the mesh. If you think about the mesh that 1328
way, that kind of balances it. It comes down to the point of aesthetics and other 1329
considerations. 1330
1331
Chair Reckdahl: You mentioned Happy Hollow. That's a network arch? 1332
Draft Minutes 32
Approved
1333
Mr. Litzinger: Yes, it's a network-type arch, very similar to the concept we have shown 1334
here. 1335
1336
Chair Reckdahl: They have 1 millimeter wires there? 1337
1338 Mr. Litzinger: Those may have been a little bit larger. In fact, I had some notes that I 1339
was taking down to go back and look and see how many wires we were using. The spans 1340
were very similar. We might have gone to a larger diameter cable, so we would have 1341
fewer of them rather than a small diameter and more frequent. 1342
1343
Chair Reckdahl: But that's going over a creek, so there's birds in that area. 1344
1345
Mr. Litzinger: Correct. 1346
1347
Chair Reckdahl: Have we had any bird hits? Are you familiar with ... 1348
1349
Mr. Litzinger: We've heard of no complaints from the City of San Jose, from their parks 1350
and rec group on that issue. 1351
1352
Chair Reckdahl: That has no mitigation? That has just plain wires? 1353
1354
Mr. Litzinger: That's correct. 1355
1356
Chair Reckdahl: I would assume that if you made the wires thicker, it'd be easier for 1357 birds to see the wires. 1358 1359 Mr. Litzinger: I think so. I'm not a bird expert; I'm just a civil engineer. We have 1360
experts on the team that could address that. 1361
1362
Chair Reckdahl: What would happen if you do some testing now? Maybe I should back 1363
up. What testing do you plan to do for these little flappers, the mitigation? Are you 1364
building a scale model? 1365
1366
HNTB Team Member: We have a working prototype already. 1367
1368
Commissioner Crommie: He has to go to the mike. 1369
1370
HNTB Team Member: The disks are a collaboration of our teams. We have an artist on 1371
our team. His name is Ned Kahn. He's an internationally renowned artist known for the 1372
merger of art and science. We've built a working prototype of one of the disks. There 1373
Draft Minutes 33
Approved
would be many steps to determine their reflectivity and their durability. Would they 1374
work with larger cables? Yes. If that's the question. 1375
1376
Chair Reckdahl: Let's suppose you do some testing and find out that these disks don't 1377
repel the birds. Now what do you do? Do you change the design or do you just go to 1378
thicker cables and have less of them? 1379 1380
HNTB Team Member: I'd leave that question to the engineers in terms of the structural 1381
systems. The conservative case would be to go to precedented structural types in the 1382
area, like the Berkeley Bridge which I believe is an orthogonal arrangement of cables. 1383
That would be the base case, let's say. This would be what we presented to really address 1384
the innovation and the signature quality of the bridge. Would it work with a conventional 1385
type? I believe so. I'd leave it to John to answer the question. 1386
1387
Chair Reckdahl: By conventional, do you mean vertical? 1388
1389
HNTB Team Member: To vertical or let's say tested and established. Using dimensions 1390
and cable types that have been proven to work in other similar conditions such as the 1391
Berkeley Pedestrian Bridge, which is a cable-supported span and the cables are 1392
orthogonal to the arch and the deck. 1393
1394
Chair Reckdahl: Why is the arch canted? Was there a functional reason for that or was 1395
that aesthetics? 1396
1397
Mr. Litzinger: It's an aesthetic. 1398 1399 Chair Reckdahl: One of my concerns is that there's going to be perching spots above 1400 that, and birds will sit on there, and there will be bird droppings on 101 and bird 1401
droppings on people going across the bridge. Should I be concerned about that? 1402
1403
Mr. Litzinger: It's a concern. I think it's something that we would look at, the path. One 1404
of the features of this, where the path swoops out away from the plane of the arch, is to 1405
keep the path out of a landing spot or a perching area for the birds. That certainly is 1406
something that we would work out in a collaborative manner through the design process. 1407
1408
HNTB Team Member: The condition that you're referring to and most people have 1409
experienced commonly occurs when there is ample food source and ample water supply 1410
very close by, like food vending situations or college campuses or urban streets where all 1411
those things are present, ready and available. Over a freeway, that condition doesn't exist 1412
and it's different types of bird species. 1413
1414
Draft Minutes 34
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: It still makes me nervous. If we're looking to get a black eye, having 1415
either dead birds or bird droppings cast down on 101 would not be good for Palo Alto. 1416
We do have to look at that. One more thing. You mentioned about the transporters. 1417
Where would you anticipate building the bridge and moving it? Would that be on other 1418
parkland or would it be somewhere else? 1419
1420 Mr. Litzinger: There are a few options in the area. There's one location that we looked 1421
at. As you go up East Bayshore, there's a little bulb-out maybe a quarter mile up the road 1422
that seems to have a sufficiently wide area and that could be used as a construction zone 1423
for the bridge to be assembled. Once it's assembled there, then you have the transporters 1424
that are supported on either end that would travel down East Bayshore, come to a point 1425
where the bridge would be located across 101, have some temporary holes in the barrier 1426
on an overnight closure with Highway 101. The transporters would rotate and the bridge 1427
would rotate into place. 1428
1429
Chair Reckdahl: The assembly actually would be blocking East Bayshore and all 1430
assembly would be done on the road? I just want to make sure that we're not anticipating 1431
using any parkland for the assembly, because I think that would be a big impact. 1432
1433
Mr. Litzinger: Right. Right now we're not looking at any parkland. What other work 1434
areas are available that are in the public area? Either public roadways, side streets, 1435
parking lots. There's a number of different options that could be investigated that is in 1436
close proximity to the location. You have the advantage of this bridge type with the 1437
assembly being done, then it can be wheeled and dropped into place. 1438
1439 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. If there are no more questions, we'll express our comments. 1440 This is our message to the City Council, what you think, what you like, what you don't 1441 like. 1442
1443
Commissioner Lauing: Want me to start? 1444
1445
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. 1446
1447
Commissioner Lauing: First of all I think that our comments, as everyone's should be, 1448
are coming off this page 13 which is the guiding design principles. Clearly the judges 1449
have decided that all three make that cut. This discussion of birds is appropriate but, 1450
even as a couple of the speakers said, we're going to lose birds. You put up a bridge; 1451
you're going to lose some birds. That's not the driving force of all things. There's 1452
probably thousands of things that come into account in this whole bridge. Just looking at 1453
the four criteria, I guess you just want to get some specific comments down here. 1454
Talking about innovation and inspiring, I do think that the first one is inspiring as a work 1455
of art, elegant and really a lovely statement without being over the top. It really meets all 1456
Draft Minutes 35
Approved
of the criteria. I would rate that the highest. I also think some of the previous comments 1457
are worth pointing out, which is the separation of pedestrians and cyclists. Obviously we 1458
just talked about this to death, but they attempt to make it as unobtrusive to bird species 1459
as possible. As they point out, which was helpful, the habitat and the connection areas 1460
are equally important. I would say a close second—I appreciate the public comments on 1461
this—is Submission C. There's one comment on the jury side where they said it's 1462 actually too subtle, which I would agree with. It's not quite enough of a statement in spite 1463
of its elegance and connectivity and getting the job done. The third one, "B," visually it 1464
looks too temporary. It almost looked like a tent and like it's not really structurally sound 1465
in some cases. I know that's not true, but visually that's the case. It's so understated as to 1466
blend in too much as opposed to addressing the issue of inspiration, engaging the 1467
community and maybe even drawing more visitors there, which I think it ought to do. 1468
Thank you. 1469
1470
Vice Chair Markevitch: I think it was 2005 or 2006 I went to the VTA Board and said 1471
that we need to have a pedestrian bike bridge there. It should have been built when they 1472
were doing all of the construction that they've doing for the last four years or however 1473
long it's been on 101. They didn't hear me. I'm glad to see it's finally here. I'm looking 1474
at all three of these, and I'm thinking there should have been a fifth criteria and that was 1475
cost effectiveness. When I was speaking to the VTA Board, I envisioned a very simple 1476
bridge that's cost effective, safe, and simple. None of these are. I looked at them, and 1477
two of them under the submissions say construction costs are likely to increase. I know 1478
that's true. I'm the daughter of a civil engineer. It's not going to be $8 million on any of 1479
them. I would be shocked. The one in the middle, the wood bridge, we're in Palo Alto 1480
which is the land of termites. That's just not a good thing especially if it's built over a 1481 freeway. My vote is for none of these. It needs to be simple, safe, and cost effective. 1482 1483 Commissioner Crommie: Well, let's see my notes. Looking at the criteria on page 13, of 1484
these three bridges Number C meets the criteria the best. I disagree with the jury saying 1485
that all of them meet it equally. I just simply don't think that's true. 25 percent of the 1486
criteria has to do with bird safety, integration into the ecosystem. That's 25 percent of the 1487
criteria. There's no way you can ignore that. I appreciate "A." The design as a 1488
suspension bridge is very beautiful. Suspension bridges make a big wow statement, and 1489
they've done a beautiful job with it. I just don't think it's in the right place. That's my 1490
only hesitation with it. I think there are too many unknowns in this particular location. 1491
Going to our website on the Baylands, it says, "The Baylands Preserve is one of the 1492
largest tracts of undisturbed marshland remaining in the San Francisco Bay." Palo Alto 1493
has been a leader in preservation, conservation of that land, so we need to have a bridge 1494
that speaks to that. "C" speaks to that. "C" is innovative in terms of the floating 1495
technology, how it uses the cable. That's why it could satisfy innovation. It's not as 1496
much of a wow; I agree with that. It's a more subtle statement which is the look of the 1497
land. I would draw everyone's attention to how the Lucy B. Evans Interpretive Center is 1498
Draft Minutes 36
Approved
designed, that sits in our Baylands. It's a very elegant, subtle structure that blends right in 1499
with the marsh. The designers had that right. Under the pros for "C," I said innovative in 1500
terms of the floating technology, integrated with nature, safest design for wildlife, lowest 1501
impact, possibly the shortest route which is important for cyclists. Between "A" and "C," 1502
"C" has a shorter route. That's it. 1503
1504 Commissioner Hetterly: In terms of innovation, "B" was the most innovative for its 1505
sustainability. It's clear it's the most sustainable plan of all of them. I didn't like it as 1506
much. "C" was probably the least innovative, but the simplest and cleanest. "A" 1507
probably did the best job of balancing the four criteria and being fairly strong in all of 1508
them. The bird issue obviously needs some more consideration. I don't have the 1509
expertise to opine on that, so I'll leave that to you all. If the bird issue can be addressed 1510
satisfactorily, that would be my preference. I preferred "A" over "C" for the viewing 1511
station on the east side overlooking the Baylands to one that's in the middle of the 1512
freeway looking straight out on the freeway. I also liked the idea of the water 1513
reclamation on the east side as opposed to a cement plaza or hardscaped plaza, whatever 1514
the surfacing is. Thank you. 1515
1516
Commissioner Crommie: I just wanted to speak to the east side. I forgot about that, 1517
because we haven't really dug into that because it's not very well developed. I'm really 1518
worried about that water reclamation scenario. It's a way that "A" is trying to be more 1519
environmental as an afterthought. I wanted to voice my concern because it's different 1520
from Commissioner Hetterly. I'm just really concerned about how that's going to work. 1521
There's not a tidal flow there, so they want it to be standing water. They're going to 1522
uncover the mud and create this brackish water spot. It has so many unknowns, and 1523 environmentalists are not embracing that. I'm very appreciative that we have many in the 1524 audience tonight. I see it as an afterthought. 1525 1526
Commissioner Knopper: I liked "A." It's beautiful and it met the criteria as far as I'm 1527
concerned. I already discussed one issue, just making sure that the habitat that lives in 1528
that area—thoughtful consideration with regard to reflectors or cables, etc., which I'm 1529
sure this will be discussed infinitum for the next however long this takes. It will be 1530
addressed. I'm very happy that there will be a bridge there. I'm very happy that it's 1531
artistic and interesting and that it has looked at all the criteria from an environmental 1532
perspective and has been sensitive to that. Thank you for the examples of the other 1533
bridges. I appreciate that. 1534
1535
Chair Reckdahl: When I first saw Design A a month ago, six weeks ago, I thought, "Oh, 1536
it's just too gaudy and out of place." I didn't like it initially. Now I've looked at it and 1537
grown to like it. I think people get used to it. It is beautiful. There's that wow factor. It 1538
has a big risk, the birds. I don't think we've proven to ourselves that it won't hurt the 1539
birds. It comes down to whether Council wants that wow factor. They're going to have 1540
Draft Minutes 37
Approved
to do some studies and convince themselves that there's not going to be bird problems. If 1541
they want the wow factor and they're willing to take that risk, then Design A. If they're 1542
not willing to take that risk, then it's clearly Design C. Wow factor aside, "A" did have a 1543
little better design. I like the separation between the pedestrians and bicycles. It was 1544
nice. You have seniors walking. You have young kids walking. Having a separation 1545
between the bikes and the pedestrians is a very good idea. I like the water filling and the 1546 bathrooms on the east side. Their design was a little more polished. All in all, "A" is a 1547
good design, but it has the bird risk. We're going to have to work at that; we can't just 1548
cross our fingers. We're going to have to get some evidence to show that the birds are 1549
going to be safe. All the designs do have a big risk on money. I agree with Pat that it's 1550
unlikely that any of the designs could be built for $8 million. I'm not sure if the Council 1551
wants to get independent people to look at that and price it out or if they can start the 1552
process and make decisions along the way. I don't know. 1553
1554
Commissioner Hetterly: Can I add something? Aesthetically speaking, I'm really 1555
uncertain about how that wire mesh is going to seem. It seems to me that this whole 1556
Commission felt previously concerned about costs. If we're going to go with the bare 1557
bones, it shouldn't be an $8 million bare bones option. If the City decides to reject "A," 1558
then it should consider whether "C," if that's the second choice, merits the cost or if we 1559
should go back to a simple, basic, utilitarian plan. 1560
1561
Chair Reckdahl: Elizabeth, do you have any final questions or comments or are you 1562
ready to move on? 1563
1564
Ms. Ames: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your input. The Commission was 1565 instrumental in leading this project and making this a top priority and the Bike and 1566 Pedestrian Plan that was adopted by Council in 2012. I really appreciate the 1567 Commission's support. Hopefully, you will be there at the February 23rd Council 1568
meeting. Thank you. 1569
1570
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 1571
1572
5. Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 1573 1574
Chair Reckdahl: We have no speakers for this, so we can directly in as soon as Peter's 1575
ready to go. 1576
1577
Peter Jensen: Commissioners, good evening. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 1578
City of Palo Alto, here in our monthly address for the Parks, Recreation Master Plan. As 1579
the progress goes along, the information and the materials build. I'm happy to say that 1580
we have the consultant with us tonight, Ellie on the MIG project team, to go over some of 1581
Draft Minutes 38
Approved
the handouts that we got this week and discuss those things. Because of time, I'm just 1582
going to let her get into it. Then we'll have questions at the end. 1583
1584
Ellie Fiore: Hi, good evening. For those of you I have not yet met, my name's Ellie 1585
Fiore. I work for MIG; I'm a deputy project manager on this process. I work closely 1586
with Ryan and Lauren who've been to meetings before me. I'm here tonight primarily to 1587 field questions and comments on several work products that we've put in front of you. I 1588
think there were five in your packet. I don't know if you have a preference for where we 1589
start. To frame the discussion big picture wise in terms of where we are in this project, 1590
we're pivoting from the information gathering and data analysis phase into 1591
recommendations. As you know, our big push at the end of 2014 was the online survey. 1592
We got over 1,100 responses which is really remarkable. We're in the process of 1593
crunching and summarizing that data. That's a big input that we'll see next month. It'll 1594
be in front of you and the ad hoc committee. Then we'll be developing recommendations 1595
and a project list, and then going quickly into prioritization in March with an adoption 1596
target deadline of October. The five pieces that were in your packet and that we want to 1597
discuss tonight were the existing system summary, which might be a good place to start 1598
because this encapsulates the work that we did last year and summarizes the pieces that 1599
make up that existing system analysis. It has a date of December 22nd. I apologize; they 1600
all look alike because they have similar headers. It is to Peter and Elizabeth from Ryan 1601
and Ellie. It's formatted with a memo heading. 1602
1603
Vice Chair Markevitch: Page number? 1604
1605
Chair Reckdahl: They're not contiguous. 1606 1607 Commissioner Lauing: This is the one. Does everybody see it? 1608 1609
Ms. Fiore: This is essentially an update on where we are in the scope of work. We've 1610
completed most of phases 1 through 5 as I said, the existing system analysis, data 1611
analysis and several elements of our community engagement approach. This outlines 1612
what we've done, what the work products are, all of which you should have had or do 1613
have now, again with the exception of the online survey summary which is underway. I 1614
just want to confirm that you've seen all of those pieces and see if there's any outstanding 1615
questions or concerns. 1616
1617
Commissioner Lauing: Can we make comments on this? 1618
1619
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. 1620
1621
Commissioner Lauing: I thought this was going to be up third, but I'm glad it's up first. 1622
It's actually the most important. Starting at the beginning of your memo where you say, 1623
Draft Minutes 39
Approved
"MIG has collected and generated a foundation of data" and then "community input." 1624
Consistently we've been saying we want data. We're speaking for Council, and they want 1625
data, hard data on what the strategic direction of this thing needs to be. The community 1626
stuff is very interesting. It's beyond anecdotal, but it's not quantitative. It's qualitative 1627
data. The real data is what's going to have to drive the strategic aspects of this. Just 1628
repeating that theme, because that's what we're going to need. When we got over to page 1629 4 of this memo, demographics and trends, you guys did some research on local and 1630
regional population and demographic trends from the past several decades. This work 1631
product went to the City in September of 2014. At our next meeting, Peter, we should 1632
revisit that in some level of detail because that's the basis of it. Again I'm contrasting 1633
data versus community input. When we're hearing that people want cricket or archery or 1634
more baseball fields or whatever, that's one thing. We really would love to have trend 1635
data. For example, and I hope I'm making this up, is golf going to die, so we don't need 1636
golf courses anymore? We would make decisions like that. Is cricket going to take the 1637
world by storm? We need to know about that. We're not going to hear that, with all due 1638
respect, from just asking even 1,000 people in our community. That kind of trend data. 1639
Also, local data. We were told you were going to look at data from school districts. I'd 1640
like to know in the next 10, 20, and 30 years if our 8 to 15-year-old kid group is going to 1641
go up by 50 percent or down by 10 percent. Those are the ones that are mostly filling up 1642
our fields. We really need that hard approach to this. I don't recall that we dug into this 1643
very much in September of 2014. I, for one, would like to see that come back to us next 1644
month, so we really have something that's quantitative. Just to put a point on it, the 1645
credibility of this whole Master Plan is dependent on that kind of work. For us, for you, 1646
for the Council, for the City, for residents. The other item that you guys already know 1647
about which is that five-point plan of what everybody wants in parks, geez, we'd really 1648 like to have something more than that. Throw a ball, walk around, sit around, look at the 1649 sun. It's like that commercial says, we already know that. 1650 1651
Ms. Fiore: Right. Those are the basic elements. Thank you. 1652
1653
Commissioner Lauing: Other comments on this? 1654
1655
Chair Reckdahl: I've got Hetterly. 1656
1657
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree about the need for more data. We're sounding like a 1658
broken record; we keep saying that over and over and over again. We need harder data or 1659
more quantitative data. For this particular document, I just had a couple of comments. 1660
On the top of page 3, you talk about the recreation program review and analysis is going 1661
to review the division of responsibility for recreation programs across the Community 1662
Services Department and by private and community providers. We'll discuss the program 1663
analysis later on. I don't feel like it does review the division of responsibility. It just 1664
notes that there are services provided by different providers. Maybe there it would be 1665
Draft Minutes 40
Approved
nice to know something more, like what percent of offerings in a certain category or 1666
categories X, Y and Z are provided by the city as opposed to provided by the City's 1667
partners or nonprofits or private organizations. That kind of data helps us understand 1668
what is our market share in martial arts or in teen programs. On page 6 under the City 1669
Council update, you tell us that you provided City Council with a review of your work 1670
completed to date on November 17th, but we haven't seen any feedback from that. We'd 1671 like you to provide us feedback about what you heard, what you learned from that 1672
interaction with the Council. That would be helpful for our discussions. Also the 1673
revenue analysis we have not seen yet, I believe. It's also not described in the summary 1674
of work products. 1675
1676
Ms. Fiore: That's correct. That one is in process, but there was a glitch in verifying the 1677
data that we should be using. It's been on hold for about the last six weeks. There's a 1678
meeting today that either Peter or Rob can speak to better than I. We're moving that 1679
forward. 1680
1681
Commissioner Hetterly: My last comment on this document. The prioritization process, 1682
you say that you're going to develop preliminary recommendations and a project list and 1683
that there will be dedicated prioritization meetings with stakeholder groups and other 1684
groups. I just wanted to make sure that those preliminary recommendations and project 1685
list is going to be the subject of those meetings as opposed to them happening in a 1686
vacuum from the work that's happening behind doors. 1687
1688
Ms. Fiore: I’m not sure I follow you. 1689
1690 Commissioner Hetterly: The prioritization meetings with the stakeholders and the public 1691 and the Commission, those meetings are intended to discuss the preliminary priorities 1692 that you will identify and (crosstalk). 1693
1694
Ms. Fiore: Exactly. The project list is what will be reviewed in those meetings. 1695
1696
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. 1697
1698
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 1699
1700
Commissioner Crommie: Are we discussing this whole document through the 1701
following—oh, just this one. I ditto the comments that have been made. I'm really 1702
worried about what we're going to be able to do with this report once we get it, quite 1703
frankly. It doesn't seem data driven enough. It just looks like a boilerplate report when I 1704
look at this. I don't know what to do about it. When it comes to prioritization, it's so 1705
difficult to do that. The only way you can make your arguments is to try to use the data. 1706
I'm just not sure how we're going to do that. When I see you guys processing the data, it 1707
Draft Minutes 41
Approved
doesn't reflect my memory of the meetings, which I'll say when we get further into this. I 1708
wish I had a better concrete suggestion. 1709
1710
Chair Reckdahl: Are we ready to move on? 1711
1712
Rob de Geus: Chair Reckdahl. I'm concerned about this too, about this question of data 1713 and what we're going to do about it. We're moving along here and we're going to get into 1714
prioritization. If the Commission's not comfortable with the material or at least the data 1715
that we have, then maybe we need to take a pause here and think about how do we get 1716
that data and what does it really look like. MIG's done a lot of this work before, and I 1717
appreciate what they're doing in trying to get data in a lot of different ways. From the 1718
intercept surveys to the electronic survey they got a lot of responses, the workshops, 1719
Commission feedback, staff interviews, and other things. I actually think there's a lot of 1720
good data there. Maybe it's not sufficient. I don't know. What I would like to hear, and I 1721
suspect these guys would like to hear, is what specifically does the Commission want to 1722
see in terms of more data. Is it a specific survey that you're looking for, additional 1723
workshops, regional trend analysis for park and rec programs? Something specific that 1724
we can then work with. 1725
1726
Commissioner Lauing: That's why I brought up number 4 on page 4 first. If you've 1727
already done that, refresh our memory and make sure that we're not missing something. 1728
You say there, "local and regional population and demographic trends from the past 1729
several decades and projections for the coming decades." That's the kind of stuff that I 1730
think is more actionable and strategic than 25 people at the community center saying 1731
what they think we could do new, which comes up with some interesting ideas that can 1732 be incorporated, but it's not the basis for a 25-year strategic plan. That's the kind of data. 1733 We talked from the get-go about school board data, about projections of school-aged 1734 children. If there's any way that someone here is predicting our own population and what 1735
the demographics might be, we should see that too. 1736
1737
Chair Reckdahl: The city does have its own projections on the population of Palo Alto 1738
going to the (crosstalk). 1739
1740
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, we do and the school district has it. It's readily available. If some of 1741
that is in the demographic report—I know that the school district struggles with these 1742
projections though. They typically don't project much further than five years, because it's 1743
so unreliable. We certainly can get what they have. 1744
1745
Commissioner Lauing: Even that's instructive. Right? 1746
1747
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 1748
1749
Draft Minutes 42
Approved
Commissioner Lauing: If we say, "Well, we think we need fields at the Baylands," so we 1750
put in a bunch of fields. The school board doesn't know what kind of kid population 1751
we're going to have five years out. We can't do something that's going to impact the city 1752
for 75 years. Maybe that causes us pause on some of those issues. Even not doing 1753
something is of value for this whole strategic plan that we're doing. 1754
1755 Mr. de Geus: That's helpful. Maybe others have input here. 1756
1757
Commissioner Crommie: I'm struggling with this. I'm just going to brainstorm. I 1758
personally would like to see more information from our stakeholder groups in a more 1759
succinct way. We can develop a list of stakeholders that as a Commission we're 1760
interested in, and all of us have contacts with various stakeholder groups. Then develop a 1761
list of questions that we give to those stakeholders. We have a lot of interest in the city 1762
that funnels through stakeholders. I know we did the wide community survey with 1,000 1763
respondents. A lot of us on the Commission weren't completely happy with those 1764
questions, so we have a little bit of hesitation. I'm sure we'll get some really good 1765
information from that. I'm just throwing this out. I really value our stakeholders. We 1766
can't be overpowered by any one group of them. It's our job to balance that out. As we 1767
look at them, we know the forces that be. I worked on the field use policy that our 1768
Commission reviewed. Our soccer leagues are very vocal, but we know how to place 1769
that in balance. I would like to hear what they have to say. I don't know if other people 1770
on this Commission would agree, so it'd have to be a consensus. I would never want to 1771
go forward unless other people thought it was going to yield good information. I don't 1772
want to keep doing information that people aren't excited about. I just feel like there's 1773
such a gap in understanding what the schools want. When I see on this list getting a new 1774 community pool, we have all these school pools, and I don't know anything about it and 1775 how that fits in. I didn't hear a single community member bring up a pool ever; yet, it's 1776 on this list. 1777
1778
Ms. Fiore: What list are you referring to? 1779
1780
Commissioner Crommie: We're going to get into that. I'm just saying that I don't know 1781
what's going on in the schools. They seem like a black box. They seem like they're 1782
profit motivated to me, that they're holding onto turf to sell it. That's something I don't 1783
understand. I've heard our Commission ask for information on that, and I haven't seen 1784
any of it yet. 1785
1786
Mr. de Geus: The school data, we've heard that several times. MIG staff and us have 1787
met with the schools on two occasions related to this plan, but maybe there's more that 1788
we can do there, more data, more feedback. The question about the stakeholders, I think 1789
there is a large stakeholder group that's been assembled for this work. I think they've met 1790
once, and they have two more meetings. 1791
Draft Minutes 43
Approved
1792
Commissioner Crommie: I was at the meeting. Keith was there. 1793
1794
Mr. de Geus: That's, I don't know, 20 or 30 of our stakeholders. Is that ... 1795
1796
Commissioner Crommie: No, I don't mean that kind of meeting. It was very hard to get 1797 useful information, I found, from that kind of meeting. You need to give them a list of 1798
questions and have them respond to it. It's always apples and oranges. One person 1799
saying this. We have a report on that meeting. Daren did write it up. Just having been 1800
there, my head was spinning with all the different viewpoints. I want something I can 1801
bite into, where there's similar questions being asked of people, like a script. 1802
1803
Chair Reckdahl: When Ryan was here, initially the plan was to mail the survey out to 1804
everyone in the whole—maybe I should back up a second. In my mind, there's two 1805
separate issues. One is the current assessment, what do people need and want right now. 1806
Then the projection going forward. You can break those into two. For the current needs 1807
assessment, we were originally planning to mail out a survey to everyone who had a 1808
utility bill. The question was what kind of return rate would we get. That was the only 1809
concern. Then we went away from that and just went to an electronic survey. Now you 1810
have sampling error. Ryan said in the past he had ways of, when they'd done electronic 1811
surveys like this, to reduce the sampling error. I don't know what methods he uses, but 1812
he said in the past they had addressed that. It'd be useful to hear how MIG can massage 1813
the data to reduce the effect of the sampling of the electronic survey. That's one issue. 1814
The second issue then is how do you go forward. Jen, did you have a question? 1815
1816 Commissioner Hetterly: I did. I think we're a little off track. Now we're looking more at 1817 the big issue of what are we wanting to get and how do we get there. There's a lot of 1818 details in the packet where we could give you more reaction about what we think is 1819
missing. For the big picture view, fundamentally what we're looking to learn from this 1820
study is do we have the right mix and supply of parks and recreation facilities, services, 1821
and programs to meet the needs of our community now and into the future. That's the 1822
fundamental question. The inventory and the matrix is supposed to provide us a starting 1823
point to understand where we are. The demographics information and the surveys and all 1824
that stuff is supposed to help us figure out where we should be. Right? The problem is 1825
there doesn't seem to be any information that we've seen yet suggesting how we get from 1826
where we are to where we might want to be. The demographic trends information is 1827
generalized. We're going to have more seniors. We have a more diverse cultural 1828
population. We have a growing population of kids. It doesn’t go into specific detail 1829
about how our resources should change to reflect those trends. That's a big gap that we 1830
stumble on every time. That's part of why we're looking for more data, so that we can 1831
start putting the pieces together as we think about prioritization. There's a fear that we're 1832
going to jump from here, where we have a start, to a vague generalized end but nothing in 1833
Draft Minutes 44
Approved
the middle. March is two months away. How are we going to be able to prioritize 1834
anything by then if we don't have any of the middle? I think that's the problem that we're 1835
struggling with. 1836
1837
Ms. Fiore: Thank you. That's a valid concern and it's completely understandable, based 1838
on the work we've put in front of you to date. The short answer is we're working on it. 1839 As I said, we're about to make that pivot into recommendations, all of which will be 1840
based on these many pieces that we've been gathering. I know it seems probably like it's 1841
been a slow process and that a lot of the information we've put in front of you you may 1842
already know because you are Parks and Rec Commissioners. Again, that is part of the 1843
systematic analysis of the system. We are generating recommendations, site specific. 1844
Another work product that you haven't seen yet is existing conditions maps with detailed 1845
analysis of all of your parks including photographs, and the ways they're used, and key 1846
features. Our next step is applying recommendations to each of those sites as well as the 1847
system. 1848
1849
Commissioner Crommie: When you give us your recommendations, I really want to see 1850
the data that you're working with. Not everyone needs to look at it, but I want to see it 1851
all. I just want to have complete transparency of what you looked at and what you got 1852
from that. If we are questioning any of your decisions, we can go right back and look at 1853
it. I'm asking for that right up front. 1854
1855
Commissioner Hetterly: Other kinds of data. Two of the questions we have all hoped to 1856
answer through this plan at a very basic level is do we need more fields, as Commissioner 1857
Lauing raised. Where is the best suited location for more dog parks? There doesn't 1858 appear to be a source of data that you all have been working on that would generate the 1859 information to reach those conclusions. If there is and we just aren't getting it, then it 1860 would be helpful for you to explain that to us. We're not seeing how you're going to 1861
make the leap from what you have so far to provide that kind of recommendation. 1862
1863
Chair Reckdahl: If there are no other comments, we'll move onto the next section. 1864
1865
Ms. Fiore: Thank you. Why don't we move to the sustainability review, which was the 1866
first product in your packet. This is a high level analysis of where the department and 1867
your system is in the context of sustainability. What policy guidance exists, what current 1868
practices and programs exist, which of these elements of sustainability and policy areas 1869
generally are most directly relevant to the work that the department does and which can 1870
be supported but are really the purview of other departments in the city. Starting on page 1871
8 of this document, we have a list of options. This is not intended to be incredibly 1872
directive, but we're imagining this as a menu of options that staff can take as potential 1873
directions. If you do want to make increasing sustainability of the department a focus, 1874
there's some case studies in there that illustrate where principles of sustainability have 1875
Draft Minutes 45
Approved
been done very well in parks, including one here in Palo Alto. Then some next steps, 1876
should you want to take this effort further. This is intended as a snapshot in time of 1877
where you are, what the policy framework is, recognizing that there's many other similar 1878
efforts going on that's citywide, but none would be focusing necessarily on parks and 1879
recreations and programming. There is some good news in here in that there are a lot of 1880
really strong, sustainable, and resource efficient practices and programs going on even 1881 where there's not strong policy direction. That was one of our key findings. I should add 1882
this can function as a standalone document should staff want to run with any of these 1883
recommendations. This menu also may be pulled forward into the recommendations that 1884
are elevated in the Master Plan as action items. 1885
1886
Commissioner Crommie: I just have a question on this. Where would we find rain 1887
gardens in here, collecting water more efficiently? I just couldn't find it. 1888
1889
Ms. Fiore: It should be under water. 1890
1891
Commissioner Crommie: Under water conversation maybe. 1892
1893
Ms. Fiore: Yeah, under water conservation and water quality. Number 9 on page 12 1894
mentions rain gardens specifically. 1895
1896
Commissioner Crommie: We have a sustainability piece in our city Comp Plan. Did you 1897
pull a lot of this from that? 1898
1899
Ms. Fiore: We reviewed that as part of the policy context. We did not pull these 1900 recommendations from that. We pulled these from national best practices of 1901 sustainability plans that were specifically done for parks and recreation departments, 1902 which can be $50,000 standalone products on their own. This again was a snapshot, a 1903
high level report. We did have your Chief Sustainability Officer, Gil Friend, review this 1904
document before it went to you. 1905
1906
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. 1907
1908
Commissioner Hetterly: I have just a few comments on this one. At the top of page 2, 1909
further sustainability goals if they result in a positive change to one of the following 1910
indicators, and then you list the indicators. I found it notable that there's no mention of 1911
the balance or interrelationship between the indicators. Not all indicators are necessarily 1912
created equal. Improvements in one area can sometimes prove detrimental to other areas. 1913
That's something that should be addressed one way or another here. For example, 1914
transportation is something that could easily conflict with natural resources and habitat. 1915
1916
Ms. Fiore: Yep. Very good point. 1917
Draft Minutes 46
Approved
1918
Commissioner Hetterly: On pages 7 and 8, public health and safety is indicated as a 1919
primary consideration on page 7, but then on page 8 it's pulled out as a secondary. That's 1920
just an error I suspect. Public health and safety should certainly be primary. We have a 1921
lot of policies and practices in our strategic plan and our programs that address that. 1922
1923 Commissioner Crommie: Where is that one? 1924
1925
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't know. You'll have to find it. Page 9, one of the 1926
suggestions at the top, create green ambassadors within a department to support 1927
sustainability initiatives. I'd like to be sure that that's not just about recycling and 1928
greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe they're ecology ambassadors who present the fuller 1929
view of impacts. Page 10, natural resources and habitat. There are six recommendations 1930
there and many of them, to my recollection, we are already doing. Is this supposed to be 1931
exclusively a list of new things that we should do? In other areas, it seemed like new 1932
ideas. Many of these we seem to already be doing. One of the things we aren't doing is 1933
developing metrics for how we measure benefits to the natural resources and habitat. On 1934
page 11, transportation section, it was unclear to me why some of these were in here. 1935
Coordinating improvements like showers for employees and ride share services do not 1936
seem like something that would be within Community Services. Similarly, alternate 1937
work schedules to avoid travel peaks, encourage telecommuting and other practices. Is 1938
that about the employee structure or is that something that you're proposing be a policy 1939
that the Community Services (inaudible). 1940
1941
Ms. Fiore: Our intention was that this is one of the supporting functions of this 1942 department. You work with a transportation management agency, which is under 1943 formation right now. Whether it be Planning or Public Works, whatever the lead agency 1944 is in the city who has primary responsibility, you coordinate and work with them on that, 1945
but then keep an eye towards the staff of this Department and the telecommuting and the 1946
showers and the amenities that support their own behavior. In essence it's both. 1947
1948
Commissioner Hetterly: Number 1, install electric vehicle charging stations at park 1949
facilities with parking lots. I would like to know a little information about whether that 1950
attracts nonusers to park there just to use the charger. What the experience has been in 1951
that regard would be helpful to know more about. Finally on page 15 and 16 under 1952
education and training and natural resources and habitat, there are a lot of programs and 1953
practices that are missing from this table. I'd be happy to shoot you an email about them 1954
if you'd like. 1955
1956
Commissioner Crommie: We have an element of our Comp Plan called the Natural 1957
Environment Element (NEE). We're up in the air with the Comp Plan, but that's where a 1958
lot of really good material is, that the sustainability person might not be aware of. He 1959
Draft Minutes 47
Approved
might not know that whole section, because sustainability is a part of it. It really does 1960
encapsulate habitat preservation, which is a piece that's not as well developed in here. 1961
1962
Commissioner Lauing: I have just a couple. I was pleased to see on page 8, getting into 1963
the detail there. There's such a good emphasis on maintenance, where we say maintain 1964
trees for a 100-year permanence. That recognition is really important particularly in light 1965 of some of the history we've had in the last year about mitigation for trees. You've got to 1966
fund the maintenance too or what's the point. I was really glad to see that in there. 1967
There's other places there, for example, retrofitting for solar power, not quite 1968
maintenance but it's in the same general direction. On your equity point on page 9, I 1969
wasn't quite sure what you meant by underserved neighborhoods. On point 3 under 1970
equity. 1971
1972
Ms. Fiore: That could be defined a couple of different ways. It could be geographically 1973
underserved, parts of the city that have fewer parks in their geographic area. It could also 1974
be underserved neighborhoods, low income populations, or cultural groups who aren't 1975
necessarily active participants in your current system. 1976
1977
Commissioner Lauing: The top of page 11, you talk about true cost pricing. Whatever 1978
the definition is, it's good that we're actually taking everything into account. We don’t 1979
always do that. Overall, generally, that was pretty well constructed for what we're trying 1980
to do. 1981
1982
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Markevitch. 1983
1984 Vice Chair Markevitch: On page 6, align Community Services mission statements, 1985 budgets, and operations with city sustainability goals. I almost feel like it should be the 1986 other way around. The sustainability goals should fit into what we already do. We do 1987
quite a bit already. I'm afraid that if we are held to a certain level of rules by this 1988
sustainability section, we're going to start losing a lot of the flavor of our city, parks, 1989
services, classes. It's all going to get compressed into this bland thing. That seems to be 1990
happening in other cities. I don't quite know how to put it. That one statement just didn't 1991
sit well with me all afternoon. I kept coming back to it. Yes, it's important, but it's not 1992
the end all for what we do. 1993
1994
Chair Reckdahl: I have one comment that this seems to be a collection of good ideas. I 1995
would like to echo Commissioner Hetterly. You can't always do this, but whenever 1996
possible you should use metrics. For example, energy efficiency, when it talks about 1997
retrofit facilities with energy efficiency and select energy efficient products. That's just a 1998
nebulous good thing to do. It would be nice for us to say, "Well, we're getting some 1999
recommendations." If you can say, if you do this, invest this much money, you'll get this 2000
much return. Have some type of either money or energy use return and say, "Are these 2001
Draft Minutes 48
Approved
six good ideas? Which one is the best?" That all comes down to metrics, and whenever 2002
possible we need metrics. If there are no questions, let's move to the next section. 2003
2004
Ms. Fiore: Let's move to the recreation program analysis, which is the last piece of your 2005
packet. The one that has draft stamped all over it. This again is a piece of that existing 2006
conditions summary, a snapshot of what exists on the ground, what the layout is. We 2007 wanted to focus on getting the full picture of programs that are available to Palo Alto 2008
residents, whether or not they were provided specifically by the city or specifically by the 2009
Community Services Department. We took a look at what the private providers are doing 2010
in the city and what the full range of programs available to your residents is. We have 2011
been working with staff. We've identified some areas where we want to beef up the 2012
detail behind a lot of these and learn more about, not just what programs are in demand, 2013
but how in demand are they. We are going to get some data to back this up, which is why 2014
it has draft stamped all over it. Key findings from my perspective are that you are a 2015
community with excellent resources, and there are a lot of things that are in high demand 2016
which is good to know. You have a strong and well administered strategic plan that's 2017
guiding the department and that's still of value and can be used in the years going 2018
forward. There are probably some opportunities for streamlining communications and 2019
possibly departmental organization. That's something we'll look at when we get into the 2020
recommendations, and that will be augmented by this revenue analysis which is 2021
happening in parallel. 2022
2023
Commissioner Lauing: How do you want to process this? Do you want to go through 2024
the whole thing here or the pros and then the graph? There's findings at the end, so 2025
there's a lot of sections. We could just blast through it if you want. 2026 2027 Chair Reckdahl: Let's just blast through it. Any comments you have. 2028 2029
Commissioner Lauing: The first five, six, seven, eight pages, I think the conclusion is 2030
we're doing pretty well already and we've got amazing resources here. As a consultant, 2031
you don't have to find stuff that's broken. It's okay to say, "Hey, this is already a pretty 2032
good place." The breadth of public and private opportunities is really pretty cool. I'm 2033
sure a number of people are going to have comments on this grid. First, I want to make 2034
sure we understand it, this two-page grid here. They're both called recreation and 2035
programs matrix. Is it just the sort that's different in terms of the x and y axis, because 2036
you're taking demographic market segments and cross-tabbing it to stuff that's available? 2037
2038
Ms. Fiore: Correct. 2039
2040
Commissioner Lauing: The other page is the reverse. Right? 2041
2042
Ms. Fiore: Correct. It's two different ways of looking at the same information. 2043
Draft Minutes 49
Approved
2044
Commissioner Lauing: A few things on this conceptually. Are you using things like 2045
Equinox Gym and University Club as examples of private stuff that's available? One 2046
argument could be we shouldn't list private stuff on here at all, because it's not in our 2047
purview. The other answer is people could take advantage of it, but they've got to pay a 2048
lot of money for it because they're really private clubs. They're not necessarily shi-shi 2049 clubs but private clubs. Should that be on here or not? 2050
2051
Ms. Fiore: The intent behind including that was to see universally where the gaps or 2052
overlaps were, recognizing again that the city is not the only provider but that some 2053
people have different levels of access to these different things. If we somehow looked 2054
around and uncovered that no one was providing aquatics, even the private providers, that 2055
would be a key finding. That's obviously not what we found, but that was the intent of 2056
including those private organizations. 2057
2058
Commissioner Lauing: Some of the examples that you have used and could use are 2059
pretty inaccessible to a lot of segments. I'm not sure that that's really valid on here. 2060
Pardon? 2061
2062
Commissioner Markevitch: Because they're private. 2063
2064
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, because they're private and expensive. That seems a little 2065
bit of a skew to me. It's probably not necessary. I've heard in a number of groups, as 2066
we've gone through this process, that we probably don't have enough going on for 2067
seniors. That's one of the things we want to prove, if we do or we don't. Just taking that 2068 as an example, I could just go down there and check a lot of boxes that aren't checked 2069 here, if I'm using the same methodology that you are. For example, seniors can go to 2070 Brad Lozares' golf shop and that wasn't checked. They can do master gardening. They 2071
can go to a gym. They can play some community sports. They can go to the Oshman 2072
JCC which is private. They can go to the YMCA. I'm wondering why that wasn't 2073
checked. Similarly, maybe this is a different answer, when we got to people from diverse 2074
cultures nothing was checked over there. I don't know what you were saying. That's the 2075
question. Why are these not checked? What are we trying to do? 2076
2077
Ms. Fiore: The intent behind the check marks was that it was targeted towards those 2078
populations or marketed to them. It's obviously a subjective analysis. This was intended 2079
to, at a glance, identify those gaps and overlaps. Certainly it doesn't preclude that seniors 2080
could take advantage of those programs, but our read of it was that it wasn't necessarily 2081
intended for or marketed towards them primarily. 2082
2083
Commissioner Lauing: For time considerations, I would encourage you to review that 2084
and see if those make sense. There are senior rates at the golf course, for example. If 2085
Draft Minutes 50
Approved
we're trying to come up with gaps, what this graph tells me right now is that it's only—2086
what do we call this again?—people from diverse cultures and young adults that aren't 2087
currently served. That's okay if we have actual data to support that. I'm just taking the 2088
summary here from your grid. I'm making a methodological comment. If that's what this 2089
says and that's what you need to support, then we need to see how you support that. That 2090
everything else is taken care of, but the other two are in pretty bad shape. That's how I 2091 read this graph. Some other people should jump in on this because (crosstalk). 2092
2093
Commissioner Hetterly: Can I jump in on that point? That's where we have a data 2094
disconnect. What this tell us is that, yeah, at Recreation Services they provide some 2095
services in all these areas, but it doesn't tell us anything about how much, what the 2096
adequacy is, how accessible they are, how affordable they are. It doesn't tell us anything 2097
about how they meet the needs of our community. It only says you might be able to find 2098
a ballet class somewhere in town either through the city or one of these millions of other 2099
providers. That's not really useful information for us as we're trying to develop programs 2100
and services. 2101
2102
Ms. Fiore: Yes, understood. 2103
2104
Commissioner Hetterly: That's the data disconnect that we keep struggling with. 2105
2106
Ms. Fiore: Yes, I had the same conversation with Rob last week. That's the second level 2107
of detail we want to add to this document. 2108
2109
Chair Reckdahl: In general in the document, most of the work is qualitative. We don't 2110 see many numbers. In this case, I think there's two outages. We have the dots here as 2111 opposed to having some number that quantifies how many people they serve or how 2112 many rooms they have for rent or whatever. Also, we need to marry that with a needs 2113
assessment. If you have one community pool, is that enough? I don't know what the 2114
needs assessment is for swimmers. Is it met or not? We really need a comparison of 2115
those two. 2116
2117
Commissioner Knopper: Also from a geographic perspective, like for over-serving in 2118
one specific area with one specific programming, like north Palo Alto is clustered with X 2119
amount of facility. Knowing that overlap too. With regard to ballet, all ballet is 2120
happening in south Palo Alto, right? That's the kind of information that would be helpful. 2121
2122
Commissioner Lauing: I have a number of comments on the key findings, but maybe we 2123
should leave that to last, just as a suggestion until we get through all the other stuff. 2124
2125
Commissioner Crommie: Even the comment on ballet classes, I don't even see how you'd 2126
figure that out, where ballet classes are. There's no heading for ballet classes. We don't 2127
Draft Minutes 51
Approved
have that granularity. I don't know if we could mentally process it in a table like this. 2128
Are we going to know how many ballet classes we have and where they are and who's 2129
providing them at the end of this process or is that something we're not going to know? I 2130
just want to set expectations here. This is such a general table. One thing that caught my 2131
eye were disability services. I now can't find it. I'm having trouble with my glasses. It 2132
seemed like we weren't providing any. On the table, the second row from the bottom 2133 says people with disabilities. What caught my eye were camps. Camps is the second 2134
column from the left on page 10. I'm looking in the matrix at people with disabilities, 2135
how are they doing with camps. I don't see anything checked there. I've had friends who 2136
have teenagers that have volunteered to help camps with disabilities at the Junior 2137
Museum. I've seen them standing there and asked them what they were doing. I don't 2138
know what they were doing, but they told me they were working in camps with kids with 2139
disabilities. I don't know if it was private. These were teenagers volunteering at 2140
something during the summer. Rob, do you know? 2141
2142
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, it's a camp called Summer's Excellent Adventures. Recreation ran 2143
that camp with Abilities United in partnership for many years. They take the lion's share 2144
of coordinating that camp now. We have lots of volunteers to support that program. 2145
That's right. 2146
2147
Commissioner Crommie: The reason it catches my eye is I'm always looking for ways 2148
that teenagers can volunteer. It's a really nice service that we provide. Why isn't that 2149
checked? 2150
2151
Ms. Fiore: It sounds like that was just an oversight. 2152 2153 Commissioner Crommie: Rob, do you think it's an oversight or this isn't set up to check 2154 it? 2155
2156
Mr. de Geus: I have the most concerns about this report of all the reports as well. As I 2157
looked at the information and thinking about how do I use this information to decide 2158
where to emphasize or invest versus not for programs and services, we really don't have it 2159
with this information. 2160
2161
Commissioner Crommie: I'm wondering what this is useful for, quite frankly. Can you 2162
give me the party line on what we would do with this? 2163
2164
Ms. Fiore: Again, this is the understanding of what's on the ground, what's the universe 2165
of available recreation programs for Palo Alto residents. It provides some very 2166
preliminary thoughts on directions you could go for looking at augmenting or changing 2167
program investment at the city level. This is absolutely not intended as a decision 2168
making document. That was never the intent of it. That will be a future product. We 2169
Draft Minutes 52
Approved
have gotten feedback and I think it's well understood that this is not robust enough to 2170
even get us to that middle point where we're going to base recommendations on it, which 2171
is why it's still a draft product, work in progress. 2172
2173
Commissioner Crommie: The issue I have is martial arts is broken out. Someone 2174
decided to break that out, martial arts. I don't know why that has been broken out over 2175 ballet classes. I really don't know the thinking behind it, like how it ended up there, even 2176
though I think it's important. Not a lot of things are broken out, but martial arts is 2177
considered its own category for some reason of exercise. 2178
2179
Ms. Fiore: I wasn't the primary author of this document, so I can't answer all of your 2180
questions. I apologize for that. My guess is that these were areas of concentrated 2181
programming that rose to the top because there was a certain magnitude of offering. 2182
Ballet is in fact on there; it's the second one down in the third section. What I'm hearing 2183
is that this table is not particularly useful. It may not be worth reinvesting our time in 2184
fixing it. It may just be worth revisiting our approach to this entire product, so we can 2185
move more efficiently towards recommendations. It seems to be causing more confusion 2186
than helping. 2187
2188
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a bunch of comments that are organized by page. Do you 2189
want me to just go through them? 2190
2191
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 2192
2193
Commissioner Hetterly: Page 1, recreation program guidance. You mentioned the 2194 recreation strategic plan, but the Comp Plan should also be prominently present there. 2195 Commissioner Lauing already addressed the University Club issue. Page 5, where you 2196 start talking about the program areas. I couldn't figure out the rhyme or reason for what 2197
is included under each section. Some things are included everywhere, but no single 2198
section is all inclusive. I can't figure out why you chose some versus others, if there's a 2199
reason for why you want to highlight certain things. There were some notable omissions. 2200
Avenidas should figure much more prominently in every part of this, including that 2201
confusing matrix. They are our primary source for senior services, and we partner very 2202
intimately with them. Without them, we show a huge gap that maybe isn't real. Also, 2203
Peninsula Youth Theater is a huge arts provider for youth. Palo Alto Neighborhoods is 2204
one of our prides as a city for emergency preparedness, and there's no indication that the 2205
city has any role in emergency preparedness in that section. All of these program areas 2206
need to be refined, and I think you need to figure what you want to say with them. Page 2207
7, youth and teen support services. Project Safety Net isn't really a program. It's a 2208
collaborative. Sort out the details for those is what I would suggest. You have this 2209
section on hours of operation and peak use with some notes about what are the peak 2210
times. There's no data to support that. We don't know the take up rate for rental space in 2211
Draft Minutes 53
Approved
community meeting rooms during those peak times or during the non-peak times. We 2212
don't know if we have a lot of vacancy at any point during the week or during the day that 2213
we should be trying to figure out how to fill. That kind of thing. That's more of that 2214
middle data that we really need. Are there any categories of classes that are over-2215
subscribed or under-subscribed? There's mention of things getting busy and having more 2216
popular classes. Does that we mean we have classes that are so popular that people can't 2217 take them? We don't know that from here. That's more the kind of notes that would be 2218
useful related to peak use. Of course Mitchell Park is now open, so this should be 2219
updated to reflect that. Page 13, under user groups and partner organizations. This 2220
second sentence about Cubberley, I didn't really understand what you were saying there. 2221
It got lost in the editing, so reword that. The sampling of partners below appears to be 2222
primarily folks who are located at Cubberley. Is that supposed to be a sampling of 2223
Cubberley partner groups or is that supposed to be citywide partner groups? We also 2224
have Audubon Society there. I don't know if they're in Cubberley or if that's on here. 2225
2226
Ms. Fiore: It was intended to be citywide, but it may be biased towards Cubberley. 2227
2228
Commissioner Hetterly: It's a little bit confusing coming right after Cubberley, so maybe 2229
clarify what that's supposed to represent. Page 16 and 17 is key findings, which I'll let Ed 2230
go first since he was saving his energy for that one. Before we get to key findings, at the 2231
top of page 16, these two paragraphs talk about low income groups that we may not be 2232
making our programs sufficiently accessible for them. Later it says conflict may exist 2233
with respect to program scheduling or overcrowding. In the next paragraph, you talk 2234
about financial hardship may mean we need more scholarships. There are all these mays 2235
and mights that we could say about probably any community in the world. This may be a 2236 problem, that may be a problem. We want to know is it a problem and should we do 2237 those things. Is this specific to Palo Alto? Do we have sufficient financial assistance to 2238 provide access? Does it or doesn't it is what I want an answer to, rather than just raising 2239
the question. Though they're good questions, it's more useful to know the answer. I'll 2240
save my key findings until everyone's had a chance to comment. 2241
2242
Chair Reckdahl: Any more questions or comments apart from key findings? 2243
2244
Commissioner Crommie: I read this, and then I started to go back to see if I could find 2245
information if I was curious about it. Maybe you can help me or someone can help me. I 2246
wanted to look and see the swim leagues, how they're listed in this document. We have 2247
PASA swim league. Can you help me find where that would be listed? It might be here 2248
somewhere. It might be in the ... 2249
2250
Commissioner Hetterly: It's the first thing under program areas, aquatics. 2251
2252
Commissioner Crommie: What page is that on? 2253
Draft Minutes 54
Approved
2254
Commissioner Hetterly: Page 4. 2255
2256
Commissioner Crommie: Is that listed as a provider? 2257
2258
Commissioner Hetterly: No, every provider is not listed. 2259 2260
Commissioner Crommie: That's what we're pointing out here. That's a huge swim 2261
program. When I hear people talking about new pools, we need to know how our pools 2262
are currently used. We have a private organization that uses Rinconada. I know because 2263
my kids swam in it. That's not run by the city; that's a group coming in and using it for 2264
competitive swim league. I want to see some analysis on that. Maybe they need to clear 2265
out and make room for residents. Those are the kinds of questions I ask. I don't see that I 2266
can get that kind of information in here. It's just a glaring gap for me in the aquatics 2267
analysis. 2268
2269
Chair Reckdahl: Ed, you can start with the key points. You've been on deck for a long 2270
time. 2271
2272
Commissioner Lauing: I'm very confused by this entire section. I'm sorry to say. I don't 2273
think this is just a semantic point, but I don't see a lot of these things as being findings. 2274
First is the strategic directions. The first point, that's fine. The second one, I don't think I 2275
actually understand. We need to revise things a bit. We're always doing that, so I don't 2276
quite get that. The third one, I also don't understand, because we need an appropriate role 2277
for recreation in addressing recreation trends. I just don't follow what that is. I don't 2278 want to wordsmith each one of these and take the time, so I'm trying to buzz through it. 2279 In the programming section, I'd take out three of the five. The only things that are 2280 findings are something like this emergency preparedness and gardening are called out 2281
separately and there's a gap in programs and services targeted at young adults. The 2282
specialized divisions that have used outside funding, that's not a finding; it's a fact. It's 2283
good, but I don't see that that's a conclusion. Similarly, something like special events 2284
have been underfunded for the last few years. That's just a piece of history; that's not 2285
findings. This needs to be rewritten. The facilities thing was a big confusing. I didn't 2286
know what the recommendation is on Lucie Stern. To make it more productive as a more 2287
specialized facility servicing smaller segment of the marketplace, playing to strengths of 2288
existing facilities; I don't get it. There's another one of those. We know this here. Again, 2289
it's not a finding. We know we have some great facilities that aren't anywhere else. 2290
We're not learning anything from that, nor will Council. There was some comments on 2291
Cubberley. We're very familiar with that issue. I could say more, but I'll stop there. 2292
2293
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Knopper. 2294
2295
Draft Minutes 55
Approved
Commissioner Knopper: Hi. I would concur. I just keep putting question marks next to 2296
almost every paragraph. For instance, since you were just talking about Lucie Stern, 2297
about the historic character and that the programming should reflect that. I don't even 2298
know what that means. I literally do not have enough information to actually comment, 2299
other than I'm a little confused. I like analytics. I like, "Okay, so we have 43,000 ballet 2300
classes. This is where they're located geographically. Based on population and all of the 2301 data we've collected, you really only need 37,000." Great, that makes sense to me. I just 2302
keep feeling like I'm reading these paragraphs with a lot of words that just aren't gelling. 2303
That's it. I'm done. 2304
2305
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 2306
2307
Commissioner Crommie: I'll just bring up a couple of points that struck me. 2308
Commissioner Lauing and Knopper have made really good points. Ed was pretty 2309
specific, so that's probably going to help you. The key findings are really important, 2310
because sometimes that's all people read. We're going to need more input on this. We 2311
have to go through this document again, because we want to get it right. We want to feel 2312
good about this. Something that struck me was under programming areas and 2313
populations, the fourth bullet point. I feel like I have my finger on the pulse of the Junior 2314
Museum as a user, because my kids took virtually every camp that was offered there. 2315
When you say something like it's not present in other areas, I agree with that. Our Junior 2316
Museum is completely unique. As a parent shopping around for camps, I'd much rather 2317
send my kids there than Camp Galileo for instance, because of the quality of the staff. As 2318
a user, that just stood out incredibly to me. The city made a big investment to have a 2319
really high quality educational program there. The bottom line in my experience is most 2320 of those camps filled up really quickly. As a resident of Palo Alto, I wouldn't want you 2321 to make some regional advertisements, to strain our staff to provide even more classes. I 2322 don't understand the thinking there. Can you explain that to me? 2323
2324
Ms. Fiore: Again, I'm not the author of this document. My guess would be that other 2325
communities might make a policy decision that they want to attract regional visitors 2326
either for revenue reasons or for public relations reasons or to help serve gaps that exist 2327
regionally. That may very well not be the case based on what you just described. Again, 2328
it's one of those may considerations that we're floating out there without drawing a 2329
conclusion about it. 2330
2331
Commissioner Crommie: That's an area where you need to understand our community 2332
more. There's a lot of anxiety around being a regional supplier. It's hugely controversial 2333
in this city. You can't be superficial about it at all. That's a hot button topic as far as I 2334
see. It has to do with playing fields, our theater program. Do we want to be a supplier of 2335
high quality science camps for the rest of the region? That has to do with use. It's 2336
connected to how popular are they. It's all these economic considerations that are really 2337
Draft Minutes 56
Approved
deeper than just a superficial statement maybe we should go after it regionally. Let me 2338
make one other comment. This also has to do with regional activities. For me, how 2339
much the city subsidizes the activity really makes a difference in how you want to go 2340
after it regionally. From this Commission, we've learned that we subsidize our theater 2341
programs quite a bit, to the point some of us think maybe too much as a city. If it's a 2342
highly subsidized program, I wouldn't want to subsidize it for the region. You see how 2343 the economics plays under decisions? 2344
2345
Ms. Fiore: Yeah, absolutely. 2346
2347
Commissioner Crommie: I don't know within this report how regional considerations are 2348
going to be handled. They have to be handled ... 2349
2350
Commissioner Markevitch: (inaudible) 2351
2352
Commissioner Crommie: Children's Theatre groups. We subsidize that as a city, 2353
probably more highly than any other services. I'm interested in that. As a Commission, 2354
we've been interested in how it all works. We've received tables on it, so we could see 2355
for ourselves the economics of it all. Again, it comes back to playing fields. A hot topic 2356
in this city is what to do about playing fields and whether we should provide those 2357
regionally or not. We don't really know how that all works. There are a lot of forces at 2358
play. 2359
2360
Ms. Fiore: Right, understood. Ultimately whether you want to be a regional provider, 2361
again is a policy directive from this group and from Council. That's a decision that needs 2362 to be made, and then your programming will fall out from that. We're not making any 2363 recommendations on that front right now. Again, I understand your point that you need 2364 more information to even start to get there. 2365
2366
Commissioner Crommie: I'm just reacting to an off-hand comment on this bullet point. 2367
It's just sort of dangling a bit. It's not well developed. 2368
2369
Ms. Fiore: Yes, I understand your point. Thank you. 2370
2371
Commissioner Crommie: Not that it's a bad topic. 2372
2373
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Markevitch. 2374
2375
Vice Chair Markevitch: Going back to the Lucie Stern Center. 2376
2377
Commissioner Lauing: Which page? 2378
2379
Draft Minutes 57
Approved
Vice Chair Markevitch: Under facilities. It says it's a major asset to the city. When 2380
you're talking about the Lucie Stern Center, are you referring to the community room, the 2381
ballroom, the fireside room? Are you also including the theater in there? The Children's 2382
Theatre is spelled out in the next bullet point, but Main Stage is not. There are three 2383
companies that pretty much take up the bulk of the usage, about 90 percent. I want to 2384
make sure they're protected, because they're special. Without that protection, they would 2385 not be able to thrive. I just want to make sure that somewhere in here the Main Stage 2386
theater is listed. 2387
2388
Ms. Fiore: Okay. 2389
2390
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 2391
2392
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with many of the comments that came before me. Under 2393
strategic directions, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with strategic directions. 2394
You should have reference to the Comp Plan and the strategic plan working hand in hand. 2395
There should be some connection in here to the Cost of Service Study, and maybe that 2396
will come out in the revenue analysis. Those seem to me strategic initiatives that are 2397
relevant to this plan. I also am confused about those second two bullets under that 2398
section. Under programming areas and populations, the first bullet talked about missing 2399
opportunities to work together because of a decentralization of function. Rather than 2400
talking about missed opportunities, I think you're saying we should identify high value 2401
opportunities to bridge the gaps. I think I got lost in wordsmithing there. I'm sorry. On 2402
facilities, the first bullet, the Cubberley Community Center, that last sentence says, 2403
"Finding a replacement venue for the most important of Cubberley's program offerings 2404 should be a priority." Having been on the Cubberley Community Center Advisory 2405 Committee, that shouldn't be the priority. You could say "or," but there should be some 2406 mention of redesigning facility for more appropriate and efficient use to meet our needs 2407
onsite rather than trying to move services elsewhere. Finally, under gaps and overlaps, 2408
there is no mention of gaps even though that's in the heading. It only talks about 2409
overlaps. I would like to know what are the gaps. Also I'd like to have some more 2410
qualitative overlay of where are overlaps unnecessary versus beneficial. That's all I have 2411
for that section. 2412
2413
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 2414
2415
Commissioner Crommie: I just have one quick point. On the gaps and overlaps, you 2416
have a sub-bullet saying, "The JCC primarily serves the surrounding community's Jewish 2417
population." That's not my perception of it. I don't know that there's this huge 2418
surrounding Jewish community. There is an established onsite community of retired 2419
people. As far as it being a Jewish section of town, I'm not aware of that. I'm aware of 2420
people traveling there from many parts of town. Did I misread this? 2421
Draft Minutes 58
Approved
2422
Ms. Fiore: Yeah. I don't think that surrounding community in this context was meant as 2423
neighborhood. I think it's more of a citywide/regional community. 2424
2425
Commissioner Knopper: It serves the Jewish community. 2426
2427 Commissioner Crommie: I think of the pool there. This is about aquatics, isn't it? 2428
There's so much going on there; what are you referring to on that sub-bullet? 2429
2430
Ms. Fiore: The point here is about aquatics. While there are multiple providers, they 2431
each target different parts of the market. The JCC may draw a different crowd than the 2432
YMCA (crosstalk). 2433
2434
Commissioner Crommie: I don't know that, unless you show me. I really don't know 2435
that. I don't know if more Jewish people go there than the Y. Is that what you're trying 2436
to say in this sub-bullet point? 2437
2438
Ms. Fiore: We're not trying to make any point about quantity, rather that there are 2439
multiple providers serving the market. 2440
2441
Commissioner Crommie: You have the word "primarily" which is a red flag to me. 2442
You're using the word "primarily," and I'm not sure that's accurate. 2443
2444
Chair Reckdahl: I just have one comment. On that same page, that last bullet really 2445
summarizes what is wrong with the document. It says, "In many cases programming 2446 overlaps are not an indication (inaudible), rather they confirm that these are popular, in-2447 demand programs." Without numerically estimating both need and supply, you can't 2448 make that statement. This whole section talks about this and that, but it's all very 2449
qualitative. In real estate, it's location, location, location. In a study like this, it's metrics, 2450
metrics, metrics. We need to know numerically what is the demand, numerically what is 2451
the supply. The difference in those two will tell us whether we are serving that need or 2452
not. The fact that there's 17 hamburger places in Palo Alto, that doesn't necessarily mean 2453
there's a shortage of hamburgers or an excess. It depends on the relative supply. That's 2454
what I want to see more of. Rob, do you want to add anything? 2455
2456
Mr. de Geus: That's really good feedback. It's such an important report. We've got to 2457
get it right. I totally understand that, but I'm concerned because we have to recalibrate 2458
expectations of what MIG's doing and how they're doing it and the data, but also the 2459
expectations of what this report is going to do and be. I don't think it can be all of what 2460
you're hoping it will be. For instance, if we look at the JCC, we're not going to have all 2461
the data about the JCC and demand and use there or the YMCA or some of these other 2462
providers. 2463
Draft Minutes 59
Approved
2464
Chair Reckdahl: In the city classes, if we know they fill up in five minutes—just the 2465
vacancy rates on all the facilities tells a lot. 2466
2467
Mr. de Geus: That data we have. I agree with you it ought to be in here. 2468
2469 Chair Reckdahl: That doesn't tell us if there's some niche that's not met at all. (crosstalk) 2470
cricket class, we don't know whether it fills up or not. 2471
2472
Commissioner Lauing: The next page, which is needs, opportunities and challenges, 2473
outlines in five bullet points what we're trying to get. I would totally agree with you. If 2474
we're not going to get that, we better make some serious changes. It says stuff in the 2475
second point, results of analyses including gaps in parks and programs and unmet 2476
community demand. That's a big part of what we're trying to get. The other stuff is that 2477
as well. If in the midst of this process we don't think we're going to get that, then we 2478
better start setting Council's expectation that that's not what's going to come out of it. I'm 2479
not saying that, but I'm agreeing with you that if we need to adjust, let's adjust. 2480
2481
Mr. de Geus: That's what I want to take a second look at. Maybe I take a look at it with 2482
a couple of Commissioners, just to go back and re-look at the scope that we defined, the 2483
outreach plan that we defined. Just to be sure that we have clear expectations of what 2484
we're going to receive in this report. We can adapt if we need to take a little longer to 2485
make sure we get it right. I do feel like we do ... 2486
2487
Commissioner Crommie: I would say don't overstate. I'm reacting to statements that I 2488 think might not be true. You have to be very careful about what you say. 2489 2490 Mr. de Geus: I completely agree. 2491
2492
Chair Reckdahl: Frankly, I don't really care whether the JCC serves Jews or non-Jews. 2493
It's irrelevant. Just say what's the capacity; that's more important. 2494
2495
Mr. de Geus: We talked about data and what is the metrics. I agree that really should be 2496
driving the report and the findings. I wonder whether it would be helpful to have a 2497
couple of Commissioners that are particularly interested in data, as we take a bit of a 2498
pause here, to think about where we're at, where we're headed, what's missing in terms of 2499
the data that we need. I certainly agree. Particularly with the recreation programming 2500
report, there's big gaps. 2501
2502
Commissioner Knopper: Do you think that the data has been collected and maybe it's 2503
just, no offense, not articulated? Sometimes when you're living it day in and day out, you 2504
just make assumptions and you don't write everything down, so they're not including 2505
Draft Minutes 60
Approved
things because it's more of a shorthand to abbreviate the report. Do you think the actual 2506
data exists at this point? 2507
2508
Mr. de Geus: I think there's good data. I don't know that there's enough, probably not 2509
enough. I agree generally with where the Commission is. I struggle to understand some 2510
of this as well, because they're all coming in individual reports. I don't know how they 2511 relate to each other specifically. Some are a little further along, it seems like, than some 2512
of the other reports. I'm finding that a little challenging. I also recognize that we're still 2513
in the somewhat early phase of this. All the data hasn't come in yet. The next phase, 2514
when we're ready for it, when it starts to come all together, when start to see real trends 2515
and a picture for the future, hasn't happened yet. What I'm hearing is a fear that we're 2516
going to get to this point of prioritization before we're ready to have that conversation. 2517
2518
Commissioner Crommie: We have to take a look tonight at what the data sources are that 2519
are still coming in. Don't you think before we go home tonight we should understand 2520
that? Like what's on the docket for collection. You can probably tell us, correct? 2521
2522
Mr. de Geus: It's no surprise; you've seen it all before. It was in the outreach plan that 2523
you looked at several times. It included the Mapita research. It included the stakeholder 2524
workshops. We've had one; there's two more but that's with all of our stakeholders, 2525
representative of a lot of the stakeholders. Then we have the survey; we haven't got that 2526
data yet. That's a big piece that's missing. 2527
2528
Commissioner Crommie: We skipped a section in here. Can we just briefly look at it? 2529
We have a section on some reporting on data here. It's tabulations. 2530 2531 Commissioner Knopper: That's one of the things that is also frustrating to me. We don't 2532 have to drill down too much, but it's the format that it was presented. This was very 2533
difficult to read. It's clear that each section was probably written by a different person, 2534
because everybody has a different focus. The tables aren't consistent and there's different 2535
graphs and different kinds of bullet points. I'm not going to be overly OCD about it, but 2536
there's so much data. If it's not presented in a very formulaic way, it's just hard. 2537
2538
Mr. de Geus: The presentation of the information is an easier problem to resolve. 2539
2540
Commissioner Knopper: I agree. Maybe you can extrapolate, so people aren't as 2541
frustrated. I got very confused; I admit it. Even the way the headings are laid out. That's 2542
semantics at this point, and we have bigger fish to fry. The next time it's presented, just 2543
having a cleaner presentation might be more helpful. 2544
2545
Commissioner Lauing: In that very first report we looked at, I suggested we should have 2546
a data session around this stuff next month. If we indeed got some of this stuff that's on 2547
Draft Minutes 61
Approved
page 2 of the final document: needs analysis and essential park elements, responses to 2548
demographic changes and trends, and recreation trends product. If that's really there or is 2549
going to be there, once that's there and it's digested, there's hope. The qualitative stuff 2550
isn't going to get us there. 2551
2552
Commissioner Crommie: Just responding to this report, when I look at page 14 under 2553 community workshop summary, I see things missing that I know came up at the 2554
intercepts. I'm not seeing a lot about gyms here. Maybe I'm missing it. 2555
2556
Ms. Fiore: This particular document was a summary of the three workshops that we held 2557
in October (crosstalk). 2558
2559
Commissioner Crommie: I went to two of the three. I was there, and I'm not seeing 2560
badminton. Ping pong came up strongly in one of them. 2561
2562
Commissioner Lauing: Let's focus here. 2563
2564
Commissioner Crommie: I don't know what to make of it when I don't see things. Why 2565
isn't it here under recreation? 2566
2567
Ms. Fiore: Ping pong tables is on page 15. 2568
2569
Chair Reckdahl: Right now we don’t want to be ... 2570
2571
Commissioner Crommie: We don't want to get into the details. 2572 2573 Chair Reckdahl: I agree that a lot of these points are important, but also we could be here 2574 until midnight. Ed is right in that we need to look at what data is going to be delivered. 2575
For next month, it would be very good if we say these are the pieces of hard data that's 2576
going to be delivered and where are they coming from. Are they coming from surveys? 2577
Are they coming from the city? What is the purpose? With that data, do we believe that 2578
it's going to give us actionable results for the Council? We need to be able to look at the 2579
data next month and be able to say that will be sufficient or that won't be sufficient. Ed, 2580
do you want to say anything? 2581
2582
Commissioner Lauing: That's exactly what we need to do. We'll do a gaps analysis of 2583
the data to see if we need any other data sources. 2584
2585
Chair Reckdahl: That will go for next month. 2586
2587
Mr. de Geus: Okay. 2588
2589
Draft Minutes 62
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: Apart from data, do you have any more comments or questions? 2590
2591
Mr. de Geus: No. Between now and next month, does it make any sense for a 2592
Commissioner or two to work with staff on this question of data? As we think about how 2593
to present that next month, we want to present something that makes sense to you all and 2594
we don't just hear more of "it's a problem." Perhaps that's something we can do after next 2595 month. If we really do recognize that there's more work that needs to be done, then we 2596
have an ad hoc committee that works on it. 2597
2598
Chair Reckdahl: We'd talked about doing an ad hoc before, but it came down that 2599
everyone was interested. We thought this was crucial, so we wanted to keep it out of ad 2600
hoc because we all wanted to be in the loop. 2601
2602
Mr. de Geus: That's right. 2603
2604
Ms. Fiore: If I may? What would be productive, as I had suggested, would be to 2605
resurface some of the products that came before. As Rob said, it has been rolling in very 2606
piecemeal and it's hard to see the big picture. Another layer of synthesis of all the pieces 2607
we've done and the stuff that's pending, and repackage that in the framework of these 2608
needs and opportunities and challenges and goals and objectives. I agree with you that 2609
this middle piece is very unclear at this point. Doing a little bit more work around that, 2610
maybe that's what we can look at as a group next month and then decide if we're ready to 2611
get to project list and recommendations after that. It will be important to articulate what 2612
these data pieces are that were scoped and what has been delivered and what's pending 2613
and whether or not that meets your and Council's objectives for data. If not, that's a big 2614 problem. 2615 2616 Commissioner Crommie: I wonder if it will help us ... 2617
2618
Chair Reckdahl: Also ... 2619
2620
Commissioner Crommie: Sorry. Go ahead. 2621
2622
Chair Reckdahl: Ed cited this last section, that two pages that summarized what will be 2623
delivered. Adding some meat onto that would be good. We really want a good 2624
description of what we're going to be delivering to Council. 2625
2626
Commissioner Lauing: This is an engineering project. We're delivering quality; we're 2627
not solving for the timeline. We can't go to an artificial timeline. If it's not ready to go, 2628
we can't release it. 2629
2630
Draft Minutes 63
Approved
Commissioner Knopper: You said the survey piece was missing. That's important for us 2631
to know. I feel like if a section is inadequately supported with enough information, we 2632
shouldn't even talk about it. There's so much to dive through. To your point Ed, we 2633
shouldn't set a false date just to hit the date if we're not going to have the right result. 2634
2635
Commissioner Crommie: Do you think it's going to be helpful if we read a report you did 2636 for another city? 2637
2638
Ms. Fiore: Actually that occurred to me earlier tonight. If we could ... 2639
2640
Commissioner Crommie: Did you send us some? I'm sorry. 2641
2642
Ms. Fiore: Yeah, we could send you some ... 2643
2644
Mr. Jensen: At the last meeting, we gave three samples. They're in that plan outline. 2645
2646
Commissioner Crommie: I'll go back. I do remember reading them at the time, but I 2647
forgot. 2648
2649
Ms. Fiore: I think they went out with the memo we sent you in November/December, but 2650
we could recirculate that. I think that would be very helpful. 2651
2652
Commissioner Crommie: I'll go back and look at those. I think that does help. 2653
2654
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think we've beat that to death. Next month it's coming back, 2655 so we're going to beat it some more. 2656 2657 Mr. Jensen: It'll come back every month until it's done. This is the main thing you're 2658
going to be working on. 2659
2660
Commissioner Lauing: That sounds like a threat, Peter. 2661
2662
Mr. Jensen: It is. 2663
2664
Mr. de Geus: We're going to wear you out. 2665
2666
Commissioner Hetterly: Maybe we can put it earlier in the agenda next month, so she 2667
doesn't have to catch us at our tired and grumpiest. 2668
2669
Chair Reckdahl: Yes, that is true. 2670
2671
Draft Minutes 64
Approved
6. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison updates. 2672
2673
Chair Reckdahl: Deirdre and I went out to Byxbee on Sunday to look around. We expect 2674
we'll have some type of briefing next month, talking about the trail up top, and come to 2675
some conclusion whether we like the layout right now or we think there's room for 2676
improvement. Daren had some feedback that he's going to be giving to Deirdre. We'll 2677 be, I assume, sometime in the next month meeting with Daren. 2678
2679
Commissioner Crommie: Not you and me? We're both together. 2680
2681
Chair Reckdahl: You, me and Daren will get together sometime in the next month. 2682
2683
Commissioner Crommie: We hope so. Stacey Ashlund and I are on the Lucy B. Evans 2684
Interpretive Center ad hoc committee. We've had one meeting with Daren Anderson and 2685
one with John Aiken to discuss some CIPs that have been written up for the Lucy Evans 2686
Interpretive Center. We've already done our work, but we didn't get on the Agenda so 2687
we'll report next month. The work has already been done. I guess that's it. 2688
2689
Chair Reckdahl: Anything with dog parks? 2690
2691
Commissioner Hetterly: We had a short one, but we'll save it for next month. 2692
2693
Commissioner Lauing: Where are we on CIPs? Should we reconvene that one? Do you 2694
know, Rob? 2695
2696 Rob de Geus: We can give an update next month. 2697 2698 7. Discussion of Possible Dates for the PARC 2015 Retreat. 2699 2700
Commissioner Knopper: You mean next December? 2701
2702
Rob de Geus: (inaudible) 2703
2704
Commissioner Lauing: This is the Retreat. 2705
2706
Commissioner Crommie: I wanted to mention something about the Retreat. 2707
2708
Commissioner Knopper: What Retreat? 2709
2710
Chair Reckdahl: The one we go up to Foothills Park. 2711
2712
Commissioner Knopper: (inaudible) 2713
Draft Minutes 65
Approved
2714
Vice Chair Markevitch: (inaudible) this year. 2715
2716
Chair Reckdahl: That's usually in February. 2717
2718
Commissioner Crommie: I want to throw out whether we can do it at the Lucy Evans 2719 Interpretive Center. I've been talking to Daren about doing some canoeing with our 2720
Commission. He said he would get the canoes. I was wondering if we could combine 2721
our Retreat with a little tour. Plan it around the tides. Would anyone be interested in 2722
doing that? Maybe we could just—is that too much? A separate event? 2723
2724
Vice Chair Markevitch: How about an optional? 2725
2726
Commissioner Crommie: After the event maybe? 2727
2728
Commissioner Lauing: Scuba maybe? 2729
2730
Commissioner Crommie: The city owns canoes. I don't think we own scuba gear. I was 2731
just ... 2732
2733
Commissioner Lauing: What about dates? Dates? 2734
2735
Vice Chair Markevitch: We're just trying to nail down the date, not ... 2736
2737
Mr. de Geus: Is Friday best for folks? It seemed like that was best last time. We can 2738 poll Commissioners for a Friday in February. Friday morning. 2739 2740 Commissioner Hetterly: Early March is better for me. 2741
2742
Mr. de Geus: Early March. 2743
2744
Commissioner Hetterly: I defer to the Chair entirely. 2745
2746
Commissioner Crommie: Maybe we need a poll with a couple of dates at the end of 2747
February or beginning of March. 2748
2749
Commissioner Markevitch: That sounds (inaudible). 2750
2751
Chair Reckdahl: Friday morning, is 10:00 a good time for people or do you guys want it 2752
early so you have more of the day left? 2753
2754
Vice Chair Markevitch: Just send out the poll. 2755
Draft Minutes 66
Approved
2756
Chair Reckdahl: Cat, give them options for dates, but also give them options for times 2757
too. We have that set. 2758
2759
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 2760
2761 Chair Reckdahl: I see none. 2762
2763
Commissioner Markevitch: You're learning. 2764
2765
Commissioner Lauing: You're getting the hang of this, Keith. 2766
2767
Commissioner Knopper: She has one. 2768
2769
Commissioner Hetterly: Just a tiny thing to add to the calendar. The State of the City is 2770
February 18th, Wednesday, at 7:00 p.m., if people are interested in hearing the story of 2771
the state of the city and what the next year's going to look like. 2772
2773
Chair Reckdahl: What was the date of that? 2774
2775
Commissioner Hetterly: February 18th and it'll be at Mitchell Park. 2776
2777
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2015 MEETING 2778
2779
Chair Reckdahl: Coming next week, we'll talk about the 7.7 acres. 2780 2781 Commissioner Knopper: Month. 2782 2783
Chair Reckdahl: Next month. The 7.7 acres, particularly we want to talk about Acterra, 2784
public access. 2785
2786
Commissioner Markevitch: Hydrologic study. 2787
2788
Commissioner Knopper: It should be an action item. 2789
2790
Commissioner Markevitch: Just state it's an action item. 2791
2792
Chair Reckdahl: Yes, action item. Hydrological study. I want to polish this a little 2793
more. We are giving a recommendation to Council or are we deciding whether we want 2794
to give a recommendation to Council? What is our purpose for the 7.7 acres discussion 2795
next month? 2796
2797
Draft Minutes 67
Approved
Rob de Geus: It will be a recommendation. Given today's comments, staff will write 2798
another staff report with a staff recommendation. We'll list it as an action item, and then 2799
you can discuss it next month. 2800
2801
Chair Reckdahl: If the recommendation is wait until the study's done, that would be the 2802
recommendation? 2803 2804
Mr. de Geus: Right. 2805
2806
Chair Reckdahl: Waiting is an option. I'm happy with that. That's one item. Then the 2807
Master Plan. 2808
2809
Mr. de Geus: We also have the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. They were hoping to 2810
come this evening, but there wasn't time. There's been one community meeting on this 2811
already. Commissioner Lauing attended, which was great. There's big plans to renovate, 2812
rebuild the Junior Museum and Zoo with the help of the Friends that supports that 2813
program. They have conceptual plans of that. 2814
2815
Chair Reckdahl: What is the timeframe for that? 2816
2817
Mr. de Geus: We are in negotiations with the Friends this year to work through a 2818
construction agreement and potential governance agreement after it gets rebuilt with 2819
them. 2820
2821
Chair Reckdahl: I thought there was some part of Rinconada that we were waiting and 2822 going to do in tandem when they remodeled the Junior Museum. 2823 2824 Mr. de Geus: There is an environmental study that's happening with Rinconada Park that 2825
includes the Junior Museum and Zoo. 2826
2827
Chair Reckdahl: Some of the construction near there we wanted to do simultaneously 2828
with the Museum remodel. 2829
2830
Mr. de Geus: That's possible. 2831
2832
Vice Chair Markevitch: Could that possibly move to March, since February is already 2833
pretty packed? 2834
2835
Commissioner Crommie: What else is on there? 2836
2837
Commissioner Lauing: They're a long way from even raising all the money yet, so we 2838
don't have to do this next month. 2839
Draft Minutes 68
Approved
2840
Peter Jensen: It's mostly now based on the environmental report that's in conjunction 2841
with the Rinconada Long Range Plan. To keep on track and not push that out any 2842
further, already the environmental report is going to take until December of this. Every 2843
month that goes by just pushes that out further. The presentation will be solely on their 2844
proposed plan. Some of that you've started to look at already with the Long Range Plan 2845 and the expanded footprint into the park, which is probably the key thing to look at. As 2846
far as the length of time the presentation can go, it's not a very long presentation and 2847
discussion for this set, because it'll be coming back several times as the plan evolves. It 2848
would help to keep it on its environmental track to go next month. We were trying to get 2849
it on tonight, but I didn't think you guys wanted to be here until 1:00 in the morning. 2850
2851
Commissioner Hetterly: We have to review it before it can go to the environmental 2852
review process. 2853
2854
Mr. Jensen: Yeah. Some of that process is the feedback from the boards and 2855
commissions. That goes along with the studies. 2856
2857
Commissioner Crommie: What's making next month's agenda so busy? I haven't heard. 2858
2859
Chair Reckdahl: The Master Plan. We spent an hour and a half on the Master Plan 2860
tonight. 2861
2862
Commissioner Crommie: We have the bridge which is (inaudible). What are our other 2863
items? 2864 2865 Vice Chair Markevitch: 7.7 acres. 2866 2867
Mr. de Geus: 7.7 acres. 2868
2869
Commissioner Crommie: That's two. 2870
2871
Vice Chair Markevitch: If people could be briefer in their comments, it would go 2872
smoother. 2873
2874
Chair Reckdahl: It hurt us tonight. 2875
2876
Vice Chair Markevitch: You can't always count on that. 2877
2878
Chair Reckdahl: Tonight we had a half hour worth of consumer content too. 2879
2880
Draft Minutes 69
Approved
Commissioner Crommie: This is later than usual, but we haven't had a late meeting in a 2881
long time. 2882
2883
Chair Reckdahl: My inclination would be to try to do that. If something pops up in the 2884
next month when we make the agenda, we will push it off a month. Let's strive for it 2885
right now, and we can examine the final agenda and see if ... 2886 2887
Commissioner Lauing: Having seen the presentation that we're going to get, I do agree 2888
that it's pretty short. We won't have as much public comment as they did. 2889
2890
Commissioner Crommie: I was also interested in getting someone to report to us on the 2891
Measure E parcel, where it stands. It could be pushed out, but it'd be nice to hear back. 2892
There were a lot of decisions that were made on that in the last couple of months. 2893
2894
Mr. de Geus: We have someone ready to come. We'll put it on the list for February or 2895
March. 2896
2897
Commissioner Crommie: It is affecting parkland. 2898
2899
Chair Reckdahl: Is that it or do you have any more? 2900
2901
Mr. de Geus: No. Just back to announcements. I did want to mention that we'll be going 2902
to Council February 9th to ask them for additional funds to continue to operate the golf 2903
course. We still don't have permits. We're inching along, making progress. Mostly it's 2904
in the hands of Senior Engineer Joe Teresi working with the regulatory agencies. We 2905 don't have them in hand yet, and we had budgeted to fund the golf course until the end of 2906 February. We need funds through the end of the fiscal year in the event that the permits 2907 don't come through. There'll be an updated staff report on the golf course and the status 2908
going to Council. I'll make sure you all receive that as well. I'm sure you're interested. 2909
2910
Mr. Jensen: Magical Bridge is getting closer to completion. If you would like to see the 2911
site, I do go out there almost every day. If you email me, you can probably meet me out 2912
there. It's looking like a playground now. You can really see what it looks like. We're 2913
looking at the first of March to open the playground. 2914
2915
Chair Reckdahl: It looks very nice. I can't wait to play on some of that stuff. 2916
2917
VII. ADJOURNMENT 2918
2919
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Commissioner 2920
Knopper at 11:20 p.m. 2921
Draft Minutes 70
Approved
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
February 24, 2015 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 13
Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: 15
Others Present: Council Liaison Eric Filseth 16
Staff Present: John Aikin, Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter 17
Jensen, Matthew Krupp 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19
20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21
22
None. 23
24
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 25 26 Chair Reckdahl: I have one card for David Carnahan. David, you have two minutes. 27 28
David Carnahan: Thank you, Chair Reckdahl and Commissioners. David Carnahan, 29
Deputy City Clerk, here to talk to you about commission recruitment. Currently the city 30
is looking to fill terms on the Human Relations Commission, three terms on the HRC, 31
three terms on the Public Art Commission, and two terms on the Utilities Advisory 32
Commission. Terms on all three commissions run for three years, from May 1st of this 33
year through April 30, 2018. The deadline to apply is March 3rd. I'm coming to all the 34
boards and commissions in hopes that commission members know people that they could 35
refer for application, as well as members of the public that attend meetings and watch 36
from home may be interested. These are great opportunities for members of the 37
community to give back to their community and help shape the future of Palo Alto. 38
Draft Minutes 1
Approved
There are a few specific requirements for each board and commission. For HRC, the 39
Human Relations Commission, you need to be a Palo Alto resident. For the Utilities 40
Advisory Commission, each member needs to be a Utilities customer or a representative 41
of a Utilities customer. Did you guys hear any of that? Okay, good. For Public Art, it's 42
a bit of a mouthful. There's really no concise way to say this, so I'm just going to read it 43
to you. The requirements to be on the Public Art Commission: members shall either be 44 members of the Architectural Review Board or shall be professional visual artists, visual 45
arts educators, professional visual arts scholars, or visual arts collectors whose authorities 46
and skills are known and respected in the community and whenever feasible who have 47
demonstrated an interest in and have participated in the arts program of the city. You 48
also do not need to be a Palo Alto resident to serve on the Public Art Commission. 49
Again, applications for all three commissions are due on March 3rd. We have 50
applications at the back of the chambers. They're also available online. If there are any 51
questions, please contact the Clerk's office. Does the Commission have any questions? 52
All right. Thank you very much. 53
54
IV. BUSINESS: 55
56
Chair Reckdahl: Before we move on to new business, this probably should be an 57
announcement at the end, but I'm going to move it up. Congratulations to our liaison, 58
Rob de Geus, on his new position. He is now head of Community Services. We 59
appreciate that. 60
61
Rob de Geus: Thank you very much. Much appreciated. It's an honor and a privilege. 62
Thank you. 63 64 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 65 66
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 27, 2015. 67 68
Approval of the draft January 27, 2015 Minutes was moved by Vice Chair Markevitch 69
and seconded by Commissioner Hetterly. Passed 6-0 Ashlund abstaining 70
71 2. Information Report on the Conceptual Plans for the Re-Building of the Palo 72 Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. 73
74
Rob de Geus: We'll invite John Aikin up here, and team. Let me just introduce John. 75 John's the Director of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. I have to say one of the 76
great things about becoming Director of the Department is I get to be involved in some 77
areas where I haven't been involved as much recently. The Junior Museum and Zoo is an 78
example of that. It's such a great program. When is the last time the Commissioners 79
have been to the Junior Museum and Zoo? Pretty recently? You've got to go back. John 80
Draft Minutes 2
Approved
and team are doing a great job there. It's fantastic. It's a treasure of a place for the 81
community, and it's bursting at the seams, and it has been for some time. I'm excited to 82
have John here to talk about what could be in the future for this wonderful program. 83
With that, let me pass it on to John. 84
85
John Aikin: Thank you, Rob, for that wonderful introduction. Commissioners, I'm 86 pleased to be here to bring you up to speed with something that we've been planning for a 87
couple of years. The Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo have been fundraising and 88
helping the city come up with concepts for what this could be, but it didn't become an 89
official city project until a letter of intent was authorized by the Council, I guess, at the 90
end of the last fiscal year. This is our first opportunity to really come to you formally and 91
bring this project forward. I'm very excited to do it. I'd like to introduce the members of 92
the team here. Sarah Vaccaro from Cody Anderson Wasney Architects here in Palo Alto. 93
Peter Jensen, I think you know our landscape architect. I'm going to let Peter set the 94
context for this in terms of the Master Plan. 95
96
Peter Jensen: In association with the Junior Museum and Zoo Project, this was an aspect 97
of the Rinconada Long Range Plan, which you haven't heard about in a little while as far 98
as the expanding footprint of the Junior Museum and Zoo building and Zoo itself that 99
was shown in the Long Range Plan. The Rinconada Long Range Plan is a joint, I guess, 100
venture with the Junior Museum and Zoo as far as getting its environmental work done. 101
The recommendations that were part of the Long Range Plan are basically now being 102
reviewed as far as environmental review. That's how these two projects are joined 103
together. The Long Range Plan did show the expanded footprint of the Junior Museum 104
and Zoo. It was shown at several community meetings and discussed about the future 105 expansion of the Junior Museum and Zoo. No public opposition came to light from those 106 meetings, and I don't image that they will. As Rob said, it is a cherished item in Palo 107 Alto. The Junior Museum and Zoo is really beloved, the building and the Zoo. That's 108
how it connects to the Long Range Plan. Those two things in their environmental work 109
are going along together. Without further ado, I'll turn it back to John and the consultant 110
to talk more about the Junior Museum and Zoo. 111
112
Mr. Aikin: If you'll turn to your screens, our mission is to engage a child's curiosity in 113
science, to encourage exploration, and to build a foundation for understanding and a 114
lifelong respect for nature. We chose those wisely, because it's really about their 115
curiosity that they bring. Science is a process, and nature is the phenomenon that we 116
want to engage them in. We've been here a long time. We're celebrating our 80th year 117
for the Museum, and the 40th year for the Zoo. We are a hybrid institution that is part 118
school, part zoo, part museum, but very much part of the community. I think part of that 119
is that we are in a residential neighborhood. We've been free for a long time for people to 120
stop by. It is has really meshed us well in the community. We have about 150,000 visits 121
a year. That's not really visitors; that's number of visits. We don't collect admission, and 122
Draft Minutes 3
Approved
so this is an estimate based on nose counts throughout the year. All of them are local. 123
Many of them are repeat visitors, and they're all children 0-9 years of age and their 124
caretakers. We have a second demographic that we serve. We have probably one of the 125
greatest outreach programs that I’m aware of. In this outreach program, we provide 126
science education in our local elementary schools, and we're touching 100 percent of the 127
local elementary schools. We have robust contracts with at least 70 percent where we're 128 doing every grade, every child, every science curriculum. These are amazing programs. 129
Lots of hours with the students. Many students served. The Friends support at-risk 130
neighborhood schools pro bono, so they raise the funds and deploy city staff to teach 131
those classes in East Palo Alto and now in Mountain View. When people stop by, this is 132
all about play for a young child, but we've staged that play thoughtfully with exhibits that 133
engage them in scientific phenomena and use their whole bodies and get them to observe, 134
question, and open their minds to exploration. From there, it's the school work or it's 135
coming back and taking classes to learn more. That stage is all set in the institution. 136
We've been there for a long time. This building was built in 1941, and it no longer really 137
reflects the scale of our audience nor our storage needs or staff needs. I'll go through a 138
few of the issues. Parking conditions are pretty challenging. Let me get back to that. 139
This is actually our relationship with the park which, I think, could be much better. I 140
think there could be an entrance to that part that's more inviting. The Zoo has turned its 141
back on the park with a USDA-required fence. I think we can do a much better job of 142
having a presence in the park. The parking lot is laid out in a confusing manner that is 143
dangerous. I cringe as I see moms walk kids across that every day. We're crowded on 144
busy days, to the point that on rainy days we take cell phone numbers to call moms 145
waiting in their cars, because we don't have enough room in the institution. We're chock 146
full of storage places and we have great people that take wonderful care of our animals, 147 but we can do much more if we build new facilities that reflect modern husbandry 148 practices and modern zoo conditions. We have about 4,000 objects in our collections, 149 and we've been Palo Alto's attic for a long time. We've got a lot of interesting things. 150
Some of them meet our mission very well and are important to our teaching. Some of 151
them don't, and we're in the process of cataloging those, but they need to be housed in 152
accordance with standards established by the American Alliance for Museums. This 153
rebuild should allow us to do that. Those outreach programs that are so phenomenal are 154
ultimately limited by storage space and our ability to deploy teachers. This is the mother 155
ship that allows all that to occur. I'm going to turn it over to Sarah Vaccaro now, who'll 156
walk you through the current plans. 157
158
Sarah Vaccaro: Hello, Commissioners. Thank you for having us here tonight. Peter, 159
thank you for setting the stage in terms of the Long Range Plan. John, thank you for 160
setting the stage of what this treasured amenity is in the City of Palo Alto as well as the 161
facility needs in order to grow and make this program able to reach more in the 162
community. I want to set the stage with the existing facilities to begin with. This is the 163
existing site plan. The existing Museum building is shown in the dark gray. The existing 164
Draft Minutes 4
Approved
Zoo footprint is shown in the light gray. This overlays the Rinconada Park boundaries. 165
Rinconada Park along with Lucie Stern and the Junior Museum and Zoo sit in one large 166
public facility parcel. A part of this parcel is zoned as parkland, the Rinconada Park. 167
The current Zoo sits mostly within parkland, so the zoological program is an approved 168
existing use within Rinconada Park. We'll circle back on that in a few minutes. This 169
diagram shows the existing Heritage Trees and special trees around the Junior Museum 170 and Zoo. The red trees are Heritage redwoods. The dark blue are Heritage oak trees. 171
There are two special trees that are highlighted with a green graphic. One is the dawn 172
redwood tree which is a special deciduous redwood tree, and then a large pecan that 173
outdates most of the buildings on this site. All of the Heritage trees will be protected 174
with this proposed expansion as well as the two specimen trees will be highlighted as 175
features in the proposed plan. As John mentioned earlier, the existing vehicular 176
circulation in the parking lot is confusing as these arrows indicate, and there are a lot of 177
collision opportunities between pedestrians and vehicles in this current organization. Part 178
of the Long Range Plan as well as working with our team, we're trying to reorganize the 179
parking lot to be much safer and clearer as well as provide additional parking spots. This 180
diagram in the dark blue or purple color shows the proposed expanded building footprint 181
for the new Museum. It is about 5,000 square feet larger than the existing footprint. That 182
is for the reasons that John outlined before of providing expanded storage capacity as 183
well as education spaces and visitor amenity spaces. The blue outline here shows the 184
proposed expanded Zoo footprint. As I mentioned, it is entirely in parkland in line with 185
providing only zoological program in the parkland which is in line with the existing zoo 186
program currently in park. The proposed expanded footprint is about 11,000 square feet 187
further into the park than the existing Zoo footprint. As Peter mentioned before, the 188
expanded Museum and Zoo footprint have both been identified in the Long Range Master 189 Plan and coordinated with the overall design of this end of the park, coordinated with the 190 other amenities that are located here. This diagram shows some of the immediate trees 191 that will be affected with this proposed expansion in the orange color. There are about 192
10-12 trees in the area immediately surrounding the existing building and Zoo that will be 193
affected and need to be removed. This is in the context of the entire larger Long Range 194
Plan. There's over 300 trees on the site. These few trees around the JMZ as well as other 195
trees on the site have been identified—there's about 50—to be removed, and then close to 196
78 trees are proposed to be planted in the Long Range Master Plan. This is the proposed 197
site plan. The darker blue color shows the proposed building location. We have the 198
Museum building on the lower side of the screen. It circles around that dawn redwood 199
tree creating an educational courtyard and a nice entrance plaza off of the drop-off zone 200
in the parking lot. This site plan shows the proposed reconfigured parking lot, which has 201
been developed in coordination with Peter and his team. The light blue shows the 202
proposed outdoor Zoo enclosure. This will be a netted enclosed area, so it will be a 203
loose-in-the-zoo concept where birds and animals will be able to roam freely as well as 204
other animals that will be in enclosed exhibits. There is a small proposed zoo support 205
building that is located in the park. This will provide support such as animal care and 206
Draft Minutes 5
Approved
feeding rooms and other quarantine-type spaces to allow for proper husbandry care for 207
the animals. The lightest blue is the back-of-house support area for the Zoo as well. One 208
thing to note in this plan is that we are proposing a public restroom on the park side of the 209
proposed Zoo building, and this will be accessed from the park and serve as a public 210
amenity on this end of Rinconada Park as there's currently no public restrooms. That's it 211
for this time. 212 213
Mr. Aikin: We have a few other drawings here we could ask questions, but we wanted to 214
target this informational session to you with issues that we thought were pertinent to park 215
planning and not get into zoo and museum design and things like that. If you have 216
questions, we have a few more slides we can get to. Thank you. 217
218
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioners, comments or questions? Commissioner Knopper. 219
220
Commissioner Knopper: Thank you for your presentation. Could you just explain, you 221
have the proposed Zoo footprint and then the proposed Zoo building and then there's a 222
gray area that sits underneath that. I can't point. 223
224
Ms. Vaccaro: This area? 225
226
Commissioner Knopper: Yes. What is that? 227
228
Ms. Vaccaro: It's an exterior zoo support area. There will be some cages for animals that 229
need to be moved in and out of the main exhibit spaces as well as a lay-down area for 230
materials and support. It's an exterior support area for the Zoo. 231 232 Commissioner Knopper: Thank you. 233 234
Chair Reckdahl: You mentioned that the new Zoo's going to take up 11,000 more square 235
feet of parkland. Can you compare both the outside Zoo area now and then and also the 236
building areas now and then. 237
238
Ms. Vaccaro: The existing Museum building footprint is approximately 8,500 square 239
feet. The proposed Museum building footprint is approximately 13,600 square feet. 240
That's an expansion of about 5,100 square feet. The exterior Zoo enclosure, the area 241
where all the exhibits and people are able to access the existing Zoo, is 10,600 square 242
feet. We're proposing to grow it to 13,000 square feet. That's a difference of about 243
2,400. The Zoo support building, currently there is no Zoo support building, so that's 244
zero for the existing. We're proposing a 2,900 square foot building. The exterior Zoo 245
support yard that we were just speaking of currently is about 2,400 square feet, and we're 246
proposing an expanded area of 3,900 square feet. A difference of 1,500. 247
248
Draft Minutes 6
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 249
250
Vice Chair Markevitch: I agree that the Museum and the Zoo are fantastic. They're 251
great. I'm looking at this, and I'm very concerned that Rinconada Park is getting chipped 252
away. Walter Hays took a big part of it, and now the Zoo is proposing to take a large 253
part. Earlier in your presentation, you said we want to be able to have a more welcoming 254 aspect into the Zoo from the park. Then in this later screen shot, you have a building 255
there, which is not a welcoming thing to me. All it is is a public bathroom facing into the 256
park, and then this is a working building where the animals are going to be taken care of. 257
That doesn't match up with what you had said earlier. Also, was a two-story building 258
considered, so you would take up less of a footprint and you would roll out less of the 259
Zoo into the park? That's really a sticking point with me. I just feel very strongly that 260
this park needs to stay the size it is, because it is such a wonderful park. Is this also 261
coordinating with the Rinconada Master Plan that we worked so hard on? It looks like 262
the play area and the tot lot have rolled closer to Hopkins. Does that mean that the bar-263
be-que area is now gone from there? It seems everything's getting pushed, and then some 264
stuff is just going away. I didn't see the bar-be-que area on here. That's all my questions 265
and statements for now. 266
267
Mr. Aikin: Peter, do you want to answer the question about the Master Plan? Then I'll 268
address the questions about the building. 269
270
Mr. Jensen: The playground does get pushed closer to Hopkins to make more room for 271
the Zoo building and the Zoo itself. In that corner of the park, there is nothing that really 272
takes place there. It's not like it's a high-use zone of the park. It looks like the back of 273 someone's yard, because of the fence area there. I think that the land that's being given 274 up by the park is being better utilized in this sense. If you just walk around through that 275 space, this area again is not programmed at all. It's not used at all. It's mostly full of 276
asphalt and is the back of the school. The walkway and the entry into the park with the 277
connection to the parking lot is much improved with the design, even with the larger Zoo 278
and Zoo building there. The proposed bathroom in the Zoo building is something that 279
was a high priority for the Long Range Plan of getting a bathroom down closer to the 280
playgrounds. Either way, the back of the Zoo building or the back of a restroom facility 281
aesthetically can be made to look a lot better than what is there now, as far as the wood 282
fence. Nothing as far as the amenities in the park is being lost. The playgrounds are 283
shifted closer to Hopkins, but the actual playground expands because the tot lot by the 284
tennis court is moved into this area so you have a joint playground use. The existing 285
picnic area there is reconfigured, but it actually gets larger and more amenities, such as a 286
fire pit that was requested by the Girl Scouts. In the final design of the Long Range Plan, 287
a lot more elements are being incorporated into that area than are there now, which I 288
think works very well in conjunction with the Junior Museum and Zoo and in close 289
proximity to the school that you have this node of activity where people are gathering. In 290
Draft Minutes 7
Approved
the overall sense, no park amenities are being lost in any way in that location. The 291
location being taken up by the Zoo, like I said, is kind of a dead zone or dead space in the 292
park. It's not really being utilized for anything, mostly composed of asphalt right now. 293
The footprint shown was in the Long Range Plan discussed with the community. 294
295
Mr. Aikin: I'd love to address the issue of the building and the back-of-house building in 296 the Zoo. We do have buildings in the Zoo today, but they're scattered, small CMU 297
buildings, and really don't reflect modern husbandry practices. What we are designing—298
we'll show you here—is a two-story building so that we can have public access on the 299
roof deck which is a butterfly garden. It's essentially a greenhouse on the second floor. 300
Down on the first floor is back-of-house animal care as well as underground exhibits for 301
kids to go underground and underwater to see animals. It's really a stacked zoo with a 302
back-of-house connected to it. This is the view from the park. The building is sunk—I 303
think it's 4 feet—underground so that the first roof layer—I think it's about 7-9 feet—304
pitches down. It's got a green roof on it. Then you can see the netting on top there above 305
the greenhouse structure. I think that it should be pleasing but, yes, it is a structure. 306
307
Vice Chair Markevitch: I had two more questions regarding the parking lot. One of 308
them was, you've closed off an entrance. Are you adding parking spaces? When you 309
have a performance that comes out of the Main Stage, everybody leaves at the same time, 310
and it can be chaotic. The other one is, I noticed alongside the garden area of Lucie Stern 311
where there's two 15-minute green striped parking spaces. It looks like you're redoing the 312
brick there. I want to be sure that what you're doing is historic to the building, because 313
it's important. I know right now it's just red brick and it's cobbled and people trip on it 314
and fall. I want some thought put into that design. 315 316 Mr. Jensen: The red brick is historic. It's actually going to be restored along that 317 walkway. Up to this point here, the existing walkway will remain not exactly like it is 318
today. It's going to be repaired within the next few months. That's using a lot of the 319
existing brick, but that will be maintained the same in the language of Lucie Stern. That 320
walkway that connects through the walk does exist through here. This portion is new 321
along with a new entry court there. That does connect you fully through the park over to 322
Lucie Stern, making a better connection to the amenities that are all there. We are aware 323
there is an elimination of a driveway into that parking lot, which currently exists in this 324
location. In the overall design, it was felt the safety and having a clear destination and 325
drop-off for the Junior Museum and Zoo was a key aspect of that design because of the 326
user group, mostly small children. Making that clear designation of having a drop-off 327
and not having the main entry pathway coming directly in front of that was a big bonus to 328
that design. The parking lot—I'm not aware of the number—20 more parking spaces in 329
the parking lot than is there now. That is accomplished by the restriping of the parking 330
lot and the expansion of the parking lot into this area here. We are in the environmental 331
review, looking at the intersection there and what can be done to ease traffic congestion 332
Draft Minutes 8
Approved
in that area as well as the ease of crossing the street at that location as part of the upgrade 333
for the parking lot. 334
335
Commissioner Lauing: Thanks for your presentation. I went to the public meeting about 336
this that you presented, so I had a lot more detail which was helpful. The overall 337
question is obviously going to be the intrusion on the park as existing. Just to pick up on 338 what Commissioner Markevitch has said, it's almost doubling the intrusion there. That 339
night when I saw it in the public meeting and I see it here in the document, I guess the 340
question is, if you had to scale back, how would you prioritize what you would take out 341
to fit it in? If we do remodels, we don't get to buy the land next door. We just have to fit 342
it on the site. When I go through here and I see things like storage or maintenance or 343
exterior animal cages, interior stroller parking, not just exterior but interior stroller 344
parking, offices, I can't prioritize those. If we're giving up square footage of parkland for 345
people to have better offices and storage, maybe offsite storage could be helpful, and 346
2,000 of the 4,000 specimens could be offsite. Obviously it has to be in the right kind of 347
conditions. The general question is, how would you prioritize to make it smaller? 348
Maybe you can't answer that tonight, but at some point I think that the various 349
commissions should see an alternative that's smaller so that they can judge what you'd 350
have to give up. That's kind of the driver. Another question in that regard is, since you're 351
basically taking down the building and starting over because it's so magnificent, was 352
there any consideration given to just finding a different location? It's already so jammed 353
with the school and the parking lot and the community center and the park itself, maybe 354
we should just look at a different location for it entirely. You touched on it, but at some 355
point you'll have the opportunity to go into more detail. You're now going to draw more 356
visitors in, and you're already doing some outreach to Mountain View and East Palo Alto, 357 and this is going to be spectacular. Plus or minus 20 car spaces may not be enough. At 358 some point, the city has to come up with the tough decision that parking spaces are going 359 to have to go underground as expensive as they are, because we're planning for the next 360
50 years. Maybe something as radial and as expensive as that has to be tossed into the 361
mix. I think that's the fundamental issue, the relative size, what you give up and the 362
increased folks that are coming through here that would have to come in to see this new 363
magnificent spot, where we are going to put them as well. 364
365
Mr. Aikin: If I could just quickly mention what that footprint in the park does versus 366
what the footprint in the non-park area where the Museum sits now. It's primarily animal 367
enclosures and animal back-of-house. I say primarily because there's one office for the 368
Zoo Director who sits in the Zoo today. The back-of-house is really needed to operate a 369
zoo according to the accreditation standards of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 370
The animal collection is pretty much the animal collection that we have today with a 371
couple of additions, the butterfly house and a meerkat exhibit. They're scaled to meet 372
those accreditation standards, and so the reality is the Zoo today has exhibits that are too 373
small. If we get criticisms, it's usually about "Gosh, couldn't these animals have a little 374
Draft Minutes 9
Approved
bit more room?" I think we are pushed up against Walter Hays on one side, a parking lot 375
on another, a park on the other side, and there's only so much room . We did look at 376
other sites before we ventured in on this. The conclusion that we came to is that the 377
relationship with the community for this location and this institution was a great deal 378
of—a big part of the equity of this institution and the relationship with the community 379
was the ease of transport to get here. The other site that we looked at was off a freeway, 380 but it required everybody to get into a car and not ride a bike or take a Palo Alto shuttle 381
or walk. As we solve the transportation issues, I hope that we're going to be able to do it 382
in a multimodal way so that not everybody has to get here by car. We will take all this 383
into consideration and come back with some priorities. 384
385
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 386
387
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with all the comments that have come before. I also 388
wanted to ask about the entry plaza. As I looked at that overview with the layout of the 389
proposed building and Zoo area, it looked like the entrance plaza is as big as the 390
encroachment into the park. I wonder if there's not some way to create a better balance 391
there to reduce the impact on the park. 392
393
Mr. Aikin: I'll probably turn this to Peter to talk a little bit about that entry plaza. What 394
I'll mention is from the Museum's standpoint and our ability to throw public events and 395
have a space to really engage the public in meaningful ways outside and have gathering 396
areas, that's one of the things that we are limited now. We would love some outdoor 397
plaza space. Peter, do you have any comments about that entry plaza? 398
399 Mr. Jensen: The entry plaza, as far as the Long Range Plan goes, is proposed as a way to 400 properly link the parking lot to the park. If you've visited the park, which I'm sure you 401 have, you walk past the dumpsters and that's the way to get into the park. It doesn't really 402
have a formalized entry or connection to the parking lot. In look or what they could be 403
has not been decided yet. It's more of a placeholder in the Long Range Plan that we 404
would have some type of connection point that would lead from the parking lot. That 405
could be studied more, and we could look at the Zoo encroaching more into that space. 406
That is made more difficult by the trees that are located there, the large oak tree and the 407
large pecan tree. The encroachment into the root zone of those areas would have some 408
impact on those trees. The space that you're gaining is nominal, if any, as far as the entry 409
plaza goes in trying to add some of the space to the Zoo. I think it goes to note again that 410
the restroom facility on the backside of the Zoo was a popular amenity to the community 411
as far as its proximity to the playgrounds. That space would become, if the Zoo wasn't 412
there, a restroom facility as well and would take up the majority of that space. I think it's 413
a fair tradeoff. As you can see down at the bottom image, the Zoo then expands out into 414
this area right here. Like I said, it's the asphalt, meandering walkway that's next to the 415
school and a small portion of the larger turf area, not overly used in that respect as a main 416
Draft Minutes 10
Approved
feature of the main turf area. I think the usability, the benefit that the community gets 417
from having the expanded Zoo, the beneficial impact that it has on the animals to have 418
the proper care area for them, I think those are all good reasons to look at that space as 419
being dedicated to the Zoo than to the park. 420
421
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Ashlund. 422 423
Commissioner Ashlund: I have a couple of questions. Can you go to the last diagram in 424
your presentation. The first question, in the redesign of the parking lot, are these two 425
parking lots that are shown in this diagram, are they connected? Once you're in the main 426
one, can you drive to that second portion? So they would become connected. Okay. 427
Where does the main driveway go? You said the main driveway that's currently coming 428
into the JMZ is removed. Is it now the main driveway into Lucie Stern and then you 429
would take the right into the Zoo? Yes, okay. The public restroom access, I wasn't clear. 430
Is that only once you're in the Museum and Zoo that you can access the public restroom 431
or is there an external access from the park side as well? 432
433
Ms. Vaccaro: There's an external access from the park side. Anyone using the 434
playground areas or the picnic areas would be able to come over and access the restroom 435
right off the park pathways. 436
437
Commissioner Ashlund: I applaud the addition of the Girl Scout fire pit. We've been 438
sharing the Boy Scout fire pit for many years, so I appreciate the addition of that. The 439
main question about the redesign, is the existing foundation being reused or is this a total 440
teardown and do over? 441 442 Ms. Vaccaro: We're proposing to remove the existing building. It's an older building 443 type, and it would not be easily renovated or expanded to this newer building type. It 444
would be costly. 445
446
Commissioner Ashlund: So the foundation would be redone as well? 447
448
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. 449
450
Commissioner Ashlund: Have you given any thought to rotating the placement? I agree 451
with Commissioners' comments about the welcoming aspect of the Museum and Zoo into 452
the park. Right now it feels like the welcoming direction is still the direction that it 453
currently is. If we're redoing the whole foundation anyway, did you do any proposals 454
that looked at rotating it so that the entry plaza was more adjacent to the parkland rather 455
than the Zoo building for equipment? 456
457
Draft Minutes 11
Approved
Ms. Vaccaro: We have studied numerous layouts for the entire footprint. The goal is 458
really to try and keep the Museum portion out of parkland as it's not currently a use in the 459
park, and only put Zoo programs in the park. That limited us to this area of the site here. 460
We are currently developing the design right now to really strengthen the views and the 461
connection from the park entrance plaza and from these areas of the park to the main 462
entrance so that there really is a strong view corridor. One item that I failed to mention 463 earlier is that this wall that encloses the Zoo is going to be themed as an educational 464
component, so that it actually lends itself as kind of a guiding or wayfinding mechanism 465
that leads people from the park around the Zoo enclosure and then to the entry point of 466
the Museum and Zoo. 467
468
Commissioner Ashlund: The final question I had is regarding the cost of this proposal 469
and the fundraising efforts for that as far as considering the underground parking as an 470
option because it would buy back space, it would preserve parkland. Has that option 471
been looked at? 472
473
Mr. Aikin: The option really has not been studied. I think there was a proposal early on 474
the table, conceptually, that "Gosh, would the city consider underground parking?" I 475
think that question was bigger than we could answer. I think I would leave that to the 476
Commission and the city to grapple with. Are you ready for underground parking in 477
Rinconada Park? It probably could be designed. It would be very expensive and 478
disruptive to build. Is this the time and is that where we want to go? It's a tough choice. 479
480
Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you. 481
482 Commissioner Crommie: Hi, there. Thank you for the presentation. This reminds of 483 building the megaplex, potentially, of soccer fields in the Baylands and creating a 484 regional draw. I think our Zoo is an amazing resource for our community, but I'm just 485
wondering is the goal here to make it more of a regional draw? Because you're using the 486
word locally without really defining what you mean by local. You're not speaking in 487
terms of Palo Alto residents. You're calling local from here down to San Jose and up to 488
San Francisco? I'm just a little bit confused. What are the forces that want this regional 489
draw? No matter what you're saying, this clearly has a huge impact on Rinconada Park. 490
It's really a question of priorities. Do you want to give up parkland to have a bigger Zoo? 491
My family has used this Zoo a lot every since my kids were little. We continue to go 492
there now. My kid now helps in the CIT program there now as a teenager, so she's been a 493
user of this Zoo from age 1 to now age 14, and she's not done yet. I'm a huge supporter 494
of it, and I've always seen it as a program that's incredibly valuable. The staff is 495
incredible. That's what makes it; the quality of the people who run this is just out of this 496
world, which makes it a huge resource for residents in terms of camps and training and 497
leadership opportunities for teenagers. It looks like it's worked really well. I know over 498
time we do have to update things, but I'm really always dubious about regional draws 499
Draft Minutes 12
Approved
especially because it's just plopped down in the middle of a neighborhood. It's not like 500
the Exploratorium in San Jose that is in the middle of the city. I have a couple more 501
questions, but can you go over the forces that are leading to this regional program and 502
why you want meerkats for instance? 503
504
Mr. Aikin: Thank you for asking that question, because I don't think I was very clear 505 about the audience that we're building this for. We are trying to right size the project for 506
our existing audience. To prepare for that, we did years of surveys of our visitors to find 507
out where they come from, who they are, and who is using this space and what the 508
limitations are that keep them from coming. Our goal is not to make this a regional 509
facility. Our goal is to make this a great example of a local facility that does amazing 510
work with its elementary schools and its community. What we know about our audience 511
today is about 25 percent of our visitors are from Palo Alto, and the rest of our visitors 512
are primarily from about 15 miles in radius around us. What limits them is the age of our 513
audience, which is a young enough age that they can only spend so much time in the car. 514
There's a fair amount of stuff that comes with them, and then they need nap time and they 515
need food and they go home. I'm also glad that you gave the example of your children 516
following other opportunities within the Junior Museum. That is our core audience, 517
preschool and early elementary school-age children and that is going to stay our core 518
audience. What we plan to do is follow kids into middle school and high school as 519
opportunities to help us mentor young kids. At a programmatic level, this facility allows 520
us to stage their involvement in the institution. It's really not about trying to get people to 521
drive from south San Jose or central San Jose here. It really is about right sizing it. One 522
of the things that will allow us to control that to a certain degree is that we are looking at 523
an admission charge in the new facility, and that admission charge with a membership 524 program could help us make this much more available to local people versus one-time 525 visitors. People that go to destinations tend to do it two or three times a year, so there's a 526 price point and a strategy around dealing with that. We're investigating all of that now. I 527
can't answer fully how that's going to work, but we are looking at it. I just want to let you 528
know that we're as concerned about that as you are. Our goal from the very beginning is 529
to right size this for the existing audience. 530
531
Commissioner Crommie: Can you answer the rationale behind the meerkat exhibit? 532
533
Mr. Aikin: Yes, absolutely. We have an audience of very young children, and we have 534
sleeping bobcats right now which they spend maybe a minute in front of when they're 535
active. Children need more active animals, diurnal animals that are busy in the daytime. 536
We're trying to find some new exhibits that really engage them and that are appropriate 537
for that age. Butterflies and meerkats are two of the species that do it. We didn't want to 538
throw out our existing animals, because they're all rescues and we're caring for them. We 539
wanted to provide places for them. I think that's part of that prioritization that we talked 540
Draft Minutes 13
Approved
about earlier, that we could come back if we had to make choices about what would have 541
to go. 542
543
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. As far as square feet go, can you tell me how 544
much green, open turf space is lost during this expansion? You're saying it's not really 545
using area that's useful, which I sort of take exception with. When you reorganize the 546 young play area with the big play area, you're densifying the space that the children are in 547
for their play as far as I can tell. When I look at this picture, it looks to me like there's 548
less green, open turf. Can you tell me what it's diminished by? Now compared to if this 549
plan were enacted. 550
551
Mr. Jensen: I don't have the numbers of what the turf is to what it would be with the 552
Museum. We would have to come back to you with that number. 553
554
Commissioner Crommie: I'd like that. Thank you. I've tried to add up all the numbers 555
but it seems hopeless. Can you give me a clean number on the footprint square footage 556
now versus the total footprint square footage with your plan? Just so we can tell the full 557
magnitude difference. Just the entire footprint of everything now versus everything 558
according to this plan. 559
560
Ms. Vaccaro: Sure. The existing footprint of the Museum building and the Zoo areas is 561
21,500 square feet. The proposed is 33,450 square feet. The delta is 11,950 square feet. 562
563
Commissioner Crommie: What's the delta? Can you give a percent increase on the 564
delta? Percent expansion. 565 566 Ms. Vaccaro: I can't do that math off the top of my head. 567 568
Commissioner Crommie: Okay. 50 percent bigger? 569
570
Ms. Vaccaro: Yeah, about 50 percent larger. 571
572
Commissioner Crommie: It's not twofold bigger; it's a half-fold bigger? 573
574
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. 575
576
Commissioner Crommie: Since it's clearly a big resource for Walter Hays school, have 577
you thought about cutting a deal with them where they give up some of their land and 578
produce a two-story building? They have all these one-story buildings on their school. If 579
they consolidated into a two-story building, would they be willing to give up any land for 580
the storage space? Just because they tend to use that facility probably more than any 581
Draft Minutes 14
Approved
other school in the city. First of all, do they use that facility more than any other school 582
in the city? 583
584
Mr. Aikin: Walter Hays has the most robust contract with us, yes. We serve their 585
students probably with more capacity than any other individual school because they are 586
next door. We met with them very early on to make sure that what we were planning 587 would meet their needs. They said, "We'd love to help you stay off our land." They also 588
have a capital project that they're planning now to expand the school and get rid of the 589
temporary structures out there. They're also feeling squeezed for space. I think we have 590
a very cordial relationship with them, but we can't really do a land grab. 591
592
Commissioner Crommie: You call it a land grab, but I don't know how that works. Is 593
there anyone in the city, like the City Manager, who controls those types of discussions? 594
I think it should be on the table. 595
596
Mr. de Geus: It's something that the city and school district can certainly talk about. I 597
would think maybe the City/School Liaison Committee might want to discuss that. That 598
would be the place to do it. 599
600
Commissioner Crommie: Almost done. How many years would this project go on and 601
where would the animals be and where would the exhibits be for this whole group of 602
children that are born during this period? 603
604
Mr. Aikin: I think several of you probably mentioned the value of the staff there. It's the 605
staff that make this work. Our intention is to keep the staff intact during construction, 606 which is about a two-year period. We're looking at temporary facilities for both the 607 animals, because there aren't places to place them. They're all rescues; they didn't have 608 homes in the first place. In an ideal location, we will have a pop-up museum so we can 609
prototype exhibits for the new Museum, but we'll also need to keep the education 610
programs intact. I've been meeting with the site counselors to assure them that our 611
contracts with the schools will continue, that the teachers they know and love will 612
continue to come and bring animals and objects and scientific equipment to the schools 613
and keep that all going. We intend to move offsite during the construction and then come 614
back in. 615
616
Commissioner Crommie: Would that include offsite for summer camps? You have a 617
really large summer camp program there. 618
619
Mr. Aikin: It would. The biggest impact would be Zoo Camp. We offer nine summer 620
camps every summer. The others could take place in other locations easily. It's the Zoo 621
Camp piece that would be the most difficult. 622
623
Draft Minutes 15
Approved
Commissioner Crommie: You wouldn't try to do a truncated Zoo Camp? You might 624
have to take it offline? 625
626
Mr. Aikin: Depends on the site. 627
628
Commissioner Crommie: I'd put a big plug in to keep it going in some way. Seems like 629 you just did the bobcat habitat renewal. When did that take place? I lose track of time. 630
How many years ago was it? 631
632
Mr. Aikin: It's about four years ago, and it's protected on the site and reused for bobcats 633
and raccoons right next to it. We are going to salvage that and not have to spend that 634
money twice. 635
636
Commissioner Crommie: Okay, great. What is the feedback from the public meeting? 637
In general, we usually get that attached to a report, and we didn't get that tonight. I'm 638
wondering when we're going to get the public feedback summary from your community 639
outreach meeting. 640
641
Mr. Aikin: I can get that to you. I'm sorry for not including it. We had about 12 642
members of the public come to our open house community meeting. Their questions 643
were many of the same questions that you had, but were all in general in support of the 644
project. It was really more curiosity about how we're going to do this and what we're 645
going to do, and really no concerns that they brought up. 646
647
Commissioner Crommie: Okay, great. If you can just send us that, that'd be great. 648 Thank you very much. 649 650 Chair Reckdahl: We're about 20 minutes behind schedule, so I'll keep this short. In 651
addition to that feedback at the public meeting, it'd also be nice if this presentation, we 652
were not delivered an electronic version of that, so if you can also send us that. The 653
PowerPoint that you're showing upon the screen, we did not receive that. We received a 654
four-page text, staff report. 655
656
Commissioner Hetterly: (inaudible) 657
658
Chair Reckdahl: Is it on the site now? 659
660
Commissioner Markevitch: (inaudible) 661
662
Mr. Aikin: It's been on the site. 663
664
Draft Minutes 16
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: It was not in our packet. Okay, thank you. One question. On the top of 665
this four-page text, the top of page 2, it says "[d]ue to inadequate storage and support 666
space, accreditation options for both the Museum and Zoo are unobtainable." What does 667
that mean? 668
669
Mr. Aikin: There are two accrediting bodies for the Museum and the Zoo. One, the 670 American Alliance for Museums. The other, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 671
We don't meet zoo standards for both the size of some of our exhibits and the fact that we 672
have kitchen and animal prep facilities alongside animal enclosures, which those need to 673
be separated. Also, the animals that go out to schools have to be separated from the 674
collection that stays there permanently. Part of the back-of-house building is to house 675
those animals that go to schools separately from the rest of the zoo animals, because it's a 676
requirement of accreditation. The American Alliance of Museums, the primary standard 677
that we don't meet is how we house our artifacts and collections. We've been in this 678
community so long, we have some very rare objects that are priceless. They need to be 679
under lock and key and in climate-controlled facilities. This old building just doesn't 680
provide us either with the room to organize that or the HVAC systems to do it properly. 681
682
Chair Reckdahl: I also would like to echo what other people have said here. The Zoo is 683
wonderful, but I really would like to see a smaller encroachment into the park, whether 684
that's digging a basement or going to a second story. If you could shrink the building, I 685
think you could pull the whole Zoo back and you would have less encroachment. I do 686
like the idea, like Peter said, about the bathroom really is servicing the park. I like that, 687
but I would like to have that back another 20 feet. I think that'd be a much better design. 688
Everyone is short of space. Parks are short of space. Their square feet, right now, per 689 capita is not in our target, and it's only going to get worse as the population grows. I hate 690 to give up any park space that we haven't tried really hard to keep. I don't think we've 691 tried hard. This is a single-story building. I'd like to go down or go up and squish it 692
together so we don't go into the park nearly as much. That is it. Any other questions? 693
Rob. 694
695
Mr. de Geus: I'll make a couple of comments here, listening to the feedback. The 696
feedback's very interesting and helpful for the staff and the team that's working on this. 697
As I looked at this, I wondered about the parkland and how the Zoo is larger and using 698
more parkland. I suspect that's going to be the big conversation with the community, is 699
that really worth it. For me, as I thought about the value that the Junior Museum and Zoo 700
brings, that's also an important part of the equation. One, the Zoo is already on parkland. 701
If the Zoo expands, it's not necessarily thought about as giving up parkland. It's using 702
parkland differently. Does that make sense given what is being designed and built here 703
for the community? As I think about it that way, it has helped me to become more 704
excited about the possibility of the expanded Zoo. I bring that up because I've thought 705
about it quite a bit. The other thing I would mention is about Rinconada Park generally. 706
Draft Minutes 17
Approved
It's probably the best park that we have in Palo Alto, partly because there's so much to do 707
there. It's an excellent destination with the Art Center and the Children's Library, the 708
Children's Theatre. We've got the park and, of course, the pool and tennis courts, and 709
then the Junior Museum as well right there. It's an amazing destination. That's partly 710
why it works as opposed to maybe another location. Thank you. 711
712 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 713
714
3. Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 715
716
Chair Reckdahl: We do have one public comment for the Master Plan. Shani Kleinhaus, 717
you have two minutes. Oh, is she here? 718
719
Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening. I'm Shani Kleinhaus with Santa Clara Valley Audubon 720
Society and a resident of Palo Alto. Somebody asked me to tell you all that I’m an 721
employee of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and I represent the members of our 722
organization in this city and others. In Palo Alto, we have several hundred members. I 723
think it's more than 400, and they care about nature and birds and having those species of 724
birds and animals and habitats stay in the city. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, I 725
have attended several of the meetings, and I've seen many of you there. I've several times 726
asked for the word nature to be part of the title. There's some kind of process where the 727
word nature is not there. I guess it assumes that open space takes care of that, but I've 728
seen the word open space being used for a lot of other uses that are not necessarily 729
natural and thought it would be good to specify it. If we specify trails, why not nature? 730
It's interesting to me when I look now, in Palo Alto I think nature has an intrinsic value 731 for people. They don't just want to have nature because they want access to nature. They 732 actually want to have nature for nature itself. That is not being measured, and it's hard to 733 measure it. All the criteria that we have here don't measure it. The value of the nature 734
that we have in the city, that is not measured by how many people are actually using it in 735
some way and just having it around. It's mentioned; many, many people mentioned it in 736
different meetings, but there's got to be a more specific address of the word nature and all 737
the species and all the ecosystems and all the habitats that come with it. I have another 738
specific comment to the ... 739
740
Chair Reckdahl: Ten seconds, please wrap it up. 741
742
Ms. Kleinhaus: I'm sorry. The recommended criteria, including sea level rise and 743
making that a criteria excludes from high priority a lot of areas in south Palo Alto, like 744
Ramos Park, excludes a lot of the Baylands and parts of Byxbee. It's a problem when 745
you come to areas such as ... 746
747
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 748
Draft Minutes 18
Approved
749
Ms. Kleinhaus: ... Lucy Evans which is one of the most valued places for education and 750
for recreation. Thank you. 751
752
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move onto the presentation. Rob de Geus and Peter Jensen and 753
consultants. 754 755
Rob de Geus: Good evening again, Commissioners. We have Lauren Schmitt here and 756
Ellie Fiore from MIG and of course Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect, who's been 757
working really hard on the Parks Master Plan. Just wanted to mention that last month's 758
meeting was a challenging one on this topic. I had real trouble sleeping after that 759
meeting, I have to say, but it was good though, actually. It was needed, I think, for us 760
and for you, of course. We've done quite a bit of work this past month to sort of reset a 761
little bit. In some ways, just hit the pause button and take stock of where we are. The 762
feedback that we're receiving and how we're collecting that data and how we're sharing 763
that data and really sort of think through a structure and a framework for how that will be 764
used to define needs and then ultimately priorities and recommendations for the Master 765
Plan. I appreciate the feedback. It was important. I think we've come a long way this 766
month and am looking forward to the conversation tonight and hearing your feedback 767
about where we are today. With that, I'll pass it onto Lauren or Ellie. Lauren. 768
769
Lauren Schmitt: Thanks for having us here tonight. You received in your packet a 770
memo of a concept that we want to go over with you tonight as a way to help start sorting 771
through what is a phonebook of data, which I know is kind of overwhelming. One of the 772
things that Peter has done is started to put together in one place so you have a resource 773 for the remainder of this planning process but also in the future for all of this analysis, all 774 of the public input, pulling that together as a resource. We want to share with you a 775 concept for an evaluation matrix and some of the criteria, so that we can start talking with 776
you about how we move towards recommendations and a plan. Before we get into the 777
matrix though, I just wanted to share some thoughts with you about how that's going to 778
work. I think your park system is so complex. The programming that you do, the 779
facilities that you offer, I think the presentation we just heard is a real illustration of that 780
and the balancing that you need to do. It's not like there's a bunch of this analysis and 781
then all of a sudden we're going to presto, come out with a plan. There's a lot of steps, 782
and we need you and we need the staff involved in making decisions, evaluating things 783
along the way. We just wanted to emphasize that we've had this data collection and 784
analysis. Now we need to summarize that and say, "What does it all mean?" and start 785
thinking about what might we do in the future. To do that, first we need to understand 786
supply, understand demand. We need to define Palo Alto's role in meeting demand 787
across the whole system, not just what are we doing for sports fields, what are we doing 788
for museums. That will then allow us to define the needs. We can then think about what 789
are the options for meeting those needs, because you may not opt to meet all needs. You 790
Draft Minutes 19
Approved
may not be able to do everything within the constrained land base that you have, so you 791
have to balance. Then and only then can we start laying out the directions. We've got a 792
ways to go, and I think it's important to pause and really think about those steps that are 793
ahead of us. Just thinking about where we're going, there's a lot of different tools. The 794
directions that we eventually get to setting out as the right directions for this community, 795
there's a lot of tools that will be in the plan. They're not just necessarily site specific 796 recommendations, but also policies, potentially standards, things like that. We'll evaluate 797
all those things as we go forward. I wanted to talk a little bit about the task at hand right 798
now, which is around defining need, supply, demand. I know one of the questions that 799
has come up is, "Well, can't we just simply say what's the percent capacity? Are we low? 800
Are we high? Will it be good into the future? Put the demand over the supply and see 801
where we're at." My answer to that is, "Yes, we can do that, but there's a number of 802
assumptions." I just want to lay those out on the table, some of the questions that we 803
need to all be considering. We're not going to answer those tonight, but we do want to be 804
thinking about those as we think about the complexity that is this park system. To start 805
out with supply, there's been lots of work in this process and previously looking at 806
supply. We know what the counts of things are, where they're located. We know what 807
programs you offer. There are still other issues. How much of the day should we be 808
counting? There's peak use times. There's times that are very popular. If you go out to a 809
certain site at 5:00 in the morning, it may not be used. Do we count that time in supply or 810
should we be looking at those times that are customary use times? Defining capacity. 811
Some sites and some programs, we know that you can put 20 people in this class or the 812
building has this capacity. Something like a playground, what is the capacity? We need 813
to be clear what that is. To some people, 25 kids on that playground would be way too 814
crowded. To others, you could just keep packing them in. The other thing that Palo Alto 815 does well is temporal use. You do a lot of sharing, not just your own facilities but other 816 facilities. How do we account for the supply of a room like this one at Lucie Stern that 817 sometimes is an exercise room and at other times is an event space? Where does that 818
count in the supply? Even though we have a good idea of what's out there, there's some 819
things we need to think about how we count that. On the demand side, we've had tons 820
and tons of data, not just from the systems here and the registration system, but much of 821
the public involvement data is really talking about demand. One of the key questions is, 822
who are you trying to serve? That issue came up earlier. Are we serving a regional 823
audience? Are we serving a local audience? Something that you wrestled with in the 824
Field Use Policy. That's a policy I've been impressed with when I studied it. I've told 825
Peter it's something we've recommended other agencies look at, because you were very 826
deliberate about who you were serving, how you were going to evaluate those things. 827
One thing I also want to point about who you're trying to serve, there's today's users, 828
there's the people who you're reaching today. Because this is a Long Range Plan, we also 829
want to think about who tomorrow's users might be and what are the new activities that 830
are going to be generated and provide some space and thinking about needs to 831
accommodate those new, cool things that are going to happen in recreation in the coming 832
Draft Minutes 20
Approved
years. The other thing on the demand side is setting parameters. That's something you 833
did really well in the Field Use Policy, where you had a standard about what's a 834
reasonable amount of practice games, tournaments that a local group could be allowed. If 835
you don't do that, somebody could just come in and say, "I want to do this every day." 836
As a public entity, is that as valid as something that's a bit more metered? You do that 837
with your pool right now, how you allocate lap swim time and other things. A really 838 important question is the whole peak demand versus non-peak or average demand. If you 839
build your park system or you build a set of gyms for 7:00 p.m. on a weeknight, you're 840
going to have a whole lot of gyms and not much of anything else. It's kind of like 841
building your parking lot at the mall for December 24th. We just need to think about 842
what level of demand we want to do or do we want to be looking at that season when a 843
whole bunch of things overlap or the prime Saturday, the nicest day of the year? The 844
other thing that's an issue in demand is certain types of facilities, certain types of spaces 845
attract more demand and sometimes generate more. If you have a really nice dance 846
room, all of a sudden you're going to start getting classes that work really in a really nice 847
dance room. People are going to start gravitating to that. Sometimes you can even create 848
demand. We found through the outreach, for example, that certain configurations of 849
tennis courts were attracting more use and more demand than others. We need to be 850
deliberate about how we factor those things in. We need to have our team, the staff team, 851
and all of you be on the same page around the assumptions so that you feel confident and 852
the community feels confident that as we're stepping through and making decisions and 853
what we're saying about the need, we're all on the same page so that we can do that math 854
that you're looking for to determine the capacity and where you're at. With that 855
overview, I'm going to turn it over to Ellie to talk a little bit about this matrix concept. 856
We want to get your feedback on that to see if you think it's a tool that will work to help 857 connect the dots and parse all of that data. 858 859 Peter Jensen: Ellie, I'm just going to say that passing around right now is a binder. The 860
binder is a sample of what you're going to be getting soon. It relates back to this 861
information that Ellie's going to be talking about. It's the matrix that we have. It 862
references back to the binder. Information, data, those types of things can be referenced 863
back to where they come from and easily found within the binder. You will be getting 864
the binder in the next couple of days. We'll figure out how to get that to you, but I did 865
want to send around the sample. The package of papers that we have now in there you 866
can see is very dense. That's what we're hoping the matrix that Ellie's going to start to 867
describe here pretty soon starts to summarize a little bit and get you to a more direct path 868
of where to find that information, that data that's in there. 869
870
Ellie Fiore: Thank you, Peter. We wanted to come back this month and start to try to 871
answer some of the questions that you all raised last month, which is not just what do you 872
know. I know that there was some concern and some fear that we were going to jump to 873
recommendations and that that logical and analytical path wasn't clear on what those are 874
Draft Minutes 21
Approved
based on. We are taking this moment to pause and kind of reframe and start to lay out 875
more explicitly what we know and how we know it. The tool we're proposing to use for 876
that is what we're calling the Data and Needs Summary Matrix which was in your packet. 877
I want to take this opportunity to orient you to that tool, and then we want to get a sense 878
tonight from you of whether this is a concept that makes sense, whether it does start to 879
answer some of those questions. If so, we'll move forward with populating that. The 880 idea here again, as Peter implied, is that this is kind of a rollup of all of the data that's 881
going to be in your binders. Those are all things you've seen before for the most part, but 882
we know they've been arriving bit by bit and piecemeal. This is our attempt to reframe 883
and pull everything together and frame it for you. What you got in your packet were two 884
things. One is the matrix, the big Excel sheet with the green header. The other was the 885
Data and Needs Summary concept, which is the narrative description of the matrix. I'll 886
just walk through what the matrix consists of. Down Column B, what we have in 887
categories are the elements of your park system. We've got three overarching categories: 888
parks, trails, and open spaces; recreation facilities; and programs. You'll see this is not an 889
exhaustive list, for example, of every type of program, but they're rolled up into 890
categories that we think make good sense and that we've worked over with staff as an 891
organizing structure, again to kind of present that higher layer of data. Working across 892
the elements in the columns. These are evaluation measures that we consider, that we're 893
going to base our summary of needs of recommendations on. I'll walk you through each 894
of those. In the narrative packet is a description of the data sources. This again keys 895
back to the list of data sources that'll be in your binder. For each we've developed, where 896
appropriate, a rating scale and then criteria for rating that. We'll walk through those now. 897
The first set is Columns C and D, which are the current service/inventory and then level 898
of control. This is basically a summary of what's on the ground, what is being 899 programmed currently, and then how much control does the city have over that looking 900 into the future. That includes ownership, lease and, also as mentioned, sea level rise. 901 Moving in Column E, this is our measure of capacity. As Lauren just mentioned, there's 902
a lot of different dynamics that can be considered here. What our attempt at the criteria 903
here is to do is to give an indication of whether it's below, at, or over capacity, again 904
putting some parameters around those criteria. Column F is geographic analysis. What 905
we're presenting here is summary statements, because there are several data points 906
leading into this. Some are qualitative; some are quantitative. We wanted to pull out 907
some key findings and summary statements here. Columns G and H are two sides of the 908
same coin. This perception of quality as we've heard it expressed by the community and 909
based on our own site observations, and then also expressed need. Quality is, are there 910
improvements needed or are there deficiencies that were noted? Express need is, was 911
there demand for more or expanded services? Column I is a quick summary of the 912
demographic trends. The analysis of which I know we wanted to resurface for you. You 913
mentioned it briefly last time. What we've done is tried to roll it up and say, "Based on 914
the demographic analysis that we did with the census and the school district data and our 915
knowledge of recreation trends, do we expect that the demand is going to grow, be stable, 916
Draft Minutes 22
Approved
or decline?" Columns J and K are what we're calling barriers to access and projected 917
demand. This is physical or institutional or other barriers that have been expressed, why 918
people can't physically or have trouble getting to places or why they can't access 919
programs. Is it oversubscribed? Is it a time of day that's inconvenient? What are those 920
things that we've heard articulated or observed in our analysis of the programs? The 921
project demand is a summary of, are there opportunities for new activities for growth in a 922 certain area? This is a summation of not just the demographic trends but the recreational 923
trans and our professional judgment based on experience and planning in other 924
communities. What that all rolls into hopefully in a logical manner is what we're calling 925
the Summary of Need. What we've done in this matrix that you received is flesh out as 926
examples four rows, a couple within each category area. The Summary of Need is our 927
high level observations at this point based on everything that came before it. This is what 928
we would discuss with you, discuss with staff. Did we get it right? Do you agree? If so, 929
then that becomes the foundation for talking possible projects and possible 930
recommendations. We want to go through this exercise first to make sure we have all the 931
information we need to get to there, and that it's clearly articulated. I think the question 932
is, whether this helps clarify the process, the work done to date, the structure we're using 933
to fill in some of the holes, to gather a little bit more data, and then does this fill in that 934
middle piece of the scope of work and the middle piece of the process that I think we felt 935
was missing last time we met? 936
937
Chair Reckdahl: Can you comment about the data sources in the top? 938
939
Ms. Fiore: Yes. Our intent was to get you these binders tonight, but there was a little 940
production hiccup. The list of data sources is keyed in Row 2. For example, Number 2 is 941 the data in each summary. Number 4 was the sustainability review. All of the inputs into 942 each of those columns reflects back, so it's essentially a table of contents for your binder 943 as well as a data source list. 944
945
Chair Reckdahl: Is that going to be multiple rows or how are you going to get that 946
information in Row 2? It'd be nice to have an example of what's going to be the content 947
in Row Number 2. 948
949
Commissioner Lauing: It's just numerical, isn't it? 950
951
Ms. Fiore: Yeah, that is the content. It references back to the sources that we used to 952
generate what's in each column. 953
954
Commissioner Lauing: You might have six numbers in there, one, three, seven, nine, ten. 955
956
Ms. Fiore: Yeah, exactly. For demographic trends, you see one number, seven, because 957
that references back to the demographic trends piece. For the column previous to that, 958
Draft Minutes 23
Approved
expressed need, there's five items, many of which were the several different community 959
input elements. What's going to be in the matrix is those numbers, and they reference 960
back to the summary of products and the work products. 961
962
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. The concern we would have is if on Row 2 you list seven 963
sources, then when I'm looking down on Row 17, I have to go through those seven 964 sources in order to figure out where that number came from. It would be nice if for each 965
number that you list, each content, you would say, "That comes from Page 13 of 966
Reference 3," and reference that for each row as opposed to up top. Otherwise, we're 967
stuck just looking for the needle in the haystack. 968
969
Ms. Schmitt: I think it's going to be very difficult what you're asking. The reason is 970
there's not a smoking gun around each of these things in each source. The question in the 971
summary from Mapita, for example. There might be a whole bunch of comments in there 972
that are in an appendix. It's pages and pages and pages of comments. This is a huge 973
amount of content. Along the way, we've been taking it in, we've been assessing, and 974
we've been overlaying and looking for patterns, and then checking as we come back. For 975
each and every one of these things, there's not "here's the quotation or the figure that says 976
... ." For some of them, there probably is, but I don't think we'll be able to map page 17, 977
this figure, or page 19, that figure. I don't want to over-promise that. I understand what 978
you're saying. It's like, "Well, if I have to look through the whole summary ... ." 979
980
Chair Reckdahl: There has to be some rationale of how we score these things. What I'd 981
like to see is a separate document that lists the rationale for each one of these. Otherwise, 982
we have no way of verifying what that demand is. 983 984 Ms. Schmitt: That's one of the reasons why we try to establish some criteria. In some 985 cases, those are more numerically based. The perception of quality is one with certain 986
Mapita score ranges, because we can pull that data and say, "Okay, we can evaluate these 987
things." There's also noted issues around certain parks. We are trying to use the criteria 988
to provide what you're asking for, so that it works across all of these sources of data and 989
what all of those inputs are. If you're feeling like these criteria aren't doing that, my 990
question to you would be, do you feel like we could dial those in further? I really don't 991
think we can reference each and everything, because I can't tell you how many cells that 992
would be. I'm just thinking about how many times somebody has commented on tennis 993
or community gardens or whatever. There's a lot. 994
995
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, but when you were filling out this spreadsheet, you have to 996
evaluate each of these cells. You're not putting random numbers in it. You actually are 997
looking at, "Okay, I'm looking at community gardens. How did I determine the 998
demand?" You must count something. There must be some way that you're quantifying 999
Draft Minutes 24
Approved
the demand for community gardens, and there's some way that you're quantifying the 1000
supply of community gardens. 1001
1002
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, yep. 1003
1004
Chair Reckdahl: Since you're the one who's doing that, we're just asking you to show 1005 your work. 1006
1007
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, so that's what we're trying to do with this matrix. Let me explain the 1008
thought process around community gardens, since you chose that particular one. We 1009
look at the supply; you have three sites. You have a high level of control over those sites, 1010
because you own the sites where they're located. It's not like a Cubberley situation. You 1011
can be confident they're going to be there. We know from your capacity and bookings 1012
that you get more requests than you have plots. That's why that is rated over. It relates to 1013
the criteria in there. You're getting more requests than you have supply so it's over 1014
capacity. The geographic analysis showed—you can see the commentary in there—your 1015
community gardens are clustered in the northern end of Palo Alto. You have a number of 1016
plots that are arrayed across those three sites. All of those sites are in the north end of 1017
town, and there aren't other options for community garden sites. In some communities, 1018
there's churches or other providers that have them. The southern part of the community 1019
doesn't have them. When we step into the perception of quality, what we heard through 1020
all of the public workshops is people love the community gardens that you have. They 1021
think they work very well. We also heard that there is a need for more sites, more plots. 1022
That jives with what we know, that you don't have any in the south end of town and that 1023
the plots are oversubscribed. The public is also saying that. In terms of the demographic 1024 trends, we know that older adults favor gardening, and your results show that. You've 1025 got a high population of older adults, and that's projected to increase. Therefore, the 1026 participation trend for that one, we project the demand is going to increase. You're 1027
already oversubscribed; you're probably going to have more interest in that activity in the 1028
future. That takes us to the next column. There are barriers for participation, and the 1029
barriers are that there's not enough plots and they're all in one end of town. Looking at all 1030
of that, we see there being high projected demand. Community gardening is one of those 1031
activities that's been increasing across the nation and regionally. That's why that's rated 1032
high. We have all of this local data, and so the summary we would say around that 1033
preliminarily is there's a need for overall more plots whether they're at the existing sites 1034
or elsewhere. 1035
1036
Chair Reckdahl: One of the problems I have is that right now we're doing the high, 1037
medium, low. That's too coarse. It doesn't make it actionable for us. For example, if you 1038
say it's oversubscribed, so it gets an H. We have no idea if it's oversubscribed by 10 1039
percent or 300 percent. Does that mean that we have to find three more plots in the city 1040
or 300 more plots? We have no idea. When you keep it very qualitative, we can't action 1041
Draft Minutes 25
Approved
on that. We need to say the demand right now is 120 percent of the supply and, using 1042
projections, we think it's going to be 150 percent of the supply in ten years. 1043
1044
Ms. Schmitt: I think we can get to that number, but I want to come back to what I talked 1045
about in the beginning. There's a lot of assumptions. I could do that math, and I could 1046
give you a number. You might feel comfortable that it's a number, but if we're not on the 1047 same page about the assumptions, then it's a garbage number. If I make the assumption 1048
that we're in a community where all plots have to be 20x20. We had a shortage of plots, 1049
but that size plot was too large for a lot of people to handle. Yeah, it was oversubscribed. 1050
Yet, when you looked at did people actually follow through and garden, there was a 1051
number of underutilized sites. That's the trick of that number that you're looking for, 1052
which is why we try to stick with criteria. Is it generally over? Is it generally under? We 1053
can get to that number, but we have to have a broader discussion about what goes into 1054
that number. Also, keep in mind that I think community gardening is one that's easier to 1055
predict. Just because something is undersubscribed now doesn't mean that there's not a 1056
demand for that activity or that there wouldn't be in the future. It could be an emerging 1057
activity. It could be that you haven't reached the population. There's populations we've 1058
heard that you would like to be serving or that you think would be important to serve in 1059
this community. Right now, you're not serving some of those populations. If we are only 1060
looking at the things that you're doing now, we're going to not account for the needs of 1061
these folks that many of you and many of the community members think is really 1062
important to reach out to. We also want to make sure we leave space as we're looking at 1063
these needs to account for that. I don't want to seem like I’m ducking this, but this is 1064
really complicated. You as a city particularly have a very complicated system, and you 1065
have a very sophisticated layering of services that you're providing. It's not like you're a 1066 green field community and you're expanding out and you're stamping out the same 1067 neighborhood park in every subdivision. It's very nuanced. 1068 1069
Commissioner Lauing: Just to add one point to what you're saying. You're talking about 1070
percentages, but I'm actually even more interested in sample size. If 4,000 dog owners 1071
said that we need more dog space—I'm making all these up—versus 4 community 1072
gardeners said we need more space, those are both very interesting points to know. One 1073
we need to take some pretty severe action on. The other one maybe we don't have to take 1074
any action on in the next five years, and we look at it in 15 years. We're going to keep 1075
asking for this, quantitative data. Quantitative data. Not that you heard at a community 1076
outreach that two people wanted X, Y or Z, but that in surveys and in face-to-face votes, 1077
people said X, Y or Z. 1078
1079
Ms. Schmitt: I get that. I think Ellie gets that too. One of the reasons why we like to do 1080
the type of outreach and that you guys have embraced is doing a lot of different types of 1081
outreach and different layers of outreach for that reason that you're getting at. You don't 1082
want just some organized group to come and cook the result. Again we tried to get at 1083
Draft Minutes 26
Approved
your concern with criteria. Express need, we ranked it high if across multiple channels—1084
three, four, five different activities—or through results that you'll see in the next month, 1085
through survey results from Mapita, through some of the things that got really big 1086
numbers, if it came up again and again and again, then we're ranking that as high. If it's 1087
mixed, like tennis was one of those that's mixed where a certain percentage of your 1088
population plays tennis. When you look at the overall community results, people are like, 1089 "Eh, I think we're good on tennis." If you ask the tennis players, they're the ones that 1090
have real specific needs around the facilities. Is it lighted? Is it grouped together? When 1091
we hear from them, what they're saying is, "You know, there are some needs here." In 1092
that case, it's mixed from these different sources, so we ranked it as medium because 1093
there's some evidence that there is a need there, but it's mixed. Low, there are just certain 1094
things that just really didn't come up or, when you look across multiple channels, it was 1095
just, "Eh." A couple of the things that it was very clear there was a high expressed need 1096
for. It's not reflected in this table at this point, but restrooms came up again and again 1097
across multiple channels as something that was really a critical part of enjoying the park 1098
system. Community gardens was one of those. Having seating and great resting places 1099
in parks supporting people spending time, lingering, talking to their friends, that came up 1100
again and again. It came up at the workshops. It came up in intercepts. Things like that. 1101
We're trying to use those criteria, so that as you start to layer that you start to see those 1102
patterns emerge. The land here and the facilities that you have are just way too precious 1103
not to take all of that in and make the best decision because you're going to have to make 1104
hard choices. Again, I think the presentation earlier tonight made that very clear to me 1105
about the kind of choices that you guys are going to be wrestling with in the next 20 1106
years. We want to make sure you have a tool in this plan that helps you make the best 1107
decision for the community, because it will be difficult every single time. 1108 1109 Chair Reckdahl: We've used up 35 minutes, and we've allocated 45 so we still have a 1110 little time left. We can run over if we need to. The first priority is to do it right, but also 1111
I don't want to waste time. Rob, what do you think? What's your priority? Do you want 1112
to hear comments from here or do you have things that you want to ask the consultants? 1113
How do you want to work this? 1114
1115
Mr. de Geus: I appreciate the work that the consultants have done and taken the time to 1116
work with us. We've met numerous times over this last month to think about this data 1117
question. I'm particularly interested in hearing from the rest of the Commissioners. I 1118
don't want to move forward with our process until we get to a general comfort level. This 1119
is a framework that has a lot of value and could really help us with the Master Plan, 1120
particularly defining the need. The next and more important step is then looking at those 1121
needs through a filter that is most important to the community to start making priorities 1122
and recommendations. I actually think it's a pretty good framework but again, before we 1123
start populating this matrix and having the consultant spend a lot of time on that, I want 1124
Draft Minutes 27
Approved
to be sure the Commission feels comfortable with this approach, this methodology for 1125
how we will use the data for coming up with some findings. 1126
1127
Chair Reckdahl: Comments, questions? Commissioner Knopper. 1128
1129
Commissioner Knopper: Thank you. I'm echoing what Ed had said with regard to 1130 quantifying the high, medium, low. I totally understand why you need to consolidate all 1131
of the information. If there's nine passionate people about community gardens in Palo 1132
Alto and there's 500 dog owners, at some point in the process we just have to know that 1133
piece of information so we can then rank what should be priorities. Not to beat a dead 1134
horse, but I think it's really important to be clear on that particular point. I appreciate that 1135
we're regrouping and clarifying in a more strategic way all of this giant information dump 1136
and the way that we can cross-reference it. That binder is great. It's obviously 1137
overwhelming, and I'm really looking forward to having it in my house with all the other 1138
paper that we get. Any time that you think, "Gosh, maybe we need to break it down and 1139
really cross-reference and give them statistics and this is how many people answered this 1140
particular question and this is a really high priority;" any time you think, "You know 1141
what? They want even more quantitative data," I would love for you to assume that we 1142
would. Thank you. 1143
1144
Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a couple of comments. I do think that this matrix 1145
would be a useful tool for discussion once it's populated and being able to see what you 1146
see as the core documents for whichever column we're talking about. I do think it would 1147
be much more useful if, to the extent possible, you could make notations within the cells 1148
when there is a smoking gun or a key report that was most telling in certain areas. 1149 Otherwise, you have seven of us duplicating all the work that you've just done and 1150 coming to our own separate conclusions. I don't think that's very productive. As I look 1151 through the binder, it's basically the reports that you have presented to us, it appears. I 1152
know we had a lot of comments on most of them. I wonder if these have been updated 1153
since they first came to us in draft form or if we're going to reread what we saw before. 1154
1155
Ms. Fiore: Most of them are as you've seen them before. We have captured those 1156
comments on all of the documents. Some of those comments on the documents were 1157
addressed in the form of memos to you, which will also be in the binder. For example, 1158
the ones that we heard last month, I have documented but we have not gone back and re-1159
edited those documents because we wanted to keep moving forward. Those comments 1160
have all been memorialized somewhere, but we are not necessarily taking the time to 1161
update those documents. They are recorded, and they will be fed forward. For example, 1162
the program analysis which we dug into pretty deeply last time, that document is still 1163
very much in draft, so that one will be updated. Most of the rest of them are in a semi-1164
final state, as I like to call it, so we're just keeping the record of your comments and then 1165
moving on. 1166
Draft Minutes 28
Approved
1167
Ms. Schmitt: Just as a process point, the intent on these is they're a platform for moving 1168
forward. Your plan is not going to be a compendium of the demographic trends analysis 1169
and this and that. When we craft that document and the language that goes into that, any 1170
comments that you've made that are around, if we're taking a section of text out of 1171
something, all of that will appear in the final document. To Ellie's point, none of that is 1172 lost. By the time you've received some of the documents and some of the comments that 1173
you're making, they roll into the next piece of analysis that we’re doing. In some ways 1174
by the time things get to you—this is one of the challenges—we've been continuing to 1175
move forward on certain other aspects of the project, so we can then give you the next 1176
round of analysis. 1177
1178
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. We shouldn’t look at the sustainability report and 1179
say, "Why doesn't this reflect that we had this discussion?" I just want to get that on the 1180
table, that these are not final versions. They don't incorporate necessarily our comments. 1181
1182
Ms. Fiore: Correct. 1183
1184
Commissioner Hetterly: A piece of data that seems to be missing from the binder—and 1185
I'm not sure how it can be represented—is your discussions with staff about field use. 1186
What's going on with field use? Who is using it when and how? Or the capacity 1187
bookings information. You come to conclusions about capacity booking, but it doesn't 1188
look like there's anything in the contents here that would provide the backup data for how 1189
you reached that conclusion. 1190
1191 Ms. Schmitt: Yeah. Capacity bookings is actually one that we don't have the data yet. 1192 We're working on that now. We've been crunching the program and booking data. That's 1193 one that does not exist yet. It's still in processing form. Eventually that will become the 1194
program analysis Part 2 that's really about capacity and needs. 1195
1196
Mr. de Geus: Just to add to that, Commissioner Hetterly, is that the binder will continue 1197
to grow as we get more data. The survey data is not in there yet. You make a good point 1198
about staff analysis and staff interviews that have been happening, capturing that data. 1199
It's actually pretty rich data. These are staff that are working in the field with these users 1200
every day. Capturing that and including that and referencing it in the matrix is important. 1201
In addition to that—we've discussed this internally—as we discover certain trends, as the 1202
data is starting to suggest that we need more of something, then do additional research or 1203
outreach to that particular group of users to understand more of what they need. That 1204
would then also add to this matrix and to the folder of data. Does that help? 1205
1206
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. 1207
1208
Draft Minutes 29
Approved
Ms. Schmitt: A forthcoming thing, I think, that will also document some of the staff 1209
discussions around the physical facilities which I believe you'll be getting next month, is 1210
Item 9 on the data list which are the existing conditions maps. Those are detailed of 1211
every single site. It's giving some of the history. It's giving some of the noted issues and 1212
deficiencies. Daren has been heavily involved with that, and other staff, in documenting 1213
the things that are there. This is again one of these other pieces that the documentation is 1214 happening. It's on its way to you, but you don't have it yet. That's one of the other 1215
challenging things for you as a body; things are not yet in your hands but we're starting to 1216
formulate ideas about them. 1217
1218
Mr. de Geus: I know that we have other Commissioners that need to speak, but this may 1219
help as well. If we think about the next step on this, if we agree this is a good 1220
methodology and we move forward and start populating this and start defining the high, 1221
low, medium or whatever rating that we decide is the one that really works. An 1222
important next step that we would like to do is have a special retreat on the Master Plan 1223
and spend several hours on the matrix with MIG and staff and actually walk through 1224
these line items and talk about them. "Here are the Summary of Needs. How did you 1225
come up with that?" It'll be in a narrative form in the Summary of Needs. We'll have the 1226
binders and all of the data, and we'll have a really rich discussion about each of these. 1227
There will be different interpretations, and we'll discuss that. Then we'll tweak the 1228
Summary of Needs during that meeting. Hopefully at the end of that, we'll have a pretty 1229
good picture of the Summary of Needs. 1230
1231
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 1232
1233 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. I think this is really helpful, to see this. It's 1234 moving in the right direction. I would like to ditto what other Commissioners have said. 1235 When you list your sources, if you can just letter them and then reference back to those 1236
sources for the key points, it's really going to be helpful. Something like when you say 1237
demographics show that we're increasing the number of school children, can you cite that 1238
report? That's a very global issue. Something as big as that, I think it's worth citing the 1239
document. A couple of points here. When you were listing the elements on page 3 of the 1240
report, they go onto page 4, I like seeing this kind of granularity. I appreciate this. I like 1241
that you have experience nature, but I also think we need something about the 1242
preservation of nature. The reason that's important is because of the wildlife, because of 1243
the ecosystems. When we go to experience nature, it's predicated on having nature there 1244
to begin with. If you can add that in, I'd really appreciate it. On this list, again, where 1245
you have all these bullet points that I'm referring to—one of them is experience of 1246
nature—should dogs be fitting into one of these bullet points? I couldn't find it there. 1247
1248
Ms. Schmitt: It's under recreational facilities, off-leash dog areas. We were thinking 1249
about it more on the facilities side. For some of these, it's how you slice it. We put 1250
Draft Minutes 30
Approved
restrooms with parks, open space and trails because it came up cutting across all use of 1251
the system. 1252
1253
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. I just find that one can go into a couple of different 1254
places, but I know you're thinking about it. It seemed like population density wasn't 1255
encapsulated. That's really important for planning, knowing where the population density 1256 is. That's going to impact the kinds of gaps that we have. Again I was thinking that 1257
could be a bullet point, just in the big picture. I'd add that land preservation has to do 1258
with ecosystems, and then also population density. Another part of the big picture to me 1259
when we're looking at supply and demand is where our schools are located in the city. So 1260
many cities are just very integrated with their schools, and the schools provide these 1261
major resources. Look at the community of Los Altos, one of our neighboring 1262
communities. It's completely integrated, because they really don't have nearly enough 1263
parks, and they really rely on their schools. I'd like to see some meta analysis of where 1264
our schools are relative to where the population is. The schools provide a green space for 1265
populations. I know in the south of Palo Alto, especially in my neighborhood, we're not 1266
near a school at all. We have a lower amount of parks, and we're not near a school. 1267
Somehow the locations of schools can compound gaps. Is there a way you've done that 1268
in the past, where you bring that in? 1269
1270
Ms. Schmitt: Yes. One of the things that we're trying to retrofit with this approach is 1271
most of these planning efforts will have a needs assessment. They'll address things like 1272
that. Both of those points that you brought up around population density and looking at 1273
that as an overlay as well as where the schools are located, I think we need to give a little 1274
bit more thought exactly how that works. They either fit within that geographic analysis 1275 or they become their own column around it. Yeah, I think those are good ones. They are 1276 really important in actually the demand side. More people equals more demand. On the 1277 supply side, because they provide an alternative, the schools do. 1278
1279
Commissioner Crommie: I'm about halfway done. Those are some big ideas. Getting 1280
into a little bit more lower level stuff. I'm not seeing the gyms really differentiated like I 1281
would like to see them. What I know goes in gyms is volleyball and badminton. If you 1282
look at our demographics of having an increasing Asian component, that's a really 1283
popular sport among the Asian cultures, south Asian and Asian. I'd like to see that 1284
differentiated. I don't know how it came back in the polling. I just want to have a 1285
column for it if you need to talk about it. 1286
1287
Ms. Schmitt: Okay. If you look down in Column B in recreation facilities, we did 1288
actually call out gymnasiums. The facilities we called out are off-leash dog areas, 1289
community gardens, basketball courts, tennis courts, rectangle sports fields ... 1290
1291
Commissioner Crommie: Can you reference pages please? 1292
Draft Minutes 31
Approved
1293
Ms. Schmitt: Sure. It's on the matrix, and it's Line 22. Row 22 is gymnasiums. It 1294
actually has its own row. For the reasons that you said, it's come up a lot. We're looking 1295
at the need for gymnasiums. 1296
1297
Commissioner Crommie: When you talk about resources and unmet needs, so many 1298 things are parsed out here. You represent a lot of things, but I don't see volleyball. I 1299
don't see badminton as far as it being called out when everything else is. I don't see a lot 1300
of omissions, so my list is not long. It's just a few things. You've listed so many things, 1301
you might as well list them all. 1302
1303
Ms. Schmitt: Here's the thing. The gymnasium is the recreation facility that contains 1304
those activities that you're talking about. If you were to build an indoor gym, you would 1305
program it in different ways. Sometimes you might have basketball where there's ten 1306
people, five on a side, playing each other. Sometimes you might put a couple of 1307
volleyball ... 1308
1309
Commissioner Crommie: Excuse me. I understand that. If we're talking about gaps, 1310
aren't you within a gym going to specify any of these activities? I don't see where they're 1311
going to be cited. 1312
1313
Ms. Schmitt: So then we're looking at the programming in the programming section. 1314
The grouping that we use within the programming—if this isn't right, we want to talk 1315
about it in a different way. We use the groupings that the city already uses for how it 1316
thinks about programs. These categories of adult aquatics, adult special interest classes 1317 are the way you look at data now in these groupings of types of classes. Within those 1318 would be the specific activities that you're talking about. We'd certainly be open to 1319 looking at it in a different way. I'd like Rob's feedback for sure. 1320
1321
Commissioner Crommie: Let me specify a little more. I don't know right now if we have 1322
badminton as a program. 1323
1324
Mr. de Geus: We don't. 1325
1326
Commissioner Crommie: That's an example of we don't have it, yet people might want it. 1327
How does it show up on this matrix? 1328
1329
Mr. de Geus: How I think it would show up, and we don't have it yet here. With respect 1330
to badminton for adults, for instance, it would show up in the Needs Summary. I would 1331
expect it would be in the narrative there specific to programs. It's under adult sports, so 1332
within that particular need there may be multiple sports that emerges as being needs. 1333
Draft Minutes 32
Approved
Under several outreach efforts, it came up that badminton was a need or an interest. so it 1334
would be defined there. Hopefully if this ... 1335
1336
Commissioner Crommie: Can you give me the line where it would be? 1337
1338
Mr. de Geus: That would be Line 32 on the matrix, adult sports, other programs. 1339 1340
Commissioner Crommie: Could it come up under youth as well? 1341
1342
Mr. de Geus: It could. 1343
1344
Commissioner Crommie: Okay, okay. 1345
1346
Mr. de Geus: There's a youth sports or a youth and teen programs. 1347
1348
Commissioner Crommie: These will get filled in over time, and then we'll assess ... 1349
1350
Mr. de Geus: Right, right. 1351
1352
Commissioner Crommie: ... what we want. As far as on Line 8 when you have essential 1353
activity access, it's sort of a bigger idea. You might want the word "hit." You have 1354
throw, catch, shoot, kick. I think hit is for lacrosse, anything with a stick. That also 1355
relates to badminton; although, you don't do that outside as much as lacrosse. That's just 1356
an idea. I really wanted to comment on now the Columns E, H and I on the spreadsheet. 1357
I actually think this relates to a question that Chair Reckdahl was bringing up with the 1358 community gardens. I think community gardens is a good example. You said maybe we 1359 are overbooked, so Column E would come up as over. You could also have a situation 1360 where something is not overbooked, but you have H as an expressed need. An example 1361
with community gardens is very illustrative, because you can have all these people who 1362
live midtown south who aren't anywhere near a community garden; therefore, they 1363
haven't even bothered to put their name on a list. I think those columns are very 1364
important. In fact, I'd even say you might want to push E over near H and I. Those are 1365
very independent kinds of things, and they're all equally important. I like that you're 1366
doing it that way. When you're doing projections of need, like community garden you 1367
brought that up with the elderly. It's a different kind of data-driven need. Our other 1368
Commissioners were all very interested in you tying this into your data. You're going to 1369
have to have some kind of data projected trends. It's going to help parse apart where the 1370
data is coming from. Right now you might rate something as a very high need based on 1371
projections of the aging population. I just hope there's a way you can cite that. It'll make 1372
the argument stronger if you can do that. It comes up to this idea of is it just nine people 1373
out there asking for community gardens. That's one component. You can give a number 1374
and say within your outreach how many people did you encounter. What would 1375
Draft Minutes 33
Approved
strengthen something like that is in your projection. All those things have to fit together. 1376
When you can do it, it would be very helpful. 1377
1378
Chair Reckdahl: We hit the one hour, so if you can keep it crisp. 1379
1380
Commissioner Crommie: Okay. I just want to make sure I brought up everything. I 1381 think I hit the major points. Can we email you if we think of other things? Okay. 1382
1383
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Ashlund. 1384
1385
Commissioner Ashlund: There were three more specific things. My high level question 1386
is, the binders contain a lot of the communication that we've received and commented on 1387
and discussed already as a Commission, how do you want us to use that binder? Other 1388
than when we're looking at the matrix, if we have questions or we think things are not 1389
reflected as they should be, we would refer back to it. But how, other than that, do you 1390
want us to use that? 1391
1392
Ms. Fiore: What you described is one of the major uses. It's also a historical record. I 1393
know you weren't here last month, but there were some questions about "Oh, yeah, we 1394
received that demographic analysis a couple of months ago, but it would be great if we 1395
could look at it now that we're talking about needs." We wanted you to just have 1396
everything at your fingertips. 1397
1398
Commissioner Ashlund: Great, thank you. I thought that this was going to be our major 1399
topic of the March 20th retreat, so I'm glad that you said you think this will be a whole 1400 separate retreat that we would have to discuss the Master Plan. 1401 1402 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, it could be the March 20th retreat. Depending on how far we get 1403
this evening and if we can populate this matrix by then, we might choose to do that on 1404
March 20th. I've been discussing this with Chair Reckdahl, which one should come first. 1405
He definitely would like to have a retreat where we talk about the year generally and all 1406
the other areas of work that we have. Given that the Master Plan is the most important 1407
project of the year, if we're ready to have a deeper discussion on that, I have an interest in 1408
moving forward on it and working on that on the 20th. 1409
1410
Commissioner Ashlund: You just mentioned that we as a Commission would discuss and 1411
populate the matrix together. I was under the impression ... 1412
1413
Mr. de Geus: No. 1414
1415
Commissioner Ashlund: ... that MIG would. 1416
1417
Draft Minutes 34
Approved
Mr. de Geus: MIG would, but we would discuss their findings and how they populated it 1418
and what conclusions they came to. 1419
1420
Commissioner Ashlund: All right. The three things on page 4 of the narrative that are 1421
the elements, the Parks, Trails and Open Space elements. You talked about that some 1422
points cut across categories, restrooms for example. I would encourage you to add 1423 accessibility as a separate bullet point in that list. Walkability is number 1 which is great 1424
for the mobile, but not necessarily great for the blind and visually impaired or mobility 1425
impaired. I would include that particularly because walkability is not necessarily the 1426
point of access that many people can use. Sometimes parking is essential for people that 1427
won't be walking there or public transportation as well. That is the page 4 comment. 1428
Page 5, under the elements for recreation programs, I see that the bullet says 1429
"intervention/special needs." I'm not clear on the use of the word intervention in that use. 1430
I'm very familiar with this area, so I'm wondering did you mean early intervention, 1431
therapeutic intervention? Did you mean inclusion or is there some other use of that? 1432
1433
Mr. de Geus: That really refers to some of our at-risk youth programs. 1434
1435
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm sorry? 1436
1437
Mr. de Geus: It refers to our at-risk youth programs. 1438
1439
Commissioner Ashlund: Oh, okay, great. Thank you. That definitely helps clarify that 1440
for me. When special needs is listed as part of that or even as a separate bullet, I just 1441
want to make sure we're capturing both special needs programs as well as support for 1442 inclusion programs. 1443 1444 Mr. de Geus: Within that particular cost center and the way the budget is structured 1445
within the city, there's three areas within intervention and special needs and that is senior 1446
programs, therapeutic recreation programs and at-risk youth programs. 1447
1448
Commissioner Ashlund: That's budget-wise as separate specialized programs for special 1449
needs. How does one get further budget support for inclusion in the broad programming 1450
sense? 1451
1452
Mr. de Geus: I think to get budget support we could potentially look at this Master Plan 1453
when it's populated, particularly if there is a need that's been identified across different 1454
platforms related to this line item around access or special needs, in one of those 1455
categories. We could use that as a tool, and I think the Council will be looking at it as 1456
well for where to invest more versus less. 1457
1458
Draft Minutes 35
Approved
Commissioner Ashlund: Okay, great. My last quick question on page 6 was actually 1459
related to the sea level rise question. When I was reading this, I also had the same 1460
thought. Are we automatically going to be excluding something like the Baylands? I 1461
want to be careful just because something is adjacent to the Bay that it doesn't 1462
automatically get excluded as a high priority for major investment if it's of value to the 1463
Palo Alto community and could have 20, 30 years of use. 1464 1465
Ms. Fiore: Yeah, absolutely. What we're trying to convey here, what the high, medium 1466
and low refers to is the city's level of control over that site, what level of control does the 1467
city have over the 50-year time span. Sea level rise being an impact we can expect to 1468
occur in that timeframe. It's not saying if sea level rise is going to impact that site, it 1469
becomes a low priority. It factors into the level of control the city has over the site. Does 1470
that make sense? The high, medium, low here is not the priority assignment. It's high 1471
level of control, medium level of control or low level of control. One of those factors 1472
that factors into that rating is sea level rise. The others are ownership and management. 1473
1474
Commissioner Ashlund: I understand the ownership. That's a lot more clear of course. 1475
What time span are we looking at when we say a 50-year sea level rise might be much 1476
more significant than what's happening in 20 years? 1477
1478
Ms. Schmitt: This is supposed to be a 20-year plan. Sea level rise is an issue that's come 1479
up. One of the things it's made clear, you guys want to be able to make rich decisions, so 1480
we decided to include sea level rise in addition with ownership because you should just 1481
be aware when later on you're going on and you're weighing, like you said, investments at 1482
one site versus another, you may make a strategic decision that investing in a site with 1483 sea level rise is the right thing to do because of the need or because of the timeframe of 1484 the improvement. You should know going into it that that's an impact. The same thing if 1485 you were to invest in a site that you didn't have long-term control of the property, if you 1486
didn't own it or have a long-term lease. 1487
1488
Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you. That's all my questions. 1489
1490
Chair Reckdahl: Council Member Filseth. 1491
1492
Council Member Filseth: If I can ask a gear head question here. On one of the early 1493
slides, there was a line that said the Master Plan called for 3 acres of park space per 1,000 1494
residents. 1495
1496
Ms. Schmitt: No, that was just to be an example of a standard. The Master Plan is not 1497
calling for anything. We have to do the needs assessment and make that determination 1498
about the right level for Palo Alto. There are for setting Quimby Act fees. There's a 1499
Draft Minutes 36
Approved
minimum and a maximum threshold that the State says, and 3 acres is the minimum. 1500
That's why I just pulled that number as an example of a numerical standard. 1501
1502
Council Member Filseth: There's a State guideline? 1503
1504
Ms. Schmitt: For setting Quimby fees. 1505 1506
Council Member Filseth: Quimby fees, okay. All right. Thanks very much. 1507
1508
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Markevitch. 1509
1510
Vice Chair Markevitch: I had a question regarding the collection of data. You're using 1511
census and you're also using school district numbers with regards to children, but we also 1512
have a fair amount of private schools in Palo Alto that the kids might not necessarily live 1513
in Palo Alto but they're here during the day and they may be using park facilities. Has 1514
that been taken into account, and homeschooling kids as well? 1515
1516
Ms. Fiore: I don't believe it's explicitly been taken into account, but we have identified 1517
youth outreach as a focus area we want to do more of, in part because we didn't capture a 1518
lot of middle high school students in our survey. We're working with Rob and his staff to 1519
identify who the best contacts into that population are. We're going to do a focus group 1520
style event. That's a great point that we should consider those populations. 1521
1522
Chair Reckdahl: To answer Rob's question, I do think this spreadsheet is a good start. 1523
I'm worried about the high, medium and low. That's just too coarse to make any 1524 actionable decisions. We're on the road, but I want to see more quantitative analysis. 1525 Give me numbers. Thank you. 1526 1527
4. Discussion of Temporary Batting Cages at the Former PASCO Site Next to 1528 the Baylands Athletic Center. 1529 1530
Chair Reckdahl: We have two speakers. Shani Kleinhaus is first. Shani, are you going 1531
to speak? 1532
1533
Shani Kleinhaus: (inaudible) 1534
1535
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Then we'll move on to Craig Yanagisawa, sorry. 1536
1537
Craig Yanagisawa: Yanagisawa. Thank you. I'm a board member of Palo Alto Little 1538
League. We're supporting the construction of the cages at the Baylands, as currently Palo 1539
Alto Little League is the sole supplier of batting cages in Palo Alto, and we service over 1540
1,000 kids with our facility which includes only four cages. Our league consists of kids 1541
Draft Minutes 37
Approved
up to 12 years old. Beyond 12 years old and up to high school, there is no current facility 1542
for batting cages. Palo Alto Little League is not connected to Palo Alto Babe Ruth. We 1543
serve different ages. The two high schools, which have batting cages, are only dedicated 1544
to their sports teams. We're just supporting Palo Alto Babe Ruth in construction of new 1545
cages. Thank you. 1546
1547 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Daren Anderson, Parks and Rec, is up now. 1548
1549
Daren Anderson: Good evening. I'm Daren Anderson. I'm with Open Space, Parks and 1550
Golf. With me tonight is Park Supervisor Miguel Chacon and Chris Lillios who's a board 1551
member with Palo Alto Babe Ruth little league. We're here tonight to get the 1552
Commission's feedback about this project and how we can improve it. Let me start by 1553
giving you the background on this site, and it being proposed as the location for this pilot 1554
batting cage project. The city entered into a lease with Palo Alto Sanitation Company in 1555
1958 for garbage collection, and we leased them this land on this site. That entire area in 1556
the blue and the green was leased to PASCO, as they're called. One acre of that land 1557
became parkland, and that's the little triangle in blue. Miguel can highlight that for you 1558
with the mouse, so you can make that out. Eventually the city moved onto a new 1559
provider. Instead of PASCO, they went with GreenWaste, and GreenWaste didn't need 1560
that piece of land. It became unused; it was just a paved parking lot that PASCO had 1561
used for parking vehicles and some storage. Eventually Public Works removed the 1562
asphalt, and it's just a base rock. A little triangle about 1 acre in size. The city at that 1563
time, around 2009-2010, explored options to see if we could fit soccer fields or some sort 1564
of playing field on there. Because of the size and the configuration, we could not fit any 1565
fields on that. It's a challenging site because you've got an existing PG&E power pole 1566 right in the middle of the wide section. You've got about five or six utility gas 1567 infrastructure boxes that are at grade or above grade. Then you've got a PG&E gas and 1568 power line easement that I'll get into a little bit more detail about, that prohibits any 1569
structures on that facility. I want to show you what the site looks like right now. This is 1570
one of the angles looking towards that power pole in the center. Again, this is the base 1571
rock. A little closer view on that power pole. Again, all developed, there's a few pieces 1572
of weeds, weed patches here or there, but not much vegetation; no trees. Again you can 1573
see the fence line existing that separates GreenWaste's facility from the rest of this former 1574
PASCO site. There's an example of one of those little utilities that's covered with an A-1575
frame barricade that's above ground. I mentioned the PG&E easements. This slide here 1576
is not in your packet, but I'd like you to look up just for a second to the screen. You can 1577
see about a 95-foot buffer between these two easements. There's three easements 1578
actually. There's two power pole easements and a gas line easement. The two yellow 1579
lines on this sheet show you where those power lines run through the property. The gas 1580
line runs right between them. The red lines show that boundary where you cannot build a 1581
structure. That definitely makes it a challenge, definitely limits what's possible. We took 1582
the plans that you see in the packet tonight to PG&E, and met with them a number of 1583
Draft Minutes 38
Approved
times to see if we could adjust our plans, and we did. They indeed approved the plans 1584
that are in your packet. In May 2014 Babe Ruth baseball league approached staff with 1585
this concept of building batting cages and funding them completely at the Baylands 1586
Athletic Center. In light of the Master Plan which is underway and again scheduled to be 1587
completed in November 2015, Babe Ruth proposed doing a pilot program for this batting 1588
cage project. Under the pilot program, there'd be two batting cages placed on this former 1589 PASCO site. They'd be situated outside the PG&E easements and would be designed and 1590
constructed to be temporary. They could be moved or eliminated when and if the Master 1591
Plan or golf course reconfiguration planning determines a better use for that site. The 1592
other aspects to the project include converting one parking stall. To the upper left—1593
you've got it in your packet too—you can see a blue area that indicates a normal parking 1594
stall would need to be converted to a handicapped stall and then a small pathway that will 1595
connect to the existing one. It's comprised of base rock; we just need to clean it up. It 1596
would connect to an existing gate to that parcel. No new infrastructure would need to be 1597
added. It's just cleaning up that site. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Chris, and he 1598
can give us a little bit of detail on why there's a need for batting cages at this site. 1599
1600
Chris Lillios: Yes, I see three main driving forces toward this batting cage project. One 1601
is utilization of the Baylands baseball field. A quarter to maybe a third of any baseball 1602
practice is spent doing batting. I've seen countless number of teams spending time on 1603
this beautiful large diamond, one coach hitting a ball to 12-15 kids one at a time. It's a 1604
very inefficient process, and it's a very poor use of a beautiful field which is primarily 1605
used for games, base running, fielding practice. The batting portion of any practice is far 1606
better executed in a batting cage where you can get far more repetitions at hitting the ball. 1607
The retrieval time is minimized, and it would offload the use of the main baseball field 1608 for better use of it. In other words, having full on scrimmages and so forth, and not using 1609 up a whole field just for one person hitting a ball to a number of players on the field. In 1610 addition, having the cages would extend the use of that area, because the field is closed 1611
for four months out of the year, November, December, January, February when no 1612
baseball activities could happen, or softball at all. Having a batting cage facility would 1613
extend the utility of that area by allowing year-round training opportunities for not only 1614
Babe Ruth but, as Craig had mentioned, Little League and Palo Alto Girls Softball. The 1615
Oaks also play there. American Legion plays there, and countless numbers of moms and 1616
dads with their kids are out there just wanting to hit the ball. We'd love to have batting 1617
cages. Currently people go to facilities that they have to pay for to get this kind of 1618
batting in. There's a big business around batting cages, and I'd like to have an 1619
opportunity for these 12-year-old kids and above to do batting, not using Palo Alto Little 1620
League's facilities which are already oversubscribed with not only the kids in their 1621
program, but also older kids like high school-age and middle school-age kids which I 1622
think would be better served in a facility that we're proposing here at Baylands. 1623
1624
Draft Minutes 39
Approved
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chris. I should also point out that in 2004, City Council 1625
approved a park improvement ordinance to add a batting cage at the Baylands Athletic 1626
Center. It's unclear exactly why that didn't end up happening. It was part of a CIP where 1627
they carried out some improvements. That was slated to be one, but for some reason it 1628
wasn't included. In that staff report associated with that park improvement ordinance, it 1629
was noted that most baseball and softball facilities of the same size and caliber as the 1630 Baylands Athletic Center do have batting cages. It demonstrates that this need has 1631
existed for a long time. It was once approved by Council and, for some reason, it didn't 1632
happen. I want to highlight some of the advantages that I see regarding this project. One 1633
is it's fully funded by Babe Ruth. The second is that it could provide some useful 1634
information to the Master Plan. Batting cages is one of the things that was originally 1635
thrown out by staff as something to look at when they started the Master Plan process. 1636
This could provide a lot of information of is it really useful, is it heavily used. If we were 1637
to put in a pilot program, is this the right site? Guidance on the preferred design in terms 1638
of durability and security, what it would need to make this successful. There's some up-1639
sides in terms of the fit for Palo Alto especially in this area. Another advantage is once 1640
it's established and up and running, as Chris had pointed out, it would become part of the 1641
Baylands Athletic Center facility. That would benefit other groups; little league, softball, 1642
private teams, and camps. Another part is this is an undesirable spot to invest money in 1643
before we've got a finished Master Plan or before we've made decisions on what's going 1644
to happen to the golf course reconfiguration. This is not a place we'd probably want to 1645
invest money just now. When we have an opportunity to have an outside group fund it 1646
with the understanding that it's temporary and will pend the results of a Master Plan that's 1647
coming, it's definitely something that could be advantageous to the city. Lastly, this is a 1648
flexible project. It's designed to be temporary, so it can be moved. There's no foundation 1649 set into there. You don't have to dig into the ground at all. We can eliminate the cages 1650 when that Master Plan or golf course reconfiguration planning determines that there is a 1651 better use for that site. This is a highlight on the accessibility page where you can see 1652
that parking lot path that would lead into the parcel. These are some cage types. I 1653
mentioned in the staff report they're still deliberating on two different types. We've got 1654
the open frame and then the enclosed. We just need some more time to analyze both the 1655
investment and the benefits of those two options. Again, synthetic turf would be 1656
underneath the facility. If this project is successful—I'm defining successful as well 1657
used, a safe facility, vandalism is kept to a minimum, and access is equally distributed. If 1658
we have those things, the pilot would continue until the Master Plan is complete and we 1659
have an identified use from the Master Plan for this site. If the Master Plan were to 1660
recommend this location for batting cages and there's the demonstrated need, staff would 1661
return to the Commission to discuss the option of a Phase 2 for this project. The Phase 2 1662
could include two additional batting cages, a warm-up area, a walkway and a storage 1663
shed. I believe it's in your packet, but there's a visual demonstration of what that Phase 2 1664
would look like. Again, that would pend completion of the Master Plan. This final slide 1665
again illustrates what we're talking about, which is just the two batting cages and the 1666
Draft Minutes 40
Approved
accessible parking lot conversion. That concludes the staff presentation. We welcome 1667
your questions and comments. 1668
1669
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Knopper: 1670
1671
Commissioner Knopper: I think it's great. In my opinion, there's absolutely no reason 1672 not to do it. I literally did a double take when I saw October 2004. I'm like, "Wow, that's 1673
11 years. That's a long time to wait for a batting cage." I would put it up tomorrow if I 1674
could. 1675
1676
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 1677
1678
Commissioner Crommie: Hi there. Thank you for your presentation. I know batting 1679
cages are really important. It seems like it does increase the efficiency of practice, 1680
especially during the youth practice sessions. Are they used during the games or just 1681
during the practices? 1682
1683
Mr. Lillios: If there's a game going on and there's another pair of teams coming before 1684
their game, they will use the batting cages to warm up and do some practice swings. Yes, 1685
it will be utilized to help prepare the teams that are coming on for a subsequent game. 1686
1687
Commissioner Crommie: As we stand now, all the other locations where baseball is 1688
done, are there batting cages and are they at the schools as well? 1689
1690
Mr. Lillios: The cages that I'm aware of, there are four cages at Little League. They're 1691 highly utilized. They are on Palo Alto Little League private land, so they have been kind 1692 enough to let the public meander in and out. Other than that, there's a couple of cages at 1693 Cubberley that Palo Alto Girls Softball has. They're small and not well known and, I 1694
think, under lock and key, so there's not much access there. Of course, all of the high 1695
schools will have two to four cages minimum, but again those are under lock and key by 1696
the high schools. Other than that in the City of Palo Alto, I have no knowledge of any 1697
other batting cages open to the public. 1698
1699
Commissioner Crommie: Babe Ruth is a private club kind of baseball. It's a try-out 1700
system to get into Babe Ruth, right? It's a high level activity. I'm little bit confused if 1701
this is only for Babe Ruth players or if other people who are playing recreationally can 1702
use it. 1703
1704
Mr. Lillios: This project is being spearheaded by Babe Ruth because we have a strong 1705
desire to have a baseball facility, not just for ourselves. Our charter is to serve the 1706
baseball playing youth, whether they're Babe Ruth or Little League or not in any league. 1707
They could be recreational softball players. They just want to go out there and take some 1708
Draft Minutes 41
Approved
hacks. The Malibu Fun Center used to be the place where you could go and take some 1709
hacks. There just aren't places like that, where people can just take some swings. 1710
Although, we're spearheading it and we have obviously a vested interest because we have 1711
pretty high utilization of that Baylands field. There are plenty of other organizations. 1712
Like I said, there's the Oaks, there's summer camps throughout the summer that could use 1713
something like this. There's private organizations. Most of these are very Palo Alto 1714 centric amazingly. There's more beyond Palo Alto, but I think this could serve a large 1715
fraction of Palo Alto need as I see it. 1716
1717
Commissioner Crommie: That's good. It seems like an acre is an awful lot of space for 1718
batting cages. I know they are used on much smaller footprints, probably in all the 1719
locations where they're used. I know this is only temporary, but I really believe in having 1720
batting cages there. I would support having batting cages, but the rub for me is there is 1721
an acre of land there. I just want to make sure that we envision the use of that acre 1722
openly and fully without presuming this Phase 2 process. I really am sympathetic to the 1723
need for the batting cages, and it has been put off for way too long. We're going to be 1724
done with our Master Plan in about a year's time, so the timing's a little bit odd right now. 1725
You've waited already 11 years, and now we're about to come to this huge final product 1726
of the Master Plan. I hate to say it, but do you think we should wait one more year? Can 1727
you just give me a little bit more of an argument for why now? 1728
1729
Mr. Anderson: My assessment is there are advantages to doing it now. You're right 1730
there's a lot of things up in the air as to what the best use of that's going to be. You're 1731
absolutely right that the Master Plan is the document to give us those answers, and it 1732
won't come until November. I also know that implementing that Master Plan will not be 1733 overnight. It's a very long-term process. They're going to identify priorities that are 1734 really unknown at this point. I'll give you a good example. Scott Park was one example 1735 where we had a CIP, and it took two years to implement a very simple CIP at Scott Park. 1736
My point there is only to say that when you have a plan that covers the entire city, to wait 1737
on something like this for fear that maybe there will be something come November 1st 1738
that should go right there is really unlikely. If you couple that with the benefit of this 1739
being so mobile, so flexible. It can be pulled out really in about a day and a half, I'm 1740
imaging since there's no foundation work. It's disassembling some pipes. I think the 1741
down side is very, very small for the city. I've had a really frank conversation with Babe 1742
Ruth to say there are going to be serious implications if we add 10 acres of recreation 1743
where the golf course is giving up that section, which would theoretically add who knows 1744
what. There's lots of different options. There may be need for that 1 acre. I don't know 1745
exactly how that will shake out. They understand that going into that, and they feel it's a 1746
worthwhile investment. Again, the things I highlighted, the benefits of what you can 1747
learn in that interim period will be valuable for us as we say, "Okay, if we don't have a 1748
batting cage accessible to anybody in Palo Alto except for these private groups where 1749
they're under lock and key and we do need one, which may come out in the Master Plan, 1750
Draft Minutes 42
Approved
may not, then where are we going to put it and what should it be like?" This is our 1751
opportunity to get a free learning lesson on what those answers are. 1752
1753
Commissioner Crommie: That makes a lot of sense to me. To summarize, I support 1754
batting cages. I think it's needed for safety and efficiency for the sport. They're located 1755
in all other sites, and they need it here as well. I'm concerned about using the full acre for 1756 this whole complex program without vetting it a lot more thoroughly. I think the 1757
footprint of the batting cages is pretty small. Lastly, I always get a little bit concerned 1758
when I hear that things are under lock and key at the schools and why we don't have 1759
better relationships with figuring out how to have more of a shared use. I don't know that 1760
much about how the baseball works. Club soccer does sometimes get use of schools. In 1761
fact, schools seem to make money off of it sometimes. I just wish we could understand 1762
that better on our Commission. It's been a long-term concern of mine. 1763
1764
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 1765
1766
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it's a great idea to have batting cages that can support the 1767
baseball field and softball field at Baylands Athletic Center. I'm a little uneasy about this 1768
particularly because it almost feels like that acres is like the 7 acres at Foothill Park that 1769
we've never talked about before. We've never talked about any other use for it before. 1770
As far as I can tell, there's been no public outreach on this pilot proposal. I understand 1771
that it's temporary. I generally like the idea of pilots. I think that's a great way to go; 1772
however, just as we've talked about with the dog park pilot, often once you start a pilot 1773
it's hard to end it. I'm glad that it's temporary. I do think it makes sense, before 1774
promoting a PIO, to have at least one public outreach meeting to talk about the location 1775 and whether this is an appropriate location. It seems to be a different location than the 1776 2004 PIO. I don't know why there was a change and whose preference changed to make 1777 that location different. As Commissioner Crommie suggested, it's an acre of contiguous 1778
property and if you throw us a batting cage, though it's small, that precludes any other use 1779
of that space for other functions. I have no idea if there are other functions that would be 1780
beneficial there, never having thought about it before I saw this agenda item. If it were to 1781
move onto Phase 2, the other problem with building the batting cages in order to 1782
determine whether there is demonstrated need, that seemed a little strange to me. It 1783
sounds like you're saying you have a need, Babe Ruth has a need, Little League seems to 1784
have a need. I'm not sure what more we're going to learn from a pilot about that need, 1785
except that maybe if you build it, they will come and we'll have more and more people 1786
wanting to use it who maybe didn't before or maybe aren't from Palo Alto-based groups. 1787
That's something that can affect policy deliberations along the way. I have one more 1788
point. The Phase 2, adding a whole nother acre to the baseball/softball complex at 1789
Baylands Athletic Center seems to me an awful lot of space for a single dedicated use. 1790
We don't have any other use like that across the city where we have that much acreage 1791
dedicated to just one use. Even our synthetic turf fields are used for soccer, football, 1792
Draft Minutes 43
Approved
lacrosse. That's not to say we shouldn't have it, but I think it's something that we should 1793
be thinking about. I think public discussion is a worthwhile pursuit. 1794
1795
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Lauing. 1796
1797
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, thanks. As most of my colleagues know, I was on the Babe 1798 Ruth board for five years before I came here. The batting cages were on the docket then. 1799
It's probably in the minutes somewhere of the meetings, but it's my recollection that it 1800
became very cost prohibitive when Babe Ruth looked at it because we got a lot of 1801
feedback from the city on the flood plains that we're still getting feedback from a lot of 1802
people on. It might not have been only the city, because of the kind of commentary that's 1803
coming back on the golf course. Which is why it became too cost prohibitive to do—I 1804
don't know if you had to have them 6 feet high or whatever it was—but that was the 1805
reason for that. There's no question there's a demonstrated need. To your point, I don't 1806
think we even need a pilot because there just aren't any. A lot of times Babe Ruth teams 1807
would go over to the Little League fields or, if they could get space on the weekends at 1808
the high school particularly Paly, they would go over there before games to warm-up in 1809
the batting cages. It's completely inconvenient. It's too bad that this isn't getting in in 1810
time for this season, but maybe it'll make the tournaments. Just a couple of questions. 1811
As this thing was getting back up, was there any debate about should we go back to first-1812
base line or is it just because this land was available here? As you look at Phase 2, if that 1813
were to happen notwithstanding comments of my colleague, the easements seem to be 1814
right smack in the middle of that so I don't know how you're going to be able to do that 1815
anyway. 1816
1817 Mr. Anderson: The first question you asked of why not the first place that was identified 1818 in 2004. It pertains to the JPA project where that levee adjacent to the batting cage in 1819 that diagram will be pushed up very, very close to that area, pinching it off so much so 1820
that the walkway is almost compromised. It's very tight there in the plans. It seemed to 1821
make sense to look at another option. That's why. 1822
1823
Commissioner Lauing: That's my guess. 1824
1825
Mr. Anderson: Your second question, could you repeat that one more time, the Phase 2? 1826
1827
Commissioner Lauing: If you were to look at Phase 2, how can you because it looks like 1828
it's right in the middle of the easements? 1829
1830
Mr. Anderson: We met with PG&E, showed them Phase 1 and Phase 2 to say, "Would 1831
you have a problem with this?" I guess it's predominantly because it's not anchored in the 1832
ground, it could be moved and would not interfere with their direct access to those things. 1833
They gave us the okay, and I have it in writing. 1834
Draft Minutes 44
Approved
1835
Commissioner Lauing: Okay. To your question, Commissioner Crommie, the answer 1836
why you can't use the high schools is because the high school coaches are czars. They're 1837
totally in charge, and there's one key and that person has it. You can call it cultural, but 1838
they do use it an awful lot. Thanks. Very good presentation and preparation. 1839
1840 Commissioner Hetterly: I have one more quick question. 1841
1842
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 1843
1844
Commissioner Hetterly: Do you anticipate when you're using the batting cage that it will 1845
be the same folks who are using the field at the same time as part of your practice or 1846
would you expect that you would have an increase in usership because you may have 1847
teams practicing on the field and other folks using the batting cages simultaneously? 1848
Would you anticipate that being an issue for parking? 1849
1850
Mr. Lillios: Yes, when word gets out that there's a batting cage, there will be 1851
independent groups going just for batting practice. The teams that I've been involved 1852
with, we have two or three practices a week, and one of them is dedicated to just batting 1853
alone. We will either go to the cage facility up in Belmont, or there's other facilities you 1854
can rent out for a pretty penny. I can see this would be a perfect place for those kind of 1855
activities to happen. Generally people drop off their kids and take off. They don't sit 1856
around to watch batting practice, because it's not much of a spectator sport for the 1857
parents. There will be a little bit, but I don't expect it to be substantial. 1858
1859 Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. 1860 1861 Commissioner Crommie: It just occurred to me as far as environmental impact, is it 1862
going to disturb birds in the area if there's just a constant popping of the bat against the 1863
ball? Have you talked to any groups about that, environmental groups, about impact? 1864
1865
Mr. Anderson: We have not. I think the use would be in keeping with the baseball that's 1866
happening there. It would be programmed by the same gentleman, Adam Howard from 1867
Recreation, who programs the field use. We have control over it, so it's not as if it would 1868
be 24/7. It's not open where you can check in at midnight and start swatting. It's unlit, so 1869
we don't have to worry about light impacts. Our belief is it's going to be in keeping with 1870
the use there and not a dramatic change. It's also in an area where there's no vegetation. 1871
We can certainly do more exploring to see if there are any concerns about that, but it's not 1872
one staff has right now. 1873
1874
Commissioner Crommie: Okay. Normally we vet with different stakeholders when we 1875
set up a new recreational facility. I was looking at it simplistically that it's the same kids 1876
Draft Minutes 45
Approved
that are there that then just use the batting practice. When you start to talk about a 1877
regional draw, I actually do get quite concerned about the density of use. I don't know 1878
what to do about that. I don't know if we're making it known that we're concerned about 1879
that. Can you give us some kind of follow-up and let us know how that's going? 1880
1881
Mr. Anderson: Yes, in advance of that, at the next time we bring this back to you. Again 1882 it'll be in keeping with how we manage the existing fields. That baseball field at the 1883
Athletic Center is not just "come help yourself," "come play as many league games as 1884
you want," "come in from all the surrounding communities." It's all brokered and 1885
managed by our recreation team. We don't suffer that problem with the fields, and I don't 1886
anticipate suffering that same problem with the batting cages because it'll be managed the 1887
same way. 1888
1889
Commissioner Crommie: Okay. I'm very familiar with our field use for soccer, but I’m 1890
really not that familiar with looking at that policy for that facility. Maybe one day you 1891
can educate us on that. 1892
1893
Mr. Anderson: I'd be glad to bring a draft policy for the batting cages that's proposed. 1894
We've already got a draft going. It needs to be vetted a little more fully. We'll be glad to 1895
bring that back when we bring this issue to you again. 1896
1897
Chair Reckdahl: Like Ed, my son plays Babe Ruth, so we've spent many hours in a 1898
batting cage. Never down in the Baylands, but before games we'll go over to the Little 1899
League field and throw batting practice there and then drive over to the Baylands. It'll be 1900
nice to have that in one location, to be able to do batting practice before the games right 1901 at the place where the game is. On the far left of the picture, of the blue triangle, there 1902 right now is a fence. If we open that fence up, we would be connected over to the skin 1903 field that has Little League and also has Girls Softball. I would like to see that 1904
considered. Just say, "Can we put a gate in there?" Have the same lock on the gate as we 1905
have on the other gate, so that if 5070 plays their little league down there or the girls 1906
softball want to use that, they can access that directly instead of having to go all the way 1907
around. Certainly it's not that far to walk around, but it would be a much shorter shot to 1908
go through that little gate right at the far left. I would like to see that considered. After 1909
the golf course is reconfigured, knock on wood, there's a lot of decisions to be made. 1910
One question is the GreenWaste lease. Do you know the duration of that? Is that area 1911
going to be open for reconfiguration also or are we going to have to move around that? 1912
1913
Mr. Anderson: I don't have the answer to that, but I'd be glad to research it. 1914
1915
Chair Reckdahl: That I find irrelevant right now. This lot is going to be sitting empty for 1916
the next two or three years, because we're not going to put anything permanent on there 1917
while the golf course is being reconfigured. Either we can have a temporary batting cage 1918
Draft Minutes 46
Approved
on there for the next two or three years or we have it sit empty for the next two or three 1919
years. I view this as a no-risk proposition. That is it. Any other questions? Do you 1920
know the path forward now or do you still have to do some work in figuring out what you 1921
want to do? 1922
1923
Mr. Anderson: An option for moving forward, I'd like to think about it and perhaps 1924 consult with my director. An option is hold a public meeting, come back with a PIO 1925
based on feedback we've gotten and with a design and see if the Commission approves 1926
and then go to Council afterward. 1927
1928
Chair Reckdahl: Typically if you were to schedule a public meeting, how much lead time 1929
do you want to have for that? Is that a couple of weeks? 1930
1931
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, 2 1/2. 1932
1933
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Thank you. 1934
1935
5. Information Report on the Organics Facilities Plan and Use of the Measure E 1936
Site. 1937
1938
Chair Reckdahl: We do have one public speaker. Emily Renzel is going to be talking 1939
about the Measure E site. 1940
1941
Emily Renzel: At the risk of keeping poor Matt Krupp here for another 3 minutes. The 1942
Measure E has been studied quite a lot. I think with the last request for proposal that 1943 went out, staff had pretty much decided that much of the 10-acre site would not be 1944 excavated and used for composting, just the 3.8 acres of the 10 acres. There are basically 1945 two portions of the 10-acre site with greater and lesser likelihood of being used in the 1946
next six years or so, seven years, before 2021. I just want to be sure that you're planning 1947
for the Byxbee Hills Park, not working around that 10 acres in illogical ways. In other 1948
words, not necessarily putting anything on it, but looking at your trail systems and 1949
everything else to make them logical in the event that we can rededicate this land. The 1950
Measure E prevents the Council from rededicating the land, but Council could at some 1951
point, once it's determined that the site would not be used, put it to the voters sooner. 1952
That's always a possibility. I'm not advocating that at this point. I'm just suggesting that 1953
in your planning, you should look at the whole site, at least the part that doesn't include 1954
the flatter 3.8 acres, and do your best to have a forward idea of what will happen there. I 1955
just can't resist commenting that I think use of the 1-acre triangle for batting cages is 1956
great. It's reclaiming this parkland that's been parkland since 1965. It was allowed to be 1957
used by the garbage company, and they were supposed to restore it to baseball field when 1958
it was done. PASCO sold to Waste Management and then we went to GreenWaste, so it 1959
never happened. The triangle has been parkland since 1965. The GreenWaste acre was 1960
Draft Minutes 47
Approved
exempted from the park dedication. Whoever asked the question about use of it, it 1961
wouldn't necessarily not be available for park should it be decided at some point. It is not 1962
currently park dedicated. Thank you. 1963
1964
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Matthew Krupp, you're talking about the Measure E area. 1965
Thank you. 1966 1967
Matthew Krupp: Hi, good evening, Commissioners. Matthew Krupp with Public Works 1968
Zero Waste. I'm Environmental Programs Manager for the Zero Waste Group. If you 1969
have any questions about recycling or composting later, I'll be happy to answer those as 1970
well. The reason I'm here today is to talk to you about the Measure E parcel and the 1971
RFPs, the process that came out of that. I was the project manager on both the Energy 1972
Compost Facility request for proposal and the subsequent Compost Facility request for 1973
proposal. I don't know if I can go off script, but I actually can answer a question that 1974
came from the last presentation from Commissioner Reckdahl about that parcel that 1975
GreenWaste uses right now. The GreenWaste and Palo Alto contract currently goes until 1976
2017. Staff is going to present to the Finance Committee just next week a proposal to 1977
extend the contract to 2021. Part of that contract extension is also looking at an 1978
opportunity for GreenWaste to locate its short-term corporation yard, which is what they 1979
use that facility as, in a location outside of Palo Alto. We currently require them to have 1980
a facility within Palo Alto, but a new contract amendment would allow them to have a 1981
facility outside of Palo Alto. Of course we have to look at the needs of servicing our 1982
refuse customers, the garbage and getting all the different carts out there. Again, that's 1983
something that we're looking at the opportunity to change should the use be desired to be 1984
changed by you guys and the Council. I wanted to address that question while I was 1985 here. Daren didn't have to come back and ask me later. 1986 1987 Chair Reckdahl: The purpose of having that site, is that for drop off? 1988
1989
Mr. Krupp: That site is the office for the local staff. We have the managers and the route 1990
supervisors who are located over there. Also our outreach staff is located there as well. 1991
We also have carts and bins for our residential and commercial customers that are located 1992
there, so we can provide very fast service. Let's say one of you called up and said, "Hey, 1993
my garbage cart is broken" or something like that. We can get it out to you a lot of times 1994
the same day if not the next day, which is a service that many other garbage companies 1995
can't provide. We are able to provide very speedy service. The larger GreenWaste 1996
corporation yard, where all the trucks are located, is actually in Santa Clara off of 1997
Lafayette Street. We can't get there quite as quickly ... 1998
1999
Chair Reckdahl: If we do not require them to have that local, would they want that 1 acre 2000
still? 2001
2002
Draft Minutes 48
Approved
Mr. Krupp: That's something that we would have to work out with GreenWaste. About 2003
two years ago there was a question about whether that site was going to be needed for 2004
other park uses. GreenWaste investigated other sites around the community and found 2005
that there were basically none that could service them within the boundary of Palo Alto. 2006
That's why we looked at providing GreenWaste the opportunity to have a site that was 2007
located outside of the boundaries of Palo Alto. 2008 2009
Chair Reckdahl: Just from the last presentation, that little triangle is very hard to use 2010
with that 1 acre blocking it. When we look at the reconfiguration, it'd give us a lot more 2011
flexibility if we could convert that into parkland, even if that means moving that to 2012
somewhere else. 2013
2014
Mr. Krupp: Sure, sure. I think that's a good question. I haven't been involved in the 2015
Master Plan that was talked about earlier today. I would imagine that that parcel would 2016
be considered as part of a Master Plan parcel. I don't want to speak on something that I 2017
don't know enough about. As Emily Renzel said, it was parkland that's being used for 2018
another use right now. 2019
2020
Chair Reckdahl: Okay, thank you. 2021
2022
Mr. Krupp: Sorry to go off script there. Let's get back onto the story of the former Palo 2023
Alto landfill and garbage and wastewater. You'll all be experts by the end of this 2024
presentation I hope. We did have a lot of people helping with this whole project, and 2025
they're listed over there. Consultants ARI, CH2M Hill, and Jim Bender Consulting. This 2026
project was—at least the first part of it—the Energy Compost Facility was a joint project 2027 that was with the Zero Waste Group and Public Works and also the Regional Water 2028 Quality Control Plant, another division within Public Works. Before I go into the 2029 specifics of Measure E and that parcel, I want to talk to you about some of the goals that 2030
staff had in order to define the best possible project. We needed to do a number of things 2031
from the wastewater perspective and from the solid waste perspective. The most 2032
important thing actually is on the wastewater side, decommissioning our sewage sludge 2033
incinerator which is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions within the 2034
city. There are only two sewage sludge incinerators that operate within the Bay area. We 2035
are one of them. It was a Council priority to decommission and turnoff that incinerator. 2036
That's one of the priorities that we are looking to do from the wastewater side. On the 2037
solid waste side, we are looking at two things. The first thing was to find a new home for 2038
a composting operation. You might remember not that long ago we composted yard 2039
trimmings, your yard trimmings, over on top of the landfill. Once the landfill was closed 2040
and needed to be closed, that operation needed to stop. We had to end that operation. It 2041
was not compatible with the use of Byxbee Park to have a composting operation on top of 2042
it. That operation closed back a few years ago. We wanted to look at a new place to put 2043
composting and compost the yard trimmings. We also wanted to identify if there was an 2044
Draft Minutes 49
Approved
opportunity to take our commercial food scraps, food that's not eaten at restaurants, and 2045
also residential food scraps and harness the energy in that material. We're trying to find 2046
all of that stuff. By doing all that, we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be 2047
able to handle all three of these wastes. Now one of the ideas that came out in the 2048
proposal in the Measure E ballot initiative, is that perhaps there's a technology that can do 2049
all these things together, can handle the biosolids, the sewage sludge, the yard trimmings 2050 and the food scraps together in one combined technology. That was a premise that was 2051
based early on. We are looking at all of these things to try to see if we can do them. 2052
Were we successful? The short answer is no, we weren't. I'll get to the rest of it in a 2053
second. How did we get to the point where we're at right now? We did a feasibility 2054
study back in 2011 to see if it even made sense to pursue this further. We looked at a 2055
number of different technologies including dry anaerobic digestion. That was the 2056
original technology that was proposed by the Palo Altans for Green Energy, the people 2057
who put together the Measure E initiative. We looked at that, and it proved that it could 2058
be feasible. A feasibility study is only the first step. What happened from there is that 2059
Council elected to put the Measure E item on the ballot. It was on the ballot in 2060
November 2011, passed with a two-thirds majority. A couple of things that are 2061
interesting about the Measure E ballot initiative. One is that it called for staff to 2062
investigate the opportunity for putting an Energy Compost Facility on this 10-acre 2063
Measure E site, which I'll talk about in a second. It also undedicated the 10 acres of 2064
Byxbee Park Hills until 2021. What Emily Renzel was saying is that after 2021, Council 2065
could elect to return that back into parkland. Until such time, it was available for use. It 2066
didn't mandate that the use had to be there, but it called for the investigation and the 2067
opportunity to put that Energy Compose Facility there. I just want to make that 2068
distinction quickly for you. In 2013 we released an RFP for an Energy Compost Facility, 2069 that called for a technology to handle all of these feed stocks, the three that we talked 2070 about before, biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings, either in one facility or perhaps 2071 in multiple facilities with the opportunity to use an acre within the wastewater treatment 2072
plant and the 10 acres of the Measure E site. We did that. What we found is that nothing 2073
really worked the way we had hoped. We didn't get a proposal that would satisfy the 2074
needs of both our solid waste needs and our wastewater needs. What it did clarify though 2075
was that there was a certain technology that was appropriate for the wastewater side of 2076
the shop. I'll get to that in a second. That RFP was canceled. The Council elected to 2077
reject all the proposals at that point. They said, at that point, "Well, we don't want to use 2078
the entire Measure E site. 10 acres is not appropriate to build on, so we're going to 2079
restrict you to 3.8 acres."—I'll show you that in a second—"3.8 acres of that site which is 2080
fairly flat, and we want you to look at it right away to see if it's possible to put a 2081
Composting Facility to compost yard trimmings and possibly residential food scraps 2082
together on this 3.8-acre site." Right away we quickly turned around in, I would say, 2083
record speed for government a new RFP which was looking at just composting on that 2084
Measure E site. What did we find? Well, the Measure E site is complicated. Building 2085
something there was very expensive, much more expensive than composting outside. At 2086
Draft Minutes 50
Approved
that point in time when we get to December just last year, a few months ago, Council 2087
said, "You know what? Maybe this isn't quite ready for prime time. We're going to hold 2088
off on this project, and we're going to continue essentially with the status quo." That's the 2089
lead. I want to give you a little bit more background about the site here. Now you know 2090
the ending, that nothing is happening over there for at least a little while. I want to talk 2091
about the site itself so you have some perspective. I know all of you spend a lot of time 2092 out on Byxbee Park. Daren gives me full reports back when he sees you all out there. 2093
Here's the park over here. Of course, we're going to be opening up a large portion of the 2094
last phase over in Earth Day. That'll be very exciting. We're going to be presenting next 2095
month to you about the Byxbee Park Hills concepts and the trails and all the great stuff 2096
we're doing over there. Right now if we look at the Measure E site, you can see this site 2097
is in blue. That's about 10 acres. The dark blue, over here, this is what we call the 2098
relatively flat area, the 3.8-acre area that was part of the Compost Facility RFP. Then the 2099
treatment plant is over here in yellow. One of the reasons that we weren't able to do 2100
anything right away on the Measure E site, and especially that 3.8-acre site, is that it has a 2101
number of constraints on the site. There is a habitat corridor, a set of trees pretty well 2102
established, that was serving as a barrier between the landfill and the waste water 2103
treatment plant right over here. That connects the Bay, over here, with Renzel Marsh. 2104
There's a lot of really great habitat in there, foxes and some other bunch of critters that 2105
are too numerous to name. Building on that site would involve the potential dislocation 2106
of that particular habitat corridor. That's one challenge. The second challenge is building 2107
anywhere on the Baylands is no easy feat. Underneath all that land is Bay mud, not 2108
really the most conducive neighborhood to build stuff in. In addition to that, right over 2109
here is a landfill, so you're building next to a landfill which is also not the easiest thing to 2110
build on. Add on to that a number of pipes that go underneath the site, real challenge. 2111 All of that drove up the cost and just made building even a simple compost facility very 2112 expensive. The last piece of making it expensive, you're like, "Why is it so expensive to 2113 build a compost facility? They seem like they should be pretty cheap." Well, you guys 2114
all have noses, right? Okay. Compost is smelly; it can be anyway. Because the use of 2115
Byxbee Park Hills is a park and people would be right here taking nice strolls and going 2116
by. They would smell what was coming off this facility, so we required the highest level 2117
of odor protection possible for that facility so that it would not smell offsite at all. Some 2118
people like the smell of compost. Me personally not so much. To have full odor control 2119
on that site again drove costs up. In turn, that is why we don't have a facility located on 2120
that site. What are we actually going to do? I'll try to wrap this up quickly for you. As 2121
part of the recommendation back in May 2014, we broke up our plans for dealing with 2122
organics, those three different organic streams, yard trimmings, food scraps and biosolids 2123
into four components. The first component, Number 1, is addressing biosolids 2124
specifically. That allows us to decommission the incinerator, so we can take those 2125
biosolids and send them off to either the Central Valley or over to the East Bay Municipal 2126
Utility District in Oakland to be processed there. That's a new truck offloading facility as 2127
part of Component 1. That project is underway right now. The first two components, by 2128
Draft Minutes 51
Approved
the way, are inside the treatment plant. Keep that in mind. Component 2 is anaerobic 2129
digestion. That's wet anaerobic digestion, building giant tanks that essentially eat the 2130
biosolids, the sewage sludge. That would also be located within the treatment plant. Part 2131
of that facility would be sending food scraps to those digesters, and that would all 2132
generate energy. All that energy would more than satisfy the energy needs of the 2133
wastewater treatment plant, which is one of the largest energy users in the entire city. It's 2134 a very green and sustainable effort. Essentially energy that you guys create through your 2135
trips to the bathroom—I apologize for being blunt—and the food that you eat or don't eat 2136
in this case. That's Components 1, 2 and 3. All of that would be located within the 2137
treatment plant's footprint. Component 4, that was what we were looking at with the 2138
Compost Facility RFP. That's the piece that we are currently, for lack of a better word, 2139
on hold and sending our organics outside of the community. I thought I had another slide 2140
at the end of there, but that's okay. My apologies. Here we are. Bear with me for one 2141
second here. We're experiencing technical difficulties. There we are. What happens? 2142
Again, we talked about in December 2014 the decision to go with the lower cost option, 2143
to use composting facilities for our yard trimmings and food scraps outside of Palo Alto. 2144
We are currently looking at a facility that's not very far, about 15 miles from our current 2145
location, in north San Jose, to do that. We're going to provide annual updates every 2146
December on the status of the composting technology to see if there are lower cost 2147
options to use on the Measure E site. Again, this site can be considered for 2148
energy/compost uses until 2021. At that time, in 2021 and beyond, the Council can elect 2149
to return it back to parkland. That is the close of my presentation. Thank you for 2150
listening. I'm happy to answer any questions. 2151
2152
Chair Reckdahl: Before we start the questions, can you give one clarification? 2153 Dedicated parkland versus undedicated, what's the ramifications of that? If something is 2154 undedicated, does that mean it can't be touched by the city or that the city can develop it 2155 just like you would any parkland? 2156
2157
Mr. Krupp: From my understanding, that parcel is not considered part of the park 2158
system. Those 10 acres are not parkland. Now the city can elect to do something else 2159
with it. 2160
2161
Chair Reckdahl: For example, making trails on it, finishing off the Byxbee Hills Park. 2162
Could they treat it just like they would any other parkland? By development I mean 2163
making trails or finishing off the park, make plantings, that type of thing. 2164
2165
Mr. Krupp: What I can do is I can address how we handled the 10 acres within the 2166
interim park concepts, which we're going to talk about next month. We didn't put any 2167
trails through there, because we didn't know what that use would be. We didn't want to 2168
put a trail in there and have to remove the trail that people were getting used to service. 2169
We have to cap that part of the landfill, so it has to be finished. It will be planted the 2170
Draft Minutes 52
Approved
same way as the rest of the landfill, so it won't look necessarily different from the rest of 2171
Byxbee Park Hills. At this point at time, until we're directed otherwise, we're not 2172
planning to put any trails through there. On the other hand, we're also not planning to 2173
fence it off. Daren, I don't know if you want to add anything to that. 2174
2175
Daren Anderson: No, I think you covered it. 2176 2177
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 2178
2179
Commissioner Crommie: I want to thank you so much for this presentation. It's really 2180
important for our Commission to stay aware of what's going on with this acreage. So 2181
much has been happening, and you gave a really great timeline. I really appreciate your 2182
presentation. What's important to me is that we acknowledge that what was expected to 2183
happen with Measure E has not happened. The vote was shall 10 acres of existing 2184
parkland in Byxbee Park be undedicated for the exclusive purpose of building a 2185
processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste and other organic material. The idea 2186
behind this was to get green energy from anaerobic digestion. It's anaerobic digestion 2187
which is going to give us that green energy. You updated us quite well on the findings 2188
that so far that hasn't happened. The proponents of Measure E were very hopeful that it 2189
would. The opponents said, "We don't think the technology is there." We have six more 2190
years to figure it out. Because it's not looking like it is there, I'm just hoping that 2191
somehow our Commission can over time, through some kind of direction between staff 2192
helping us figure out how to do this, not lose sight of that parkland. This is to support 2193
what Emily Renzel said, that we have a lot of development going on in Byxbee Park. 2194
There's a lot of interest in our community to get those trails figured out, to make it a rich 2195 place for people to be. We've waited a long time. As we plan that, I think it's our 2196 responsibility on the Commission to not lose sight of that parkland. If you carve out the 2197 3.8 out of the 10, that's still leaving 6.2 acres to think about. I try to keep track of all this 2198
and I read a lot of the reports. Can you just say once again what that 3.8 would be carved 2199
out for provisionally? I know nothing is set, but can you just give a one sentence on that? 2200
2201
Mr. Krupp: Yeah, sure. The reason the 3.8 acres was carved out from the whole was that 2202
there was no fill underneath. There's no actual garbage underneath those 3.8 acres, and 2203
we wouldn't have to excavate the garbage and build a retaining wall, which was 2204
originally the possibility with using all the 10 acres. The 3.8 acres was what we always 2205
called "the relatively flat" portion of that land. 2206
2207
Commissioner Crommie: Now I understand. Should anything go there, the idea is it 2208
should really only go on the 3.8 if anything goes there at all. That is more of a rationale 2209
for us to really keep our eye on the 6.2 acres. I think that land is a really important 2210
gateway to Byxbee Park. When you look at the map, it just sits right there as people are 2211
going to enter the park. I just think we don't want to lose sight of that. I also want to 2212
Draft Minutes 53
Approved
make a point that when this vote went forth, the idea was that 10 acres was to be used 2213
independently for the production of green energy. If we can't do that, I personally think 2214
we have to be very careful about setting that site up as some kind of support land for the 2215
processing plant. Just because it happens to be next to it doesn't mean that we have no 2216
mandate whatsoever to have this undedicated parkland to somehow be some auxiliary 2217
space to support what's going on at the regional—what did we call that? The sewage 2218 treatment center. I really would like us to separate this as we study this on the 2219
Commission. I really hope that you'll continue to come back to us. I also want to say I 2220
think the city is doing very good work totally independent of Measure E. I know it was a 2221
goal of the city to get rid of the incinerator. That's huge. I want to congratulate the 2222
powers behind that. To push forward with all of these incredibly sensible things that 2223
needed to take place which have really no bearing on our parkland and are going to 2224
proceed independently of that. Thank you. 2225
2226
Chair Reckdahl: Other questions. Nope. Thank you. 2227
2228
6. Council Recommendation on Next Steps for the 7.7 Acres at Foothills Park. 2229
2230
Chair Reckdahl: We do have one speaker, Jerry Hearn. 2231
2232
Jerry Hearn: Thank you very much. Members of the Commission, Jerry Hearn, resident 2233
of Portola Valley. In the interests of disclosure, I've been involved with the Acterra 2234
nursery and with Acterra both since their inception; however, tonight I'm speaking as a 2235
private citizen in regards to the recommendation in front of you tonight. There are three 2236
elements to it. I want to comment individually on each one of them. The first one 2237 regarding the hydrologic study, I think that's an excellent idea. It's in line with the natural 2238 environment element of the general plan. In my experience working with the Master 2239 Plan process for the parks, there's seems to be a great interest for water features, and this 2240
could turn out to be an interesting water feature. Thirdly, as mentioned in there, there is 2241
some potential for steelhead trout that do exist in the downstream end of Los Trancos 2242
Creek which this empties into. I think that's a good idea, and I fully support that. The 2243
second item is about the closure of the park temporarily until the hydrologic study is 2244
done. I think that makes perfect sense. If you've been out there, you know what the area 2245
looks like. The flat area, which is the only really accessible area, is pretty uninteresting 2246
at this point. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest to go out there; however, 2247
you might think about making it available for tours every once in a while as was done 2248
before, although those were not very well attended. It's not a bad idea if people want to 2249
go out there and take a look at it. The third part, which as to do with the nursery lease. 2250
When I first read about the idea of having it be on an annual basis, that kind of set me 2251
back a little bit because I thought back to when we were trying to find a place for the 2252
nursery, how long it took us to find it, how long it took us to put all the pieces together. 2253
The idea that in a year's time or half a year's time, depending on whatever happened, we 2254
Draft Minutes 54
Approved
could be looking for a new place. That would be a real challenge. However, with the 2255
option that it's a four-year renewable lease with both parties agreeing to it and given the 2256
excellent relationship that we have established with staff over the many years, I think that 2257
we would be able to work with that. I'm sure that it would not be a surprise sprung on us, 2258
so we would have plenty of time to make a change if we needed to. In general, I just 2259
want to say that I support the recommendation. I appreciate all the work that staff has put 2260 into thinking about this. I look forward to seeing that 7.7 acres put to better use than it 2261
has been in the past with the exception, of course, of the Acterra nursery which is a 2262
fabulous use. Thank you very much. 2263
2264
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Daren, it's yours. 2265
2266
Daren Anderson: Good evening. I’m here tonight seeking your recommendation to 2267
Council on how to proceed with that 7.7-acre parcel of parkland at Foothills Park. A 2268
quick summary of where we left off. The Council had dedicated this land in August 2014 2269
and directed staff to work with the Commission to figure out the best use for the land. 2270
After the ranger-led tours and the public meeting, staff brought the issue to the 2271
Commission to discuss it on January 27th, last month. At the meeting, there was general 2272
consensus on how to move forward. The first general agreement was to fund and 2273
implement the hydrology study for Buckeye Creek. There was note that this should be 2274
completed before making any recommendations whatsoever on how to use the land for 2275
any other purpose. The second was to renew that Acterra nursery lease for a short-term 2276
basis so the city has flexibility to act on those recommendations that would come about 2277
through some hydrology study. I've recommended a year-to-year lease, as you saw in the 2278
staff report, with the option to renew for four additional years pending that mutual 2279 agreement and the city's approval. The third consensus was to keep that parcel closed to 2280 the public, which is status quo, until the hydrology study is complete. I would like to 2281 thank the Commission and the ad hoc committee for excellent guidance, really clear 2282
directions, and assistance with this process. That concludes my presentation. I'm 2283
available for any questions or comments. 2284
2285
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Questions? 2286
2287
Chair Lauing: Do the ad hoc committee members want to add anything different or 2288
additional from last month? 2289
2290
Chair Reckdahl: Go ahead, Commissioner Hetterly. 2291
2292
Commissioner Hetterly: I was going to go ahead and move that we approve the 2293
recommendation. 2294
2295
Chair Reckdahl: Do we have a second? 2296
Draft Minutes 55
Approved
2297
Commissioner Lauing: Second. 2298
2299
Commissioner Knopper: Second. Oh, sorry. 2300
2301
STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER HETTERLY AND 2302
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LAUING. 2303 2304
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 2305
2306
Commissioner Crommie: I just had a question. Am I allowed to ask that? 2307
2308
Commissioner Hetterly: (inaudible) 2309
2310
Commissioner Lauing: Motion's on the table. 2311
2312
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you, Daren, for all your hard work on this as well as 2313
thank you to our ad hoc committee. I think this was a really good proposal. I wanted a 2314
sense of what you're thinking in terms of timeframe. The reason I'm asking this question 2315
is I know part of the proposal is to keep this land out of reach to the public. Any time we 2316
do have parkland, I think as a Commission we have to be very mindful of that. I take that 2317
very seriously as far as cutting off access. I know that in the past a couple of Council 2318
Members have asked if, while we're figuring this all out, we can have access. We've 2319
bantered that about. I think there are some good arguments in this proposal for why we 2320
cannot do that considering cost and safety, just to mention two of them. Can you just 2321 speak to this issue a little bit? We've been waiting decades for this, and I would just hate 2322 for it to go on and on. Can you give me some sense of what you're thinking in terms of 2323 the timeline? 2324
2325
Mr. Anderson: My hope for the timeline is that the capital improvement project is 2326
approved, and we are able to have access to the funds come July 1st. Once the funds are 2327
available, jump on this immediately. Go out to bid, see if we can find a good consultant 2328
to take on the hydrology study. The part of the timeframe that I’m uncertain about is how 2329
long it'll take to get the hydrology study completed. It would really be part of that pre-2330
bid proposal, where I'm hearing from consultants if they need to see it through a full rain 2331
cycle. In some preliminary outreach, we know that there are some contractors who have 2332
studied the hydrology in the general area. They might have a good enough understanding 2333
that could truncate that process a little bit, rather than having to see it over an extended 2334
period of time. That's an unknown at this point. I need more details to come through the 2335
outreach to these contractors and the people who study hydrology. That said, I could not 2336
foresee it going beyond a year. 2337
2338
Draft Minutes 56
Approved
Commissioner Crommie: Just as far as how this is phrased here. It says, "Keep the 7.7-2339
acre parcel closed until after the hydrology study is completed." We know that once a 2340
study is completed, then we have to study the findings of the study, figure out where we 2341
want to go with that. I might try to make a friendly amendment to this or I wonder if we 2342
can have some kind of clarification about that. I wanted, I guess, more clarification on 2343
this statement. 2344 2345
Mr. Anderson: I understand what you mean. I think it bears elaboration. I think the 2346
right thing is after that study is complete, it comes back to the Commission and then we 2347
can look at all those options we vetted. Somewhere in there it could open early, because 2348
now you've got an understanding of the implications of the hydrology. It could remain 2349
closed. The reason I left it partially open is we know what the process will be after the 2350
hydrology study is complete. Somewhere in there it could open and maybe not. It would 2351
really be at the Commission's recommendation, which is what Council asked of you. We 2352
could add language or if you think that suffices, leave it as is. 2353
2354
Commissioner Crommie: As a Commission, I'd like a chance when it's on the table. It 2355
sounds like it's already on the table. I don't know the logistics of when I bring that up for 2356
discussion. I would like some guidance on having our Commission talk about the 2357
wording of Number 2. Is this the proper time to do that? I want to know if anyone else 2358
on the Commission ... 2359
2360
Commissioner Hetterly: Do you have a proposal for what (inaudible)? 2361
2362
Commissioner Crommie: What would I propose? 2363 2364 Commissioner Hetterly: Do you have a suggestion for what you would like? Do you 2365 have wording to propose? 2366
2367
Commissioner Crommie: Let me think a minute. Keep it closed until it's completed. 2368
Once it's completed, bring it back in a timely manner so we can reevaluate that. I don't 2369
know quite how to word that. I feel like it's just a little bit too open-ended. Does anyone 2370
else share my concern? 2371
2372
Commissioner Knopper: Actually no. It's not only with regard to the hydrologic study. 2373
Obviously you mentioned the safety issue with regard to the parcel. There's also a 2374
private residence, if you recall, that has three open sides. From a public-private 2375
perspective, we can't just open it to the public because then they'll end up trespassing. 2376
The other issue I want to bring up is after the hydrologic study and the conclusion of the 2377
Master Plan, having all of that data as well as the creek information, like structurally the 2378
creek issue, folding all that data together and then being able to systematically make 2379
decisions that are formed based on what this—because it's really 2.1 acres as we talked 2380
Draft Minutes 57
Approved
about that's buildable potentially. I think that's very clear. Keep the parcel closed until 2381
after the study and then we can deal with it at that point. I think the study is only one 2382
piece of it, because it's also about the Master Plan. 2383
2384
Chair Reckdahl: My concern would be that you could infer that first sentence says that 2385
once the study is complete, we will open it. That'd be my only concern about 2386 misinterpretation. If we want to say, "Shall remain closed at least until after the 2387
hydrology study is complete," that would say that we don't have any obligation to open it 2388
once the hydrological study is complete. 2389
2390
Commissioner Crommie: Okay. That's possible. Commissioner Knopper just said two 2391
things that I am not sure I personally agree with. I don't think it's really been established 2392
that only 2.1 acres of that are usable. We don't know that for certain. There are ways to 2393
build trails on—it's all predicated on flatness. We know that you can build trails in areas 2394
that are not flat. I don't agree with that. 2395
2396
Commissioner Lauing: What's wrong with leaving it open as it is? It seemed to me that 2397
the language you added didn't change the facts here, which is it's going to stay closed 2398
until the hydrologic study is complete. I'm not sure what your language does. It doesn't 2399
say it's going to open. It's just an extra sentence, just as I heard it anyway. All we're 2400
saying with the way it's written is that it's going to stay closed, if we approve this 2401
recommendation, until we get the results of the hydrologic study. After that we could 2402
make new recommendations the next day, I guess, technically the way this is written. 2403
2404
Commissioner Crommie: If that's the interpretation, that's fine with me. I like the idea 2405 once it's complete that it can come back to us immediately and we can try to open it. I 2406 wouldn't vote for something that's going to be closed indefinitely. I think the safety 2407 measures are workable. I personally believe that you can overcome that and open this up. 2408
There are ways to mitigate the dangers to the public. I think eventually our Commission 2409
is going to have to deal with this question of what we're doing next. I interpret this the 2410
way that, I guess, Commissioner Lauing just stated it; that as soon as it's complete, at any 2411
point it can come back to us and we can say we can open it. 2412
2413
Mr. Anderson: Would it be at all helpful if I added text to the staff report that goes to 2414
Council to just make that abundantly clear that this is the process that the Commission 2415
and staff intend to follow? Everything we just enumerated. That after this is done, 2416
immediately after, staff will bring this back to the Commission. One of the things that 2417
may result is opening it sooner rather than later, but we'll have the full breadth of 2418
information from the Master Plan and the hydrology study. We'll combine it to take the 2419
most prudent process forward. 2420
2421
Draft Minutes 58
Approved
Commissioner Crommie: I like that personally, because I’m not believing that it's 2422
impossible to open this land up. I actually believe it is possible, but I think the hydrology 2423
study takes precedence in my mind. That's why I would vote in favor of this. I do think 2424
it's possible to open up this land while we're studying it further. 2425
2426
Chair Reckdahl: Without an amendment, we go back to the Motion. We have a Motion 2427 and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed. It passes. Thank you, Daren. 2428
2429
MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2430 2431
7. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 2432 2433
Chair Reckdahl: Are there any ad hocs that have updates? 2434
2435
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. Commissioner Crommie and I met regarding the Lucy 2436
Evans Baylands Interpretive Center. We met with Daren Anderson regarding the site, 2437
and then with John Aikin to discuss the site and the CIPs that are available as well as 2438
future steps regarding programming. The three CIPs that are currently in process are a 2439
feasibility study to determine how to repair and replace the boardwalk. That RFP I 2440
assume went out; it was to go out last month. This study will complete in the fall and 2441
design can begin soon after pending Council approval. Cost of construction for the 2442
boardwalk will be determined during the study and further refined in the design stage. 2443
The second is the project for general improvements to the Interpretive Center. The scope 2444
of this project is decking, railing, structural framing as needed, exterior wood siding, 2445
flooring, cabinetry, and doors. That is interior as well as exterior, because the floor is 2446 continuous on the exterior of the building as well as inside. There's $100,000 budgeted 2447 for design in the current fiscal year and $405,000 scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2448 2016. This RFP did go out in January and design will begin this spring. Public Works 2449
had slated to do public input in the fall. We added that we should have Parks and Rec 2450
feedback prior to the public input phase on that process. The third one is improvements 2451
to the Interpretive Center exhibits, but this also includes the outdoor signage. That 2452
project is funded at $56,000 scheduled for fiscal year 2017. We discussed that that was 2453
insufficient budget for exhibits, but it's the starting point. We'll be going back after that. 2454
That is the current status. Commissioner Crommie, did you have anything to add? 2455
2456
Commissioner Crommie: Yes, thank you. The next step in this is to bring John Aikin to 2457
present to us on these CIPs with the main focus on the third one that Commissioner 2458
Ashlund just mentioned, which is the Interpretive Center exhibits. What we brought up 2459
in our meeting with John Aikin is that we're very interested in discussing programming 2460
and making sure that the facility is sustaining future programming. When we asked 2461
about that, he said that he thinks that the second CIP that Commissioner Ashlund 2462
mentioned will probably cover needs for reconfiguration, if any, in the interior space for 2463
Draft Minutes 59
Approved
programming. What was not covered is this concept of the exhibits. That's where John 2464
Aikin sees a deficit. He felt that we could actually be useful in examining that as a 2465
Commission. He said it broadly pertains to exhibits across the Baylands Open Space 2466
Preserve, if we want to look at this as an integrated endeavor. There's a lot of food for 2467
thought that he brought up in our meeting. I think our Commission would have some 2468
good input on that. Because we have members of our Commission that get involved in 2469 the CIP process, it'd be nice for us to get some of this information through a presentation 2470
and then decide if we want to try for any advocacy within the CIP process on this topic. 2471
The outcome of our meeting is I'm really hoping that we will bring this to the 2472
Commission as an agenda item. 2473
2474
Rob de Geus: That all makes sense to me. The sequencing of when to look at the exhibit 2475
CIP, I've talked to John Aikin about this as well. The boardwalk and knowing whether 2476
we're going to have a boardwalk or not or if it's going to change in some way and the 2477
facility and the walls and other things related to the second CIP that you spoke about, 2478
both of those will inform what we might do with the exhibit program. I want to be sure 2479
we get those going first and then integrate the exhibit CIP at the appropriate time. I agree 2480
that $56,000 is not enough really for what we would want to do there. To the point about 2481
exhibits, if you've been out there recently, there are four exhibits on the exterior but 2482
they're sitting on railing that's pretty old and falling apart. All the rails are rusted. Those 2483
things need to be understood in terms of what needs to be fixed before we can really 2484
design exhibits and how they might be installed as an example. 2485
2486
Commissioner Crommie: In that big picture concept, we'd want him to cover everything. 2487
2488 Mr. de Geus: Right, right, correct. 2489 2490 Chair Reckdahl: Any Lucy Evans improvements, is that all going to be funded through 2491
CIPs or could it be external funds? 2492
2493
Mr. de Geus: It could be external funds. These three CIPs are all within the CIP budget 2494
and the Infrastructure Reserve. We don't have any external funding. 2495
2496
Chair Reckdahl: Is there a Friends of the Baylands or is it just Friends of Parks? 2497
2498
Mr. de Geus: We don't have a Friends of the Baylands. 2499
2500
Commissioner Ashlund: We talked about the need for something like that too. There's 2501
not a Friends group associated with that facility at this point. 2502
2503
Mr. de Geus: Not specifically. We have Friends of Palo Alto Parks and we have the 2504
environmental volunteers of course that are out there. 2505
Draft Minutes 60
Approved
2506
Chair Reckdahl: Let's talk offline and bring this up in a future meeting. 2507
2508
Commissioner Crommie: This has a lot of visibility right now, which is very important. 2509
Commissioner Ashlund and I, in talking to John Aikin, agreed that we need to act now 2510
with a vision because of the visibility and the momentum. This is the time to do it if we 2511 want to advocate for any kind of global envisioning, when it comes to something like 2512
exhibits. 2513
2514
Chair Reckdahl: Any other ad hocs? Okay. 2515
2516
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 2517 2518
Chair Reckdahl: Rob, did you have any announcements? 2519
2520
Rob de Geus: It's late so I'll be quick. We do have our summer camp and aquatics 2521
registration coming up. We did have a fair over the weekend at Mitchell Park, which was 2522
a lot of fun. A lot of parents and children attended that and met some of the staff. By 2523
5:00 p.m. this Friday, submissions need to be in so we can process the summer camp 2524
program. I wanted to give an update on the CIP program. Generally the Commission 2525
worked with staff in defining priorities. That's moving through the process. We still 2526
have Buckeye Creek, of course a high priority, Bol Park. The Baylands Comprehensive 2527
Conservation Plan is in there as well. Hopefully that will get approved, which actually 2528
could inform exhibits. Also Cubberley is also now coming into play, because we have an 2529
agreement with the school district that defines specific funding to support the Cubberley 2530 campus. There's a few things that I'd love to see fixed there; the tennis courts as an 2531 example. They're really in bad shape. There's a number of other things that we'd just like 2532 to get fixed up at Cubberley as well as starting the Master Planning process for the future 2533
of Cubberley. 2534
2535
Commissioner Lauing: What about that fire hazard at Foothills? Was that put in the 2536
CIPs from a different group? 2537
2538
Mr. de Geus: No. That's an interesting question. It was requested that it wouldn't be put 2539
in the capital budget, but rather be put forward as an operating budget request between 2540
Public Works, Community Services and Fire. We're submitting it that way. It's in the 2541
mix, so we'll see if it gets approved. That's it. 2542
2543
Chair Reckdahl: What's the status on El Camino Park? 2544
2545
Mr. de Geus: The status on El Camino Park is it's moving forward. I believe something 2546
had begun on site. I don't know that they had a specific groundbreaking, that I’m aware 2547
Draft Minutes 61
Approved
of at least. We've been moving forward and hope to have it completed by the end of the 2548
calendar year with an open facility. A long time coming. 2549
2550
Chair Reckdahl: How about the Mayfield turf? I think we'd said that we were looking at 2551
a February timeframe to start the turf. I think that's been pushed back. 2552
2553 Mr. de Geus: I think it's on schedule. We're a bit behind, I should say first of all. The 2554
most recent schedule, we're sticking with that. Both fields need to be replaced in terms of 2555
the turf. 2556
2557
Chair Reckdahl: They're doing it sequentially, so we only lose one field at a time? 2558
2559
Mr. de Geus: That's correct. 2560
2561
Commissioner Ashlund: Can I request an update on Magical Bridge next time if 2562
possible? I know there's been a lot of progress there, so any word you have on the 2563
opening. 2564
2565
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, that'll be good timing. By the end of March I think it's intended to 2566
be open if all goes according to plan. 2567
2568
Chair Reckdahl: How about Scott Park? 2569
2570
Mr. de Geus: I'll have to get back to you on Scott Park. I'm not sure what the status is on 2571
that. 2572 2573
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 24, 2015 MEETING 2574 2575
Chair Reckdahl: Maybe you should talk about the retreat first. 2576
2577
Rob de Geus: The retreat we have scheduled for March 20th from noon to 3:00 at 2578
Mitchell Park Community Center. 2579
2580
Chair Reckdahl: We're not doing Foothills. 2581
2582
Mr. de Geus: Not this time. Was it not available or we just went with Mitchell? 2583
2584
Catherine Bourquin: Sorry, it was more convenient for me to reserve Mitchell this time. 2585
2586
Mr. de Geus: It was more convenience for Catherine, so we're at Mitchell. 2587
2588
Draft Minutes 62
Approved
Commissioner Knopper: Are we in the library or are we actually in the Community 2589
Center? 2590
2591
Vice Chair Markevitch: Probably the community center. 2592
2593
Mr. de Geus: If there's a desire for the Commission to be somewhere else, we can do 2594 that. Mitchell's a nice change. 2595
2596
Chair Reckdahl: It's a new facility. In some ways it's nice to use the new facility. 2597
2598
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, I agree. 2599
2600
Chair Reckdahl: If anything's wrong with it, we can complain. 2601
2602
Mr. de Geus: It keeps Catherine happy too, so that's always good. The question will be, 2603
what do we do at that retreat? I think there's two possibilities. One is a typical retreat 2604
that we do, where we take some time to really reflect on the year past and the year ahead 2605
and try to plan out the year in priorities and see if we can set the agenda to some degree 2606
for the next several months. The alternative is to focus on the Parks Master Plan. That 2607
really depends on how far MIG can get with staff in preparing the matrix and the data and 2608
the binders, so that we can have a productive meeting. We'll have to see. We have a 2609
little bit of time; I guess about a month to prepare for that. I suspect we're not going to be 2610
ready by March 20th to do that deep dive in the matrix and the Summary of Needs, 2611
because there's just so much information. I don't want to go forward with it unless it's 2612
really ready and well thought through. 2613 2614 Chair Reckdahl: I am concerned that if we wait too long and they fill it out the wrong 2615 way too much, then they'll say, "Well, we put so much into this, you can't change it now." 2616
2617
Mr. de Geus: That's a fair point too. That's something that perhaps we can talk about 2618
over the next month to see where things are at. We can also talk with MIG and make the 2619
call as we get a little closer. Everybody's got it on their calendar? Either way it'll be ... 2620
2621
Chair Reckdahl: We will have a retreat on the 20th. We will set the content, and then 2622
Rob will send something out by email depending on what the content is. We'll prepare 2623
for the regular retreat. I think the highest priority is Master Plan. If we're anywhere close 2624
to having something, we should do the Master Plan. 2625
2626
Commissioner Lauing: If that happens, then we're going to put the retreat content into 2627
one of our subsequent meetings, correct? As opposed to setting another retreat to do the 2628
real retreat. 2629
2630
Draft Minutes 63
Approved
Chair Reckdahl: I guess we can talk about that at the retreat. 2631
2632
Commissioner Lauing: Unless the retreat is the 20th, right? 2633
2634
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. On the 20th, if we're discussing the Master Plan, then as part of 2635
that we can talk about when we want the regular retreat content. 2636 2637
Commissioner Lauing: Right, but it's not going to be on the 20th if that happens. We 2638
can't squeeze in both the retreat agenda and essentially a study session on the Master 2639
Plan. 2640
2641
Mr. de Geus: We can add that to the agenda. Assuming the Master Plan is ready, we can 2642
add to the agenda on the 24th of March what we want to do with a future retreat, I 2643
suppose. 2644
2645
Chair Reckdahl: Or even on the 20th too we could talk about it. Either way. 2646
2647
Commissioner Lauing: You're going to have two agendas ready for the 20th? Like two 2648
game plans and then whatever one ... 2649
2650
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. Pat and I will get input from people on the path forward for the 2651
Commission. We'll put that on the shelf if the Master Plan comes in. Does that seem 2652
reasonable? 2653
2654
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 2655 2656 Commissioner Hetterly: In terms of putting things on the table for the retreat if it were to 2657 be the planning the year retreat on the 20th, I'm not sure how the Brown Act weighs in on 2658
that. If more than two Commissioners have thoughts about it, then they need to send it to 2659
you not to ... 2660
2661
Mr. de Geus: Send it to staff, yeah. 2662
2663
Commissioner Hetterly: Everybody should do that, send your comments or suggestions 2664
for the retreat to Rob and not to Keith. 2665
2666
Commissioner Crommie: Can you frame that a little bit more when you say suggestions? 2667
What do you mean exactly? Are we going to base it on past retreats? I'm a little 2668
confused. 2669
2670
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. In past retreats, we've talked about what ad hocs we would have 2671
and what priorities we would have. If there's other paths forward or any guidance that 2672
Draft Minutes 64
Approved
you want to give, that you want to talk about, give it to Rob or come prepared to talk 2673
about it. If it's just your two cents, you can give that at the retreat. 2674
2675
Commissioner Crommie: Right. I've thought that when we're actually at the retreat, we 2676
discuss quite a few things as a group as far as we traditionally form subcommittees. 2677
We'll decide which ones to carry forward and whether we need any more. 2678 2679
Chair Reckdahl: I think the only exception is if it's anything where Rob has to gather 2680
data or one of us has to gather data. We want to know about that before the meeting, so 2681
we can get any supporting material. 2682
2683
Commissioner Crommie: Can you just give an example of what you mean? 2684
2685
Chair Reckdahl: If we're talking about, say, summer camps, and you want some 2686
information about the summer camps so that we can talk about making different types of 2687
summer camps or marketing them better, then you would want some information from 2688
Rob about how well the summer camps went this year, how the sign-ups went, what was 2689
popular, what was not popular. If we get over to Mitchell Park and we're inside and you 2690
want to talk about the summer camps, then we don't have the data. The only reason that 2691
you would want to send stuff to Rob is if some preparation has to go into that before the 2692
retreat. 2693
2694
Mr. de Geus: I think that's fair; although, I would add that we don't really want to work 2695
any issue at the retreat necessarily. We're trying to put things on the table that 2696
Commissioners or staff think have a policy implication of some type that we might weigh 2697 in on as a Commission and to advise Council on. If you have those kinds of ... 2698 2699 Commissioner Lauing: Or if someone has format changes compared to the default of 2700
previous years, that would be fair game to also forward to you. 2701
2702
Mr. de Geus: Absolutely, sure. 2703
2704
Commissioner Lauing: I think, Commissioner Crommie, what we're saying is that we 2705
would just go with the normal default as we've usually done unless someone has a great 2706
idea that the Chair and the Vice decide we should make this shift. 2707
2708
Commissioner Crommie: Right. I was just hoping people could bring those great ideas 2709
up right now at our meeting. That's traditionally what we've done. I guess I’m a little bit 2710
confused in this outsourcing proposal. I feel like this is the time for people to bring up 2711
ideas. 2712
2713
Draft Minutes 65
Approved
Commissioner Hetterly: Sorry. I think I complicated the issue by raising it. We don't 2714
have it on the agenda today to discuss the retreat. We don't even know when we're going 2715
hold the retreat. Since we're in this Plan A/Plan B scenario for the 20th, I just wanted to 2716
remind everyone that if we do end up having the retreat on the 20th, be cautious of the 2717
Brown Act. 2718
2719 Commissioner Crommie: Now I understand where you're coming from. Just to clarify, I 2720
thought we had a date and a time. Is that not true? 2721
2722
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, we do. March 20th, noon to 3:00. We'll provide lunch. 2723
2724
Chair Reckdahl: March 20th, we will have a retreat. The only issue is the content of the 2725
retreat. Is it the traditional content or is it just the Master Plan? We might do 3 hours on 2726
the Master Plan. 2727
2728
Commissioner Crommie: We're going to have to notice this? 2729
2730
Mr. de Geus: Oh, yeah. 2731
2732
Chair Reckdahl: Oh, yeah. 2733
2734
Commissioner Crommie: Maybe we've just neglected to put it on the agenda. In the past 2735
we've often discussed it at our meeting prior to the retreat. 2736
2737
Mr. de Geus: I think we have. I think that's right. 2738 2739 Commissioner Crommie: I was just a little bit ... 2740 2741
Mr. de Geus: Retreat planning I think, yeah. 2742
2743
Commissioner Crommie: Right. That's okay. 2744
2745
Chair Reckdahl: Agenda items for next month, for the 24th. 2746
2747
Mr. de Geus: We have a Byxbee Park plan. 2748
2749
Commissioner Crommie: I just wanted to comment that Daren is working very hard on 2750
that. We have an ad hoc subcommittee that needs to meet before we present that. We 2751
were almost ready to meet. Now we're probably going to meet really soon. That's 2752
Commissioner Reckdahl and myself. 2753
2754
Chair Reckdahl: He has the feedback from the consultant now, so we can talk about it. 2755
Draft Minutes 66
Approved
2756
Commissioner Crommie: Right. I think we're ready to set our meeting. He's ready. 2757
2758
Chair Reckdahl: I assume Master Plan is going to come up. 2759
2760
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, Parks Master Plan will be back. 2761 2762
Commissioner Crommie: Can we invite John Aikin to come and speak about the 2763
Baylands CIP? If we have room in the meeting. 2764
2765
Mr. de Geus: I don't think he'll have a whole lot of information by next month, is my 2766
sense. This is related to the exhibits specifically? 2767
2768
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. When Commissioner Ashlund and I spoke with him, he 2769
made it sound like he was ready to come as soon we were able to have him. 2770
2771
Mr. de Geus: Okay, I'll check with him. 2772
2773
Commissioner Crommie: If you could just talk to him about that. 2774
2775
Mr. de Geus: Okay. 2776
2777
Chair Reckdahl: What is the schedule for determining CIPs? 2778
2779
Mr. de Geus: We're in the process of getting the new five-year plan approved. We run 2780 on a fiscal year from July 1 to June 30th. Now we're doing the 2016-2020 five-year plan 2781 and trying to get the first year, 2016, the actual budget approved. The other four years 2782 are just a plan. 2783
2784
Chair Reckdahl: We submitted a bunch for this coming fiscal year. 2785
2786
Mr. de Geus: Right. We're still in the process of getting those approved. 2787
2788
Chair Reckdahl: That goes up one level, and then they throw some out and keep some. 2789
Then they submit that to a higher level, to the Council. 2790
2791
Mr. de Geus: Right. It goes up several levels. So far all of our priorities remain in there, 2792
which is good news. 2793
2794
Chair Reckdahl: It's made it through the first cut, and now it's going to Council. 2795
2796
Draft Minutes 67
Approved
Mr. de Geus: Correct. After July 1, after the budget has been approved, we can start 2797
over in evaluating the next round. 2798
2799
Chair Reckdahl: What is the date for the Council to approve it? 2800
2801
Mr. de Geus: I saw the schedule this week. I'll have to send it out. I know the 2802 Community Services budget is scheduled to go to the Finance Committee—are you on 2803
the Finance Committee, Council Member? Yeah. I think it's May 5th for the CSD 2804
operating budget. The capital budget goes on a different schedule. I'll have to send that 2805
calendar out to you all. 2806
2807
Chair Reckdahl: So we will not have any news about CIPs next month? 2808
2809
Mr. de Geus: No. 2810
2811
Vice Chair Markevitch: We only have two agenda items so far for next month. 2812
2813
Mr. de Geus: I'll have to check with Daren and with Peter to see if there are any park 2814
projects that need to come forward. 2815
2816
Chair Reckdahl: The other option is if the agenda's looking thin next month, we could do 2817
the Master Plan that evening on the 24th at our regular meeting or have a two-hour chunk 2818
out of it, some big chunk of the evening meeting. Then just have a retreat on the 20th, 2819
our normal retreat. 2820
2821 Mr. de Geus: We could do that. It feels to me like that's a really big discussion, and 2822 something that might lend itself to not being in this format and not going late into the 2823 evening. 2824
2825
Commissioner Crommie: When do we get the revenue report? Is that part of the Master 2826
Plan? That's an important piece that we haven't seen yet. 2827
2828
Mr. de Geus: The cost and prices. I haven't seen that either. I think they're working on 2829
that. We received today the survey results, a summary of the survey results. I haven't 2830
read it yet. That's the latest I've gotten from MIG. 2831
2832
Commissioner Crommie: As far as the next time we talk about the Master Plan, do we 2833
have a topic that we're expecting to talk about? Would we be talking about those survey 2834
results? That's a pretty meaty topic. 2835
2836
Mr. de Geus: On the 24th? 2837
2838
Draft Minutes 68
Approved
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. 2839
2840
Mr. de Geus: The survey results would be in there. That alone could be enough of a 2841
topic for the Master Plan. 2842
2843
Chair Reckdahl: Do you have any more comments? Okay. 2844 2845
VII. ADJOURNMENT 2846 2847
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Commissioner 2848
Ashlund at 10:52 p.m. 2849
Draft Minutes 69
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM:DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:FEBRUARY 24, 2015
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POSSIBLE USES FOR THE 7.7
ACRES OF NEWLY DEDICATED PARK LAND AT FOOTHILLS PARK.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council approve of
the following course of action regarding use of the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land at Foothills
Park:
1.Fund and implement a Capital Improvement Project to conduct a hydrology study of
Buckeye Creek.
2.Keep the 7.7 acre parcel closed until after the hydrology study is completed.3.Renew the Acterra Nursery lease for one year so that the lease expiration will coincide withthe approximate timeframe to complete the hydrology study. The lease should include theoption for renewal on a yearly basis for four additional years pending mutual agreement andCity approval.
BACKGROUND
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family
retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel.
On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land. Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue.
In October 2014, four Ranger lead tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A total of
9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public meeting was held at
Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to best use the
newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger lead tour occurring prior to the meeting.
Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the meeting. At the meeting, and
at each of the tours, the history and the challenges/restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were
discussed. On November 10, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee
provided an update to Council regarding the 7.7 acres parcel.
DISCUSSION
On January 27, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the possible uses for the
newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park. Several Commissioners noted that
because of the timing of the hydrology study and the Parks Master Plan, we should not expect the
Parks Master Plan to identify specific direction on how to develop the 7.7 acre parcel. The
Commissioners also noted the Parks Master will provide information about what gaps and needs
throughout the City’s park system that will be helpful in forming a decision about the future uses of
the 7.7 acre parcel.
There was general consensus among the Commissioners on three issues regarding the 7.7 acre
parcel:
1.Buckeye Creek hydrology study should be completed before making any recommendationson how to use the land. The recommendations on how to best address the hydrologychallenges may alter the City’s decision on how best to use the land.
2.The Acterra Nursery lease should be renewed on a short term basis so that the City has theflexibility to act on whatever options and recommendations develop from the hydrology
study.
3.The site should remain closed until after the hydrology study is complete. Investing in
fencing and supervision to open the site to the public before the hydrology study is not
prudent.
The Commission noted that there is no need for additional Ad Hoc Committee meetings on this
topic, and that staff should return promptly to the Commission with a recommendation. The
recommendation of this staff report is the preferred option. The subsequent staff report that will be
sent to Council will recommend the Commission’s preferred option. The Council staff report will
also discuss the alternative options and the associated disadvantages that were considered, which
include opening the parcel to the public and adding park amenities to the property in advance of the
hydrology study.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: January 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission 7.7 Acre Staff Report
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
DAREN ANDERSON
Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community
Services Department
TO:PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM:DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:JANUARY 27, 2015
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE USES FOR THE NEWLY ACQUIRE 7.7
ACRES OF PARK LAND ADJACENT TO FOOTHILLS PARK.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission discuss possible uses for the newly
acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park, and provide guidance to staff on which
concepts should be further developed to include cost estimates.
BACKGROUND
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family
retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the
City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel.
On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land.
Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for
specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc
committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue.
DISCUSSION
In October 2014, four Ranger lead tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A total of
9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public meeting was held at
Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to best use the
newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger lead tour occurring prior to the meeting.
Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the meeting. At the meeting, and
at each of the tours, the history and the challenges/restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were
discussed. Attachment A includes the public’s comments and suggestions.
Three major themes were expressed from the public on the tours and the public meeting:
Theme 1: Recreational Activities
Concepts ranged from adding a campground, picnic area, structure for special events, and an off-leash dog area.
Theme 2: Restoration
ATTACHMENT A
JANUARY 27, 2015
STAFF REPORT
The public suggestions regarding possible restoration strategies vary greatly. Concepts ranged from
simple restoration involving planting native grasses and some trees, to significant restoration
involving more involving de-channeling Buckeye Creek and restoring the original meandering creek
flow; removing the overburden soil and restoring the area to one contiguous valley.
Theme 3: Sustain the Acterra Nursery
There were numerous comments supporting the Acterra Nursery on the site. There were also some
suggestions about providing space for an additional environmental partner.
Challenges for Developing the 7.7 Acre Parcel
Current Soil Conditions
When the 7.7 acre parcel was owned by the Lee family, the land was used as a place to store the
overburden (spoils and rock) from the adjacent quarry. The north hillside (on the right side as you
enter the property from Foothills Park) is comprised of highly compacted overburden from the
quarry. The approximately 2.1 acre valley floor (flat area without trees) of the 7.7 acre parcel has
approximately 5 feet of overburden. The compacted and poor soils do not drain well and make it challenging to grow trees and other vegetation.
The former lessee of the 7.7 acres parcel struggled to sustain and grow trees on the site. The lessee used extensive amounts of compost to establish redwood trees along the hillside and edges of the parcel. The trees are stunted in growth, but they have survived.
Buckeye Creek
Buckeye Creek originates in Foothills Park at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley and passes through
the 7.7 acre parcel. The channelized creek has experienced significant down-cutting resulting in
creek erosion. These eroded sediments wash down the creek and deposit in the 7.7 acre parcel during
the rainy season. The collected sediments must be removed two to three times every year to prevent
flooding. The adjacent Open Space Maintenance Shop in Foothills Park was flooded in 1983. The
City created a raised berm along Buckeye Creek, adjacent to the shop, to protect it from the creek
overflowing. The shop area floods now as a result of poor drainage away from the shop and road.
The amount of sediment that accumulates in the 7.7 acre parcel and needs to be removed varies
greatly year to year. Some years, when it is fairly dry, no sediment is removed from the culverts. On
years with average rainfall it can vary between 30 to 100 yards of sediment. On extremely rainy
years there can be as much as 500 to 600 yards of sediment removed. Some of the sediment has been
used to fill in the slopes of the 7.7 acre parcel, some on the valley floor, and some was taken off site.
The removal is especially important before the creek flows through culverts at the end of the 7.7
acres (back right hand side of property). This is the last opportunity to clear the sedimentation before
heading into the large culverts downstream. The sediments vary from fine to large sands and gravels,
most all the fine, nutrient rich silts wash downstream and do not drop out in this area.
ATTACHMENT A
JANUARY 27, 2015
STAFF REPORT
The private resident whose property borders the 7.7 acres has managed the creek sediment removal
process up until now at his cost. The City will now be responsible for that work unless an agreement
between the City and the private resident is obtained.
Buckeye Creek Culverts
Buckeye Creek has been channelized in many sections in Foothills Park, including at the (west) end
of the 7.7 acre parcel. Buckeye Creek flows into a series of culverts and then flows under private
property for several hundred feet. The culverts start as a single seven foot diameter opening and
then reduce down into multiple three foot culverts. The first large culvert is approximately seven feet
below the valley floor of the parcel. Access to the culvert is currently not secured, and would be
dangerous if someone ventured down into it or was washed into it during a rain event. The culvert would need to be secured with fencing and a gate (to allow access for heavy equipment to clear the culvert of sediment) before the site is opened to the public.
Some stakeholders have suggested that Buckeye Creek could support steelhead habitat. Buckeye Creek flows into Los Trancos Creek, which has been documented to have steelhead. Since a significant portion of the creek is channelized and deeply incised, it has an increased slope resulting in a high stream velocity. This accelerates erosion and prevents the formation of pools and riffles
needed for good fish habitat. It is uncertain if there is enough water flow in the creek to support
steelhead.
No Utilities on Site
There are no electrical, water, or sewer lines on the 7.7 acre parcel. Any infrastructure that requires
these amenities would need to factor in the added expense to provide the necessary utilities.
Hydrologic Study
A hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek is needed to help analyze and find solutions to the historic
channelization and resulting down-cutting and erosion problems. Staff recommends that this study
be funded and completed as soon as possible. Staff also recommends that the hydrologic study be
completed before developing permanent plans and investing significant funds to construct any
facilities on the site that might limit some of the possible recommendations and solutions that will be
proposed by the hydrologic plan. A $75,000 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for a hydrologic
study of Buckeye Creek was proposed by staff in fiscal year 2013, but it was not funded. Staff will
re-submit a CIP request to fund a hydrological study.
Easements and Other Restrictions
There is an emergency ingress and egress easement that runs through the parcel to Los Trancos
Road. This easement must be maintained for emergency response and evacuation of Foothills Park.
Development is limited next to Buckeye Creek. Environmental regulations preclude any permanent
structures or parking lots within 50 feet of Buckeye Creek. (The 50 feet is measured from the bank
of the creek.)
ATTACHMENT A
JANUARY 27, 2015 STAFF
REPORT
The 7.7 acres is bordered on three sides by a private residence. There is only one public entry and
exit point to the 7.7 acres. It is through Foothills Park, and passes through the Foothills Park
Maintenance Facility and staff parking area.
The flat area of the parcel (approximately 2.1 acres) is the only viable usable space within the total
7.7 acres for constructing any type of structure. This includes the current .53 acre nursery parcel.
The remaining portion of the parcel is hillsides, exclusive easements and setback from Buckeye
Creek. The approximate size of this flat area was ascertained through measurements taken from the
City’s GIS system.
The Parks Master Plan
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is underway and will have information that will provide valuable insight to any functions that may be currently underserved in our park and recreation system.
Joint Council and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
On November 10, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee provided an update to Council regarding the 7.7 acres parcel.
There were several Council comments and questions from Council regarding the parcel:
1.Suggestion to make the property accessible to the public during the interim period while the
City decides how best to use the property.
2.Suggestion to have a joint Council/ Commission study session on just the topic of the future
of the 7.7-acre parcel, potentially at Foothills Park.
3.Discussion about the need to secure the site with fencing due to security and safety concerns.
4.Question about whether the gravel, rock, and sand be commercially mined from the flat
portion of the parcel to remove the spoils and perhaps make money for the City. (CSD staff
explored this option with Public Works staff who manages the City’s soil importation project
to cap the former landfill. Public Works explained that developers pay to dispose of clean
soils. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would pay to haul away quarry spoils that could
not be sold when they were originally mined.
5.Question about the cost to fence off the nursery and culvert in order to make the 7.7-acre
parcel accessible to the public (Staff will get an estimate for these costs and an estimated
time frame on how long it would take to install).
6.Suggestion about a trail connection between the parcel and the Nature Center along the
upland margin of the property close to Mr. Arrillaga’s (adjacent neighbor) fence line.
7.Suggestion that staff and the Commission should recommend short-term and long-term
phases for the parcel and include costs and estimated timing.
Feasibility and Needs Analysis for the Major Themes
The feasibility and needs assessment in this report is based on analysis of reservations of existing
park facilities, and observations from staff in the field. Information from the Parks Master Plan will
provide additional information once it is complete in November 2015.
ATTACHMENT A
JANUARY 27, 2015 STAFF
REPORT
Recreation Theme Concepts
Camping Needs assessment:
There is demand for additional camping at Foothills Park during Friday and Saturday nights
throughout the summer.
The existing Foothills Park Towle Camp has eight campsites. It is typically booked to capacity every
Friday and Saturday nights all summer long, with holidays, May, June, and September (popular for
school groups) being reserved 6 to 12 months in advance.
Camping Feasibility:
1.Noise from a campground in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may be an
issue for both campers and for the adjacent land owner. There may also be issues with smoke
generated from campfire circle or barbeques. No matter where a campground is placed on
the 7.7 acre parcel, it would only be about 300 feet from the adjacent land owner’s backyard.
2.Unless the campground was very small (less than 15 visitors) and designed to be a primitive,hike-in-only campground, a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area would be necessary.
3.Restrooms will be needed for primitive or car camping.
4.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed, the campground would be at some risk of
flooding during extreme rain events. The 7.7 acre parcel is the lowest valley location in the
park and has the coldest temperatures in the park during the winter.
5.There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that may be better suited for an additional
camping area or group picnic area. There is a flat area just below the hill from Fire Station 8,
where there are nearby utilities, parking, and no neighbors in close proximity (See
Attachment C).
Group Picnic Area Needs Assessment:
There is demand for large group picnic areas during the summer months. Any group of more than 25
people must have a permit and there is only one existing group picnic area in Foothills Park. The
Oak Grove group picnic area may be reserved and can accommodate groups up to 150 people. The
picnic area is typically booked to capacity on weekends from June through September. There are
five other picnic areas in Foothills Park available for groups of less than 25 visitors on first-come
first-serve availability.
Group Picnic Area Feasibility:
1.Noise from a group picnic area in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may
be an issue.
2.It would require adding a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area. We couldn’t use the existing
ATTACHMENT A
JANUARY 27, 2015
STAFF REPORT
parking lot adjacent to the Oak Grove Picnic Area because that lot is full when Oak Grove is
being used.
3.It would require adding restrooms.
4.One attraction for the existing popular picnic areas (Oak Grove and Orchard Glen) is the
large lawns adjacent to these areas for activities and games. Adding irrigated lawns to the
7.7 acres would be an expensive, water intense addition.
5.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed the picnic area would be at some risk of
flooding during extreme rain events. There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that
may be better suited for an additional camping area or group picnic area. There is a flat area
just below the hill from Fire Station 8, where there are nearby utilities, parking, and noneighbors in close proximity (See Attachment C).
Trail Needs Assessment:
The existing Foothills Park trail system is 15 miles long. The trails offer a wide variety of hiking experiences, challenges, and views. There were no requests for trails in this area from the public that participated in the Ranger led tours or the public meeting to discuss the possible uses for the site.
Trail Feasibility:
1.A simple trail on the flat area of the 7.7 acres could be constructed.
2.More information is needed on the feasibility of constructing a hillside trail.
Group Meeting Area Needs Assessment:
The Foothills Park Interpretive Center and Orchard Glen Picnic Area often serve as a group meeting
areas, as they are located in central areas within the park and have accessible parking, restrooms, and
drinking fountains available. Staff have neither noticed nor received feedback from park visitors that
a group meeting area is desired. Though, some participants at the public meeting on the 7.7 acre
parcel suggested adding a group meeting area to this site.
Group meeting Area Needs Feasibility:
1.Noise from a group meeting area in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may
be an issue.
2.It may require adding a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area. The existing parking lot adjacent to
the Oak Grove Picnic Area is full when Oak Grove is being used.
3.It may require adding restrooms.
4.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed the group meeting area would be at some risk
of flooding during extreme rain events.
ATTACHMENT A JANUARY
27, 2015 STAFF REPORT
5.There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that may be better suited for a group meeting
area. There is a flat area just below the hill from Fire Station 8, where there are nearby
utilities, parking, and no neighbors in close proximity (See Attachment C).
Restoration Theme Concepts:
Habitat Restoration Needs Assessment:
1.The site would benefit from habitat restoration, especially for riparian habitat restoration
adjacent to Buckeye Creek. The habitat of the flat section of the 7.7 acre parcel is largely
bare soil (comprised of five feet of compacted overburden quarry spoils) and some weeds.
The sloped sides of the parcel consist of a mix of redwood and eucalyptus trees and some
coyote brush shrubs. The habitat value could be improved by planting native vegetation andcontrolling invasive weeds.
Habitat Restoration Feasibility:
1.There are no utilities on the parcel. Any plantings would require a temporary irrigation
system be installed. The closest water line is at the maintenance shop.
2.The poor soil conditions should be mitigated in order to have successful vegetation growth.
For the flat section of the parcel, one option is rip the hard compacted ground and add
compost and other soil amendments. Composting has been demonstrated to gradually
improve the soil on the adjacent quarry site parcel. Another option could include removing
the overburden and use compost and other soil amendments. By removing the overburden
the flat parcel elevation would be lowered creating the opportunity for riparian habitat and
flood zones along Buckeye Creek. This concept could be explored through the hydrologic
study.
3.If the Acterra Nursery remains on site some of the habitat restoration projects could be
incorporated to the Acterra Nursery agreement or the Acterra Stewardship work plan.
De-channeling Buckeye Creek and Restoring the Original Meandering Creek Needs Assessment:
1.One concept to mitigate the historic channelization of Buckeye Creek would be to remove
much of the overburden in the flat portion of the 7.7 acres and allow for a natural
meandering and flooding of the creek. The hydrologic study should address this issue in
terms of need and feasibility.
Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee
A recommendation from the Ad Hoc Committee is premature at this point since the Commission has
not had an opportunity to discuss the 7.7 acre parcel. However, the Ad Hoc Committee did create the
following options to consider, which may be helpful as ideas for fostering discussion on the topic.
Options to consider:
ATTACHMENT A
JANUARY 27, 2015 STAFF
REPORT
1. Extend lease with Acterra for another five years, with the caveat that they may be required to
move elsewhere within Foothills Park pending the result of hydrology study. The existing lease will
expire in July 2015.
2. Assuming the CIP for the hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek is approved, start the study as
soon as possible- July 2015.
3. If the Commission and Council determine the site should be opened to the public, City staffshould install fencing and gates to ensure that the culvert is safe and that the open areas are separated from the Acterra Nursery.
4. Inform the neighbors well in advance of the date that the parcel will be opened to the public sothat they can make arrangements to put up fencing to secure their areas.
5. Avoid investing in any improvements or amenities for the site, other than fencing and gates,
because the hydrologic study may provide recommendations that would necessitate changing where
we locate certain amenities.
6. Open the property to the public after the necessary fences have been installed.
7. Continue Commission discussions on development plans for the 7.7 acre parcel.
8. Continue to collect feedback from park visitors regularly using the parcel for what they would
like to see long term on the property.
9. The scope of the Parks Master Plan could be expanded to include recommendations for
development of the 7.7 acre parcel. The recommendations would be based on the findings of the
Master Plan, and feedback from the public, Commission, and Council. The Parks Master Plan will
be completed by November 2015. The hydrological study, if approved, would most likely not be
completed by that date, so any Master Plan concepts for future use of the parcel would not
incorporate recommendations from the hydrological study. Because of the timing of the Hydrologic
study and the Master Plan, the recommendations for the 7.7 acre parcel from the Parks Master Plan
would be limited to a list of possible uses of the land, rather than drawings depicting specific
locations for development.
10. Refine the development plans for the parcel once the hydrology study is complete.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Public Comments from Public Meeting
Attachment B: Acterra Nursery Facts
Attachment C: Aerial Photos Illustrating Configuration of Amenities on 7.7 Acre Parcel and on
Alternative Site.
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
DAREN ANDERSON
Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community
Services Department
ATTACHMENT A
JANUARY 27, 2015 STAFF
REPORT
ATTACHMENT A
Public Meeting
Subject: Gather community input on how to use the 7.7 acre area
Date: October 18, 2014
Location: Foothills Park
Eighteen people signed the sign‐in sheet. There were some late arrivals. Total number of
meeting participants was about 27.
Public Suggestions:
1. Open sided building for various special events. Ideally allowing horses. It would bring
more people into the park. Possible uses could include hay rides, weddings, etc. The
fact that there is a large flat area is a positive.
2. Note that the 5’ of overburden soil (this is the material that was excavated from the
adjacent quarry) that was placed on the 7.7 acres limits the restoration options. The
overburden material is not good for growing plants. Alternatives to restoration should
be considered. It would take a lot of effort to restore. Bounded with only one entry is
also a challenge. We need to think outside the box.
3. The flat area is good thing. It would be a good location for a primitive campground with
limited amenities. We could use the existing amenities, such as the restrooms at Oak
Grove and the parking near Oak Grove picnic area.
4. Move the existing park maintenance building into the 7.7 acre area, and restore the site
where the maintenance building is currently sitting. The maintenance yard is the entry
to this space, and the entry should be attractive.
5. All options considered for this space should retain the Acterra nursery, and build on
access to the nursery. The nursery should be instructional, not just commercial.
(someone notes that classes of children do visit the nursery).
6. There are numerous benefits of the nursery, and it should be maintained on site.
7. There should be a place holder for option of including a Canopy tree nursery at the site.
8. It would be great if there was public access into this area through Los Trancos Road.
Don’t do anything that would preclude or prevent future connectivity through this site
to the rest of Foothills Park.
9. Restore original creek. Consider removing the overburden soil and restoring the area to
one contiguous valley. It would take a long time, but with time and grants it is possible.
10. Leave the site alone. Just add a simple trail.
11. Concern about emergency exit from the park. How is an individual inside the park
supposed to escape the area if there is a gate that can only be opened by emergency
response staff?
12. Acterra nursery should be allowed to stay on the site because it is a benefit to the City.
13. Make sure this issue is covered by the press (Weekly). It will ensure that more people
are aware of the discussion.
14. The Parks Master Plan may identify needs that cannot be met with our existing space in
the park system. Keep this area open for needs that are identified in the Master Plan.
15. Keep Acterra Nursery on the site.
16. Support the Acterra Nursery and expand the stewardship and educational
opportunities.
17. Use the area for athletic fields.
18. Question about how often the campground and group picnic area are booked? (Staff
explained that during summer weekends the campground and group picnic area are
fully booked.)
19. Camping could be a great use for this site.
20. Cabin camping with platforms would be a good use for the site. It would increase winter
camping.
21. Consider removing the eucalyptus trees from the site.
22. Adding something like the Oak Grove Picnic Area and including some new trees.
23. Include placeholders for connectivity.
24. Restoration could bring lots of grant money.
25. Canopy tree nursery
26. Creek restoration concept. There are lots of grants for this kind of work.
27. Improve the soil and let nature take its course. Remember, this is a nature preserve.
28. Respect the neighbors to this site. Need to take into account noise issues for whatever is
considered for this area. You wouldn’t put a campground right next to other neighbors’
homes anywhere else in the park system, so why would you do it in this situation?
ATTACHMENT B
Acterra Native Plant Nursery Facts
The Acterra Native Plant Nursery has been in operation since 1996 and located on the current
site since 2003. Acterra is a Palo Alto non-profit organization engaged in various activities
intended to protect and enhance our local environment.
The current lease for the nursery site expires in 2015 and can be renewed for another five years by mutual agreement between Acterra and the City of Palo Alto. In lieu of a cash
rental payment for the nursery, Acterra provides the City with $10,000 in value per year
consisting of plants, materials and volunteer restoration services. Acterra meters and
pays for all the nursery water usage. Electricity is generated on site via solar panels.
The entire nursery, including all structures, the solar electric system and water line was
built from the ground up by volunteers frequently using their own tools and employing
donated and salvaged materials whenever possible.
The nursery is staffed by one full-time and one part-time Acterra employee assisted by several regular volunteers. Staff duties extend beyond nursery operation to include related activities such as seed collecting and restoration consulting.
Specializing in plants grown from local wild-collected propagules, the nursery grows
about 150 species and more than 30,000 plants annually, some of which are endangered and difficult to propagate.
The nursery provides all plants used in Acterra Stewardship program restoration projects,
as well as being a key supplier of plants for other local public agencies such as the Santa
Clara Valley Water District and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. For
example, the nursery is the primary plant supplier for Mt. Umunhum Restoration.
In Palo Alto alone, Acterra Stewardship provided 10,000 volunteer hours of habitat
restoration and installed more than 14,500 nursery plants at seven different sites last year.
The primary focus of the nursery is growing plants for wild land restoration. It also serves commercial and residential landscapers who wish to install water wise eco-friendly plants. The nursery pioneered the lawn replacement concept. Local schools,
parks, demonstration gardens and rural farmers also use plants from the nursery.
The nursery attracts an abundance of birds, butterflies, native bees, and other wildlife. We are especially proud of our large tree frog population. We facilitate the hatching of hundreds of tree frogs each year.
ATTACHMENT C
Alternative location for a possible nursery, group picnic area, or campsite. Between Boronda Lake to the south and Fire Station 8 to the north lies a flat
undeveloped cut slope from the original construction of Foothills Park. The area has two existing paved parking lots (for development that never occurred), and
both water and sewer utilities nearby.
Composite image pastes the existing Acterra Nursery and a proposed covered 5000 sq. foot group picnic pavilion (for groups up to 100). The area can
accommodate a new restroom connected to existing sewer system.
Composite image with the picnic pavilion and a group campsite for 50 visitors.
Composite image showing the 7.7 acres with the Acterra Nursery remaining and an added 18,000 sq. foot parking lot and group picnic pavilion. The area could
accommodate a new restroom on septic system.
GROUP PICNIC
PAVILION
EXISTING
NURSERY
EXISTING
MAINTENANCE
YARD
EXISTING
PARKING
PARKING
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5969)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
Summary Title: Comprehensive Plan Update - Goals and Structures
Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Comprehensive Plan Structure and
Goals/Vision Statements for Each Element (Part I: Community Services &
Facilities and Transportation Elements)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council review and discuss the organizational structure of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, including the vision statement and goals for each individual element, in
order to provide guidance to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and staff regarding
necessary updates and adjustments. NOTE: This is the first of several meetings on this subject
scheduled for the summer/fall of 2015 and will prioritize the Community Services and
Facilities and Transportation Elements in an effort to provide immediate direction to the CAC.
Executive Summary
Completion of the Comprehensive Plan update is one of City Council’s priorities, and this
agenda item is intended to give the Council an opportunity to discuss the organizational
structure of the Comprehensive Plan, including the vision statements and goals of each element
of the Plan.
The City Council began this task at their meeting of April, 27, 2015, and is intended to provide
immediate direction to the CAC, which has been charged with synthesizing the policies and
programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan, with changes recommended by the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC), City Council direction, and public input received before,
during, and after the May 30 Comprehensive Plan Summit.
!s discussed at the Council’s meeting on !ugust 17, 2015, the City Council and the C!C will be
working in parallel over the next year to develop a revised draft Comprehensive Plan Update,
with the Council providing guidance on the plan structure (including vision statements and
goals) and critical issues, and the CAC focusing on policies and programs to implement the goals
(See Figure 1).
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Because the CAC is beginning its work on the Community Services & Facilities and
Transportation Elements, staff requests that the Council also begin its discussions with these
elements, after touching on the issue of prioritizing or coordinating between elements and
goals/policies. As discussed below, this is an area (prioritizing between elements) that the
Council could choose to take action, requesting staff to add to the introductory section of the
Comprehensive Plan, or could choose to leave the plan as is, effectively deferring the weighting
of potentially competing goals/policies to decision makers at the time that decisions are made.
Background
The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in 1998 and sets goals, policies, and programs related to
land use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource,
community services, and safety. The City recognized the need to update the plan in 2006 and
began the process in earnest in 2008, when a consultant was retained to work with staff and
the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC);
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Figure 1. Slide from the Summit Presentation Summarizing the Comp Plan Process
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Development, May 30, 2015
The PTC’s draft work product was submitted to the City Council in early 2014 and focused on
organizational changes to delete redundancies and make the text more accessible and user
friendly, emphasizing the existing themes and ensuring they were represented throughout
document, and incorporated environmental sustainability issues. When the PTC’s work product
was brought forward to the City Council, staff proposed a process that would complete the plan
and an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in parallel with expanded community
engagement (Staff Report 4415 from March 3, 2014).
This approach recognized that the EIR process can be an effective way to compare various
growth level scenarios and that EIR preparation itself takes approximately 18 months. Staff
recommended that this effort commence immediately with “scoping” and the identification of
possible alternatives for analysis in the EIR that could then be used to inform proposed
revisions and additions to the Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report ID# 4944 from August 4,
2014). Public workshops and “scoping” meetings were held in the summer of 2014 and the
Council requested a pause in this process on August 6th to permit consideration of potential
changes to the City’s zoning code and zoning map for commercial areas; (Staff Report ID# 5033
from September 8, 2014).
At a series of meetings culminating on December 8, 2014, the City Council discused their desire
to consider zoning changes concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Update and discussed a
number of issues they would like to consider during the update process. (Staff Report ID# 5236
from December 8, 2014) The discussion lead to a motion directing staff to: Update Zoning
Ordinance to address retail preservation, discuss parameters of annual office/R&D growth
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, p. I-4.
2Ibid.
3Ibid. A distinction can be made between ongoing programs and programs intended to be
completed at some point within the planning horizon.
Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, August 2015
Review of Comprehensive Plan Goals
As the CAC begins its work on Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, guidance from the
City Council is necessary to property frame the community discussion. Beginning with the
Community Services & Facilities and Transportation Element, staff requests the Council review
the existing Comprehensive Plan’s goals alongside the recommendations developed by the PTC
and provide direction regarding the desired goals and structure for the updated plan.
To facilitate the Council’s discussion, staff has provided the workbook included as Attachment
A, which contains the following for each element:
An introduction summarizing the intent and scope of the element, contents of the
existing element, and necessary changes/updates (based on prior Council direction,
changes in State law, etc.)
A comparision of the vision statements in the existing Comprehensive Plan element with
those recommended by the PTC, with a summary of the City Council’s input from !pril;
A short overview of the existing Comprehensive Plan element and the PTC’s
recommended revisions, with an explanation of the PTC’s recommended structure.
A detailed, side-by-side list of the major headings and goals in the existing
Comprehensive Plan element and the PTC revisions, with a summary of the intention or
rationale behind the PTC’s changes.
In most cases, the PTC’s recommended revisions were intended to reorganize, but not alter the
meaning of the existing elements in significant ways, and to address the necessary
changes/updates identified in the introductory section. In reviewing the workbook, the Council
will be able to determine if they wish to accept the PTC’s recommenations, if they would like to
maintain a structure of goals closer to the original, or if there are specific adjustments to
individual goals that are needed.
In staff’s view, there is no “wrong answer” when it comes to organizing the material, and the
most important question is whether the desired range of topics is addressed by the goals.
Providing guidance on desired goals within the plan before the CAC makes their
recommendations regarding policies and programs will ensure that the C!C’s work is consistent
with the Council’s expectations;
Hierarchy of Comprehensive Plan Goals
There is one overarching discussion topic that the Council may wish to address before delving
into the workbook for a discussion of Community Services & Facilities and Transportation
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Element Goals. Specifically, at your April 2015 meeting, several Councilmembers recognized
that the existing Comprehensive Plan does not prioritize its goals; all goals are assumed to be of
equivalent importance, and that without a process to prioritize goals, there is the potential for
conflicts or competition between goals in different elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
This approach (all goals are equal) appears intentional, as noted in the introductory section of
the Plan: “No single element or subject supersedes any other” (p; I-4). The approach was likely
developed in response to the requirements of State law, which states “The Legislature intends
that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency;”1
Nonetheless, it would be possible to provide within the Comprehensive Plan Update a guide for
future users of the plan, explaining factors that must be considered during the decision making
process, and/or providing a list of priorities.
As a way to frame this issue, Councilmembers Filseth and DuBois prepared the slide in Figure 2,
Hierarchy of Comprehensive Plan Goals, and presented it to the Council at the April 27th
meeting. The slide suggests a way of determining which goal gets priority when there are
potentially competing goals.
Figure 2. Possible Hierarchy of Comprehensive Plan Goals
1 California Government Code Section 65300.5
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Timeline
The Comprehensive Plan Update has been underway for many years and the City Council
“reset” the process in 2014 in an effort to ensure broad community input, to identify and
address critical issues facing our community, and to ensure concurrent consideration of needed
zoning changes. In April of this year, the City Council requested formation of a Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) to assisst staff in completing this work. As shown in the draft
schedule included as Attachment B, CAC meetings are likely to continue through the spring of
next year. During the same period, the City Council will have multiple meetings to provide
direction, and a Draft EIR will be prepared, along with a fiscal analysis, both of which will
provide data and analysis to inform Council and community discussions. A revised draft
Comprehensive Plan Update will be prepared for consideration by the City Council in mid-2016.
Resource Impact
General plan updates are significant undertakings for any jurisdiction and since 2008, the City of
Palo Alto has invested time and resources in the project. The need to allocate multiple
members of City staff, significant time on the City Council’s agenda, and financial resources for
consultant assistance and event/meeting programming will continue until the adoption of the
updated Comprehensive Plan and its companion environmental document.
Policy Implications
The City’s Comprehensive Plan sets forth the City’s policies with regard to the topics addressed;
The structure comprised of vision statements and goals will inform discussions regarding
updated policies and programs.
Environmental Review
Adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan will require preparation and certification of a
program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: City Council Review of Vision Statement Table (DOCX)
Attachment B: Structure & Goals of Comp. Plan (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 8
ATTACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF VISION STATEMENTS OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APRIL 27, 2015
ATTACHMENT B -
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS
STRUCTURE AND GOALS COMPARISON
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 1
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 2
COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT’s STRUTURE
Current Organization
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT
C 1. Efficient Service Delivery
C2. Customer Service
C3. Social Services
C4. Parks and Public Facilities
C5. Access
Explanation of Proposed Changes
Consolidation and Clean Up
The existing Community Services and Facilities Element contain numerous
updates both in structure and in content while retaining the intent of existing
goals, policies and programs. The updates include revising the vision statement,
re-formatting the existing structure, and adding a new goal. Key among the
changes was an effort to use more outcome based language for policies and
programs, and be more specific in policy and program expectations. The existing
five goal languages were re-written and one new goal was added to the
element. The element now is time appropriate and advocates for new ideas like
healthy lifestyles, engaging seniors in the community and implementing
recommendations from Infra Structure Blue Ribbon Committee to maintain and
support ity’s infra-structure.
Approximately ten percent of the programs of the existing Element are deemed
complete, and rest of the policies and programs carried over, have been
reviewed for consistency, effectiveness and appropriateness.
• Reorganization of the Element’s structure.
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal C1 to C2: Community
Partnership;
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal C2 to Goal C5:Public Services in
Palo Alto;
Distributed appropriate existing Goal C3 policies and programs to new
Goal C1 and C4;
Renamed and distributed existing Goal C4 policies and programs to
Goals C3 and C4 and
Distributed existing Goal C5 policies and programs to Goal C3.
• Changed all Goal headings and
• Introduced Sub Sections to improve organizational clarity.
Proposed PTC Organization
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT
C1-Health and Well Being (New)
• Commitment to Responsive
Community Services
• Healthy Lifestyles through
Community Services
• Community Programs and Services
for Children
• Places for Teens in the Community
• Engaging Seniors in the Community
• Celebrating Cultural Diversity
C2-Community Partnership
• Engaging the Community (New)
• Regional Relationships
• Partnering with our Schools
• Non-profit Community Partners
• Business Partnerships
C3-Maintaining Parks and Facilities
• Maintaining our Parks and Facilities
• Expanding Access
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 3
Addition of New Goals, Policies and Programs
• Added new Goal 1 on Health and Well Being of residents;
• Added policies and programs on meeting the needs of growing senior
population and advocating for healthy lifestyles for all residents;
• Strengthened existing policies and added new policies on physical and
mental health wellbeing of youth and teens;
• Strengthened existing policies on importance of City's partnership with
PAUSD, business community, nonprofit partners and Stanford University;
• Added new policies on resources sharing with different organizations and
the City;
• Included new policies on implementing recommendations of Infra Structure
Blue Ribbon Committee and
• Added policies on planning for new open spaces, providing sufficient public
services to serve new developments, and encouraging universal access to
parks.
Planning Studies Referenced for this update
• Baylands Master Plan 2008;
• Project Safety Net Report 2010;
• Recreation Strategic Plan 2008-2011;
• Community Services Strategic Action Plan 2005-2010;
• White Paper on Impact of the !ging aby oom Population on Palo !lto’s
Social and Community Services 2006;
• California Parks and Recreation Society – Creating Community in the 21st
Century; and
• Youth Master Plan 2003.
C4-Planning for the Future
• Preserving the Aesthetic Legacy of our
Parks
• Community Facilities with Adaptability
for Diverse Uses
• Opportunities to Develop New Parks and
Recreational Facilities
C5-Public Services in Palo Alto
• Working with the Community
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 4
COMPARISON OF TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT’s STRUTURE
Current Organization
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
T 1. Reducing Auto Use
T2. Public Transit
T3. Bicycling and Walking
T4. Roadways
T5. Neighborhood Impacts
T6. Traffic Safety
T7. Special Needs
T8. Parking
Explanation of Proposed Changes
Consolidation and Clean Up
The existing Transportation Element has a strong organizational structure; hence
very little modification was required. Some consolidation of policies and
programs to avoid redundancy, and language clean-up were done. Although the
document is fairly comprehensive, some new ideas have surfaced in
transportation planning since the Element was adopted in 1998. The revised
draft reflects these changes. The draft includes new policies and programs to
address community concerns on parking, traffic mitigation, and neighborhood
street traffic safety. Policies and programs were added to provide consistency
with the adopted Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the Rail Corridor Study
and meet ity’s goals of the Climate Protection Plan.
About ten percent of the programs in the existing Element are completed. Rest
of the existing goals, policies and programs are being carried over to the Draft
Element with minimum edits.
• Reorganization of the Element’s structure:
Consolidated existing Goals T1, T2, and T3 under Sustainable
Transportation as Goal T1;
Renumbered existing Goal T4 to Goal T2: Roadways;
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T5 to Goal T3: Residential
Streets; and
Renumbered existing Goal T6 to Goal T5: Traffic Safety;
Renumbered existing Goal T7 to Goal T6: Special Needs;
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T8 to Goal T4: Motor Vehicle
and Bicycle Parking;
Proposed PTC Organization
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
T1. Sustainable Transportation
• Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
• Public Transit
• Bicycles and Pedestrians
• Rail Corridor (New)
T2. Roadways
T3. Residential Streets
T4. Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
• Parking in Business Districts
• Parking Technologies
• Parking in Residential Districts
• General Parking Policies
• Parking Facility Design
• Bicycle Parking
T5. Traffic Safety
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 8
T9. Regional Leadership
T10. Airport
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T9 to Goal T7: Regional
Collaboration
Renumbered existing Goal T10 to Goal T8: Airport
• Changed three Goal headings and
• Introduced Sub Sections to improve organizational clarity.
Addition of New Policies and Programs
• Added a new section under Goal 1 to incorporate Rail
Corridor Study;
• Strengthened the section on Complete Streets;
• Added new policies on Level of Service at Protected
Intersections and Multimodal Level of Service Evaluation;
• Strengthened Safe Routes to School policies; bicycle safety
policies, and preservation of residential street policies;
• Added new policies on Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Requirements;
• Included new policies on alternative modes of transport,
trip reduction strategies, no net new trip for new
developments, and GHG emissions reduction strategies;
• Added Parking policies on adoption of new parking
technologies for business districts; parking facilities design,
bicycle parking;
• Included policies on Regional Transportation efforts and
Highway 101 and Interstate improvements and
• Transition of Municipal Airport from county to City.
Planning Studies Referenced for this update
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2012;
• Rail Corridor Study 2013 and
• ity of Palo !lto’s limate Protection Plan (in process of
being updated)
• Technology Enhancements
• Safe Routes to School
T6. Special Needs
• Accessible Streets
• Accessible Public Transit
T7. Regional Collaboration
• Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
• Highway 101 and Interstate Improvements
• Regional Transit Networks
T8. Airport
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 9
COMPARISON OF L!ND USE and UMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT’s STRUTURE
Current Organization
LAND USE and COMMUNITY
DESIGN ELEMENT
L 1. Local Land use and
Growth Management
• Extent of Urban
Development
• Commercial Growth Limits
• Mixed Use Areas
• Land Use and Circulation
Map
• Land Use Definitions
L2. City Structure: Fostering
a Sense of Community
L3. Residential
Neighborhoods
L4. Centers
• All Centers
• Regional Centers
• Multi-Neighborhood
Centers
• Neighborhood Centers
Explanation of Proposed Changes
Consolidation and Clean Up
The Land Use and Community Design Element went through the most
organizational change. The existing policies and programs were reorganized and
by individual topics. This was done to improve the clarity and readability of the
document. The proposed element contains revised vision statement, five
consolidated new goals with appropriate policies and programs. Goal 3 of this
element includes referral to the two Concept Area Plans: East Meadow
ircle/Fabian Way oncept Plan and alifornia !venue/Fry’s !rea oncept Plan.
Existing, policies and programs were revised to incorporate key City Council
priorities wherever applicable. The priorities included: limiting the conversion of
non-residential land to residential uses, encouraging economic development
including limiting the loss of retail serving uses, strengthening provision of
services and addressing sustainable development. New sections were added on
climate change, sustainable land use development and urban design, retail
retention, below grade alignment for fixed rail and airport and baylands land
use.
Approximately twenty percent of the policies and programs of the existing
Element are deemed complete and rest of the policies and programs carried
over have been reviewed and edited for consistency, effectiveness and
appropriateness.
Due to renewed pace of commercial and residential development occurring
throughout the city in the last few years, and associated increase in traffic and
parking issues staff recommends the newly formed itizen’s !dvisory
Committee (CAC) to take another look at the element and make necessary
policy updates.
Proposed PTC Organization
LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT
L1. Land use to Support the ity’s Future
Needs
• Climate Protection (New)
• Land use in Urban Service Area
L2. Sustaining Public Places
• Urban Design Guidelines
• Downtown Public Spaces
• Mixed Use Guidelines
• Public Facilities Design Guidelines
L3. Guiding Private Development
• Citywide Residential Guidelines
• Guidelines for Neighborhood Centers
and Employment Districts
• East Meadow Circle Concept Area
Plan
• California Avenue Concept Area Plan
L4. Preserving Historic and
Archaeological Resources
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 13
L5. Employment Districts
All Employment Districts
• Stanford Research Park
• Stanford Medical Center
• East Bayshore and San
Antonio Road/Bayshore
Corridor
L6. Design of Buildings Public
Places
L7. Historic Character
L8. Civic Uses
L9. Public Ways
• Streets & Paths
• Street Trees
• Gateways
• Public Arts
• Parking Lots
• Infrastructure
• Reorganization of the Element’s structure.
Distributed policies and programs in existing Goal L1, to Goal L1, L2, L3 and
L5;
Distributed existing Goal L2 and L3 policies and programs to Goal L2 and
L3: Sustaining Public Places and Guiding Private Development;
Distributed existing Goal L4 to Goal L2, L3 and L5: Sustaining Public Places,
Guiding Private Development and Regional Land use;
Distributed existing Goal L5 to Goal L5: Regional Land use;
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal L6 to Goal L2: Sustaining Public
Places;
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal L7 to Goal L4: Preserving Historic
and Archaeological Resources;
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal L8 to Goal L2: Sustaining Public
Places and
Distributed policies and programs in existing Goal L9 to L2: Sustaining
Public Places.
• Changed all Goal headings and
• Added new Sub Sections to improve organization of the document.
Addition of New Policies and Programs
• Added a new section on Climate Protection goals and policies under Goal 1;
• Policies and programs added to improve consistency with Baylands Master
Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Rail Corridor Study ;
• Added two Concept Area Plans: East Meadow Circle Concept Area Plan and
California Avenue Concept Area Plan
Planning Studies Referenced for this update
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2012
• Rail Corridor Study 2013.
• Baylands Master Plan 2008
• ity of Palo !lto’s limate Protection Plan (in process of being updated)
• Encourage Preservation
• Archeological Resources
L5. Regional Land Use
• Regional Land use
• Stanford Land use (Shopping Center,
Research Park and Medical Center)
• Downtown Palo Alto
• Airport Land use
• Baylands Land use
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 14
COMPARISON OF N!TUR!L ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT’s STRUTURE
Current Organization
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
ELEMENT
N 1. Open Space
• Sensitive Plant Species List
• City of Palo Alto Open
Space Development criteria
N2. Creeks And Riparian
Areas
• Special Status Wildlife
Species List
• City of Palo Alto Open
Space Development criteria
N3. Urban forest
N4. Water Resources
• Historic Water
Consumption and Projected
Demand in Palo Alto
• Best management Practices
to Address Water Pollution
Explanation of Proposed Changes
Consolidation and Clean Up
This is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan addressing four
of the seven elements mandated by the State (Open space, Conservation, Safety
and Noise). Extensive reorganization and consolidation of this Element was done
by PTC based on input from different stakeholder groups, boards and
commissions. The Safety component of the plan was strengthened. Two new
goals were added along with several policies and programs. Several new topics
including adapting, monitoring, and mitigating climate change, community
safety and emergency preparedness are addressed in this proposed element.
PTC also proposed a name change for this element to Natural and Urban
Environment and Safety Element.
Approximately fifteen percent of the programs and policies of the existing
Element are deemed complete and rest of the policies and programs are carried
over and have been reviewed for consistency, effectiveness and
appropriateness.
On April 2015, City Council reviewed the Vision statements and organization of
the ity’s omprehensive Plan and recommended inclusion of a separate Safety
and Noise element. Based on that recommendation, the PTC proposed structure
of the Natural Environment will be modified.
• Reorganization of the Element’s structure.
Consolidated existing Goals N1, N2, and N3 under Natural Ecosystems as
Goal N1;
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal N4 to Goal N5: Water Quality and
Conservation;
Consolidated existing Goals N5 and N8 to Goal N6: Environmental Quality;
Air Quality and Noise Level Mitigation and Reduction
Proposed PTC Organization
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
N1. Natural Ecosystems
• Foothills, Bay Lands and Public
Open Space
• Creeks and Riparian Areas
• Urban Forest
N2. Climate Change and Adaptation (New)
N3. Energy Sources and Conservation
N4. Solid and Hazardous Waste
• Hazardous Materials
• Solid Waste
N5. Water Quality and Conservation
• Water Resources: Water
Conservation, Recycling, and
Quality
• Stormwater Quality
• Wastewater Treatment
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 18
N5. Air Quality
N6. Hazardous Waste
N7. Solid Waste
N8. Noise
N9. Energy
N10. Natural Hazards
General Safety Measures
Seismic and Other Geologic
Hazards
Flood Hazards
Fire Hazards
Emergency Management
Consolidated existing Goals N6 and N7 to Goal N4: Solid and Hazardous
Waste;
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal N9 to Goal N3: Energy Sources
and Conservation;
Split and renumbered existing Goal N10 to Goal N7 and N8: Natural
Hazards and Community Safety And Emergency Management
• Changed five Goal headings;
• Introduced Sub Sections to improve organizational clarity and
Addition of New Policies and Programs
• Added new Goal 2 to be consistent with the ity’s the limate Protection
Plan. It includes policies addressing effects of sea level rise and flooding
and policies to achieve City’s targeted goals to reduce GHG;
• New policies and programs on Energy conservation, use of alternative
energy namely solar, and promoting use of renewable energy sources is
added;
• Added new policies on maximizing recycling and composting;
• Strengthened policies on conservation and efficient use of water resources,
and maximizing use of recycled water;
• Added policies on following specifications of California and Palo Alto Green
Building codes, Demolition and Construction Debris Diversion program, Zero
Waste Operational Plan, and the Recycling and Composting Ordinance;
• Added new policies on transportation related noise (roadways, airways and
railways) and construction noise; and
• Included new policies on community safety and emergency management.
•
Planning Studies Referenced for this update
• Urban Forest Master Plan 2015;
• Baylands Master Plan 2008;
N6. Environmental Quality
• Air Quality
• Noise Level Mitigation and Reduction
N7. Natural Hazards
• Seismic Activity and Geologic Hazards
• Flood Hazards and Mitigation
N8. Community Safety And Emergency
Management
• Public Awareness and General Safety
Measures
• Fire Protection and Awareness
• Community Safety (New)
• Emergency Management
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 19
STRUCTURE OF THE PROPOSED SAFETY and NOISE ELEMENT
City Council Recommended Changes Proposed Organization
SAFETY AND NOISE ELEMENT
This new element was suggested by City Council to be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan. Previously the Safety and Noise components of the S1-COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
Comprehensive Plan were included in the Natural Environment Element. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Public Awareness and General
Addition of New Policies and Programs Safety Measures
Fire Protection and Awareness
• Added new policies on transportation related noise (roadways, airways and Community Safety
railways) and construction noise; and Emergency Management
• Included new policies on community safety and emergency management.
S2 –NATURAL HAZARDS
Planning Studies Referenced for this update
S3 –NOISE LEVEL MITIGATION AND • Foothills Fire Management Plan and Cal Fire Plan; REDUCTION • Emergency Operations Plan and
• Seismic Hazard Ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 24
COMPARISON OF BUSINESS and EONOMIS ELEMENT’s STRUTURE
Current Organization
BUSINESS and ECONIMICS ELEMENT
B1. CITYWIDE: Compatibility
B2. Diversity
B3. Growth
B4. Flexibility
Explanation of Proposed Changes
Consolidation and Clean Up
The PTC proposed draft Business and Economics Element
has significant updates to both the structure and content
while simultaneously retaining the intent of existing goals,
policies and programs. Though the number of goals
remains the same in existing and proposed plan, two new
goals were added to the element to make it more
comprehensive and some goals were consolidated to
reduce redundancy and improve clarity. New goals include
policies on encouraging innovation, technology and
promoting Palo Alto’s image as a global leader of
innovation and entrepreneurship. The element also
highlights Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue as
two distinct major business centers of the City. A second
new goal on promoting tourism and visitors were added to
this element.
Over twenty percent of the programs in the existing
Element are completed. Rest of the existing goals, policies
and programs are being carried over to the Draft Element
with minor edits.
Proposed PTC Organization
BUSINESS and ECONIMICS ELEMENT
B1. Encouraging Innovation and Technology
(NEW)
B2. Business Centers: Downtown and
California Avenue (NEW)
B3. Palo Alto as a Regional Shopping, Services
and Employment Destination
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 27
B5. Centers
• All Centers
• Regional Centers
University Av./
Downtown,
South of Forest Mixed
Use Area, Stanford
Shopping Center
• Multi-Neighborhood
Centers
California Av.,
Cal-Ventura,
El Camino Real,
Town & Country Village
• Neighborhood Centers
B6. All Employment Districts
• All Employment Districts
Stanford Research Park,
Stanford Medical Center, E.
Bayshore & San
Antonio/Bayshore Corridor
• Reorganization of the Element’s structure.
Distributed policies and programs under existing Goal B1 and B2, to
Goal B4 and B5: Thriving Retail Districts and Doing Business in Palo Alto;
Consolidated existing Goals B3 and B4 to Goal B5: Doing Business in
Palo Alto;
Moved existing Goal B5 to Goal B4: Thriving Retail Districts;
Moved and renamed existing Goal B6 to Goal B3: Palo Alto as a
Regional Shopping, Services and Employment Destination
• Changed all Goal headings and
• Introduced Sub Sections to improve organizational clarity.
Addition of New Policies and Programs
• A new goal encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship added
• !nother new goal on enhancing Palo !lto’s Visitors and Tourism added
• Policies on increasing diversity in retail mix, ground floor retail design
guidelines, creating positive parking solutions for Downtown and California
Avenue business districts and upholding added;
• Policies on enhancing visitor experience in Palo Alto, providing more
opportunities for arts, entertainment, and night life included in this element.
Planning Studies Referenced for this update
• Office of Economic Development Policy guide
• ity of Palo !lto’s Sign Ordinance
South of Forest Plan (SOFA) II
• Stanford Shopping Center Stanford
Research Park
• East Bayshore, San Antonio and East
Meadow Circle Area
B4. Thriving Retail Districts
• Retail Districts:
• El Camino Real
• South of Forest Mixed Use Area
(SOFA)
• Town and Country Village
• Neighborhood-Serving Retail
Districts:
• Mid-Town
• Charleston Shopping Center
• Edgewood Plaza
• Alma Village
B5. Doing Business in Palo Alto
• Business and the Community
B6. Visitors and Tourism (NEW)
Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals Page 28
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 1
OUR PALO ALTO 2030
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
STRUCTURE & GOALS
COMPARISON MATRIX
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 2
Table of Contents
Objectives & Use of This Matrix page 3
Community Services and Facilities Element page 4
Introduction page 5
Vision Statement Comparison page 7
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 8
Detail page 10
Transportation Element page 13
Introduction page 14
Vision Statement Comparison page 16
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 17
Detail page 19
Land Use and Community Design Element page 22
Introduction page 23
Vision Statement Comparison page 25
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 26
Detail page 28
Natural Environment Element page 31
Introduction page 32
Vision Statement Comparison page 34
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 35
Detail page 37
Business and Economics Element page 41
Introduction page 42
Vision Statement Comparison page 44
Comparison of Comp Plans
Summary page 45
Detail page 46
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 3
Objectives & Use of This Matrix
The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains chapters or “elements” that address topics required by State law, as well as
optional elements and topics. Each element begins with a vision statement. The vision statement lays out the overall
objective and spirit of the element. Following the vision statement, the organization of each element is achieved via a
series of headings, subheadings and goals. The goals describe what the City is trying to achieve1 and provide a structure for
the policies and implementation programs that follow.
This matrix is intended to provide the City Council with a framework to begin examination of the existing Comprehensive
Plan’s goals and goal organization, as well as revisions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) in 2014. The matrix compares the vision statements and goals of the current Comprehensive Plan 1998‐2010 with
the revisions recommended by the PTC and summarizes the rationale behind the PTC’s recommendations. The matrix also
includes a summary of the City Council’s input regarding the vision statements of each element and a general introduction
to each element of the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council may use this information to consider their own desired
approach to organizing the material within the Comprehensive Plan and specific goals that they would like to include.
The Council’s input and direction will provide the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) with needed guidance as they focus on
policies and programs to implement the Council’s goals. The elements are presented in the order they will be considered by
the CAC to facilitate this guidance.
1 P. I‐4 of the Comprehensive Plan defines a goal as “a general end towards which the City will provide effort.”
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 4
COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 5
The Community Services and Facilities Element is not a State requirement. It is included in the Comprehensive Plan to reinforce the
significance and importance of services like libraries and schools in Palo Alto and the vital role they play in shaping community life. The
Community Services and Facilities Element explains that Palo Alto is a full‐service City, with park and recreation divisions and police and fire
departments, library and cultural arts programs, and youth, senior and childcare services. In each of these areas, the City is committed to
providing responsive customer service for residents and businesses, even going so far in this Element to specify staff management techniques,
performance review criteria, and public contact processes in an effort to ensure the quality of service delivery.
The Current Plan
Palo Alto residents have access to a rich array of public services that cater to all ages, cultures, and levels of mobility and education. The City
provides a range of direct services to all citizens, and also partners with community organizations and jurisdictions to assist those with
disabilities. Palo Altans also have access to cultural and recreational opportunities on the adjacent campus of Stanford University. The
Community Services and Facilities Element calls for maintaining and enhancing all of the services, and it supports the excellent schools run by
the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), an independent local government institution separate from the City of Palo Alto.
The Community Services and Facilities Element acknowledges that parks and recreational and social services play a significant role in shaping a
healthy and dynamic community and calls for the City to encourage and enhance access for all Palo Altans. The Element also recognizes that
there are fiscal limits to what the City can provide and calls for collaboration with outside agencies and jurisdictions to fill any service gaps.
The Community Services and Facilities Element provides a solid framework to help the City deliver the services required to meet the needs of
the community and add to quality of life in Palo Alto. The majority of its policy themes are expected to be carried forward into Our Palo Alto
2030 to continue to maintain and strengthen public services, including:
Providing services that meet the needs of all cultures, ages, and abilities.
Meeting fiscal challenges by partnering with other agencies, jurisdictions, non‐profits, and businesses.
Partnering with PAUSD to maximize the use of school facilities for community use during non‐school hours.
Maintaining parks and facilities so they can be enjoyed by future generations.
Ensuring and expanding access to recreational and public services for disabled and low‐income residents.
Locating public facilities and services near children and seniors.
Expanding new parks and community facilities to meet the needs of a growing community.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 6
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
In light of the Council’s priorities and issues that have emerged since the adoption of the existing Comprehensive Plan, the Community Services
and Facilities Element in Our Palo Alto 2030 is expected to include a number of new concepts, including:
Advocating for healthy lifestyles for all residents.
Helping teens combat depression, isolation, stress, and other mental health issues.
Expanding programs to engage seniors in the community.
Encouraging universal access to parks, public places, and community facilities.
Carrying out the recommendations of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee regarding the potential need for new and/or
upgraded public facilities.
The updated Community Services and Facilities Element is also expected to reference the Parks Trails and Open Space Master Plan that is
currently being prepared, and it is likely to be in that context that the City will decide whether to maintain the quantitative National Recreation
and Park Association standards for Neighborhood and District park size, service area radius, and acres per person currently contained in
Comprehensive Plan Policy C‐28.
The PTC consulted with other boards and commissions, City staff, and other stakeholders in developing their recommended revisions to the
existing Comprehensive Plan, which address the new concepts referenced here. City Council guidance is required to determine whether the
updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what
specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 7
COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
AN
D
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will provide high quality community services to
its residents, businesses, and visitors. Its schools,
libraries, parks, community facilities, and performing arts
and cultural centers are treasured and will be enhanced
to serve current and future generations. Its police and
fire services will be managed to provide consistently high
levels of public safety. The City will continue to provide
services and programs that meet the needs of special
populations—including children, seniors, and people with
disabilities—as well as programs in recreation, lifelong
learning, and the arts that benefit all populations. Palo
Alto’s success in providing these services will be
expressed and measured by the satisfaction of its
customers, the public at large. The City will pursue new
ways to deliver community services in the most efficient
and cost‐effective way possible. It will coordinate its
efforts with other public agencies, nonprofits, and the
private sector to reduce overlap and maximize the use of
resources.”
“This generation must invest in the people,
places, programs and environment of Palo Alto
to ensure that the quality and vitality of
community services and facilities are present
and responsive to the generations to come.”
City Council Comments:Majority of the Council
members felt that the existing Vision Statement is
better and all inclusive.
Some Council members preferred including portions
of existing Vision Statement and add it to the PTC
version to strengthen it.
Following are the suggestions made by individual
Councilmembers:
Animal services not mentioned in the CSE
vision statement. It should be added
because it adds community value.
Mention of cultural activities in addition to
arts and science.
Exclude the word “generation must” from
the PTC Vision Statement to make it
stronger;
Add “Palo Alto’s success in providing these
services will be expressed and measured by
the satisfaction of its customers, the public
at large” to the PTC Version.
Based on this input, staff will develop minor revisions
to the existing version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 8
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐ COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT ORGANIZATION & GOALS
Current Organization
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT
C 1. Efficient Service Delivery
C2. Customer Service
C3. Social Services
C4. Parks and Public Facilities
C5. Access
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC’s recommended revisions re‐organized the existing element and added a
new goal related to community health. The revisions address concepts related to a
healthy lifestyle, engaging seniors in the community, and implementing
recommendations from Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee to maintain and
support City’s infrastructure. Specifically, the recommendations reorganize the
Element’s structure by:
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal C1 to C2: Community Partnership;
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal C2 to Goal C5:Public Services in Palo
Alto;
• Distributing existing Goal C3 policies and programs to new Goal C1 and C4;
• Renaming and distributing existing Goal C4 policies and programs to Goals C3
and C4; and
• Distributing existing Goal C5 policies and programs to Goal C3.
• Change all Goal headings and introduce Sub‐Sections to improve clarity.
• Added a new Goal 1 on Health and Well Being of residents;
These organizational/goal changes facilitated other changes and additions to
policies and programs. Specifically, the PTC recommended:
• Policies and programs on meeting the needs of growing senior population and
advocating for healthy lifestyles for all residents;
• Strengthening existing policies and adding new policies on physical and
mental health wellbeing of youth and teens;
• Strengthening existing policies on importance of City's partnership with
PAUSD, business community, nonprofit partners and Stanford University;
• New policies on resources sharing with different organizations and the City;
• New policies on implementing recommendations of Infra Structure Blue
Ribbon Committee and
• Policies on planning for new open spaces, providing sufficient public services
to serve new developments, and encouraging universal access to parks.
The revisions were developed in consultation with other boards and commissions
Proposed PTC Revisions
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT
C1‐Health and Well Being (New)
• Commitment to Responsive
Community Services
• Healthy Lifestyles through
Community Services
• Community Programs and Services
for Children
• Places for Teens in the Community
• Engaging Seniors in the Community
• Celebrating Cultural Diversity
C2‐Community Partnership
• Engaging the Community (New)
• Regional Relationships
• Partnering with our Schools
• Non‐profit Community Partners
• Business Partnerships
C3‐Maintaining Parks and Facilities
• Maintaining our Parks and Facilities
Expanding Access
C4‐Planning for the Future
• Preserving the Aesthetic Legacy of
our Parks
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 9
and City staff, and referenced the following studies:
• Baylands Master Plan 2008;
• Project Safety Net Report 2010;
• Recreation Strategic Plan 2008‐2011;
• Community Services Strategic Action Plan 2005‐2010;
• White Paper on Impact of the Aging Baby Boom Population on Palo Alto’s
Social and Community Services 2006;
• California Parks and Recreation Society – Creating Community in the 21st
Century; and
• Youth Master Plan 2003.
There is now an opportunity to coordinate with the Parks, Trails and Open Space
master planning effort that started in 2014.
• Community Facilities with
Adaptability for Diverse Uses
• Opportunities to Develop New Parks
and Recreational Facilities
C5‐ Public Services in Palo Alto
• Working with the Community
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs. Because the PTC’s recommendation places
emphasis on a new goal related to community health, it may be preferable. The PTC’s emphasis on partnerships is also constructive. If the City Council would like to retain
the existing structure, staff would recommend replacing the third goal (social services) with the PTC’s goal about health and well being.
Staff would also appreciate the City Council’s input on the suggestion to the CAC that Policy C‐28, which contains 1990s‐era quantitative standards for neighborhood and
district parks from the National Recreation and Park Association, be assessed and updated as needed during the ongoing planning process related to parks, trails, and open
space.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 10
DETAIL COMPARISON ‐ COMMUNITY SERVICES and FACILITIES ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is a new goal, but also includes policies and programs of
existing Goal C3 on social services and community programs
for children. This goal has a lot of new policies advocating for
healthy lifestyles, places for teens in our community and
engaging seniors in our community.
NEW
Health and Well Being
GOAL C1: Prioritize implementation of
programs and strategies that sustain the
health, well‐being, recreation and safety of
residents and visitors
Efficient Service Delivery
GOAL C‐1: Effective and
Efficient Delivery of Community
Services.
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal C1 to C2: Community
Partnership.
This goal includes new polices on engaging citizen volunteers
for community services, developing regional relationships and
partnering with nonprofit agencies.
Community Partnerships
GOAL C2: Engage the community, work with
regional partners, reach out to schools,
collaborate with non‐profits and create
business partnerships in order to provide
community services for all age groups
Customer Service
GOAL C‐2: A Commitment to
Excellence and High Quality
Customer Service Among City of
Palo Alto Officials and
Employees
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal C2 to Goal C5: Public
Services in Palo Alto.
This goal focuses on providing high quality, responsive
customer service and reinforces the customer‐service ethic.
The PTC has recommended that this goal be included in Goal 5
in the “Working with the Community” section.
Public Service in Palo Alto
GOAL C5: Commit to providing high quality
public services and to the manner in which
those services are provided to our residents,
businesses and visitors
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 11
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed Goals
Social Services
GOAL C‐3: Improved Quality, Quantity, and
Affordability of Social Services, Particularly for
Children, Youth, Seniors, and People with
Disabilities
Distributed appropriate existing Goal C3 policies and
programs to new Goal C1 and C4.
This goal focuses on services for children, youth,
seniors and persons with disabilities. It also includes
opportunities for coordination among the various
agencies and organizations providing services given the
limited resources. PTC’s recommendation included
eliminating this goal and redistributing its contents
under new goals C1 and C4; “Health and Well Being”
and “Planning for the Future.”
Parks & Public Facilities
GOAL C‐4: Attractive, Well‐maintained
Community Facilities That Serve Palo Alto
Residents.
Renamed and distributed existing Goal C4 policies and
programs to Goals C3, and C4.
This goal focuses on Palo Alto’s parks, community
centers and libraries. The PTC has recommended that
this goal be changed to “Maintaining Parks and
Facilities” since it relates to existing parks, open spaces
and community facilities and that existing Goal 5
related to “Access” be included under this goal.
Maintaining Parks and Facilities
GOAL C3: Recognize the intrinsic value and
everyday importance of our parks and community
centers, libraries and civic buildings by investing in
their maintenance and improvement
This is a new goal. This goal includes some policies and
programs from existing Goal C3 and C4 but primarily
new policies on adaptability of community facilities for
various uses, and meeting the need of multi‐
generational community. It also includes new policies
on meeting city’s future need for parks and recreation
facilities.
Planning for the Future
GOAL C4: Plan for a future in which our parks,
libraries and community facilities continue to
thrive and adapt to the growth and change of Palo
Alto
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 12
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed Goals
Access
GOAL C‐5: Equal Access to Educational,
Recreational, and Cultural Services for All
Residents
Distributed existing Goal C5 policies and programs to
Goal C3.
This goal refers to the location of facilities, their design,
and the availability to transportation to reach them.
The PTC has recommended that this goal be
incorporated into Goal C3 on maintaining parks and
facilities. In addition, they recommend changing the
goal heading name to “Expanding Access”.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 13
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 14
The Transportation Element is required by State law to address transport of people and goods and related infrastructure such as streets
and highways, truck and transit routes, bus and rail stations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and airports. Its policies take into account the
physical, social, and economic effects of circulation, as well as regional impacts and coordination needs. The Element supports traffic safety,
roadway improvement, parking and transportation management solutions, special transportation needs for mobility‐impaired persons, and
efforts to increase bus and rail use.
A significant focus of the Transportation Element is congestion, which contributes to air, water, and noise pollution, and to frustration for
drivers, bicyclists, and other travelers. Increases in roadway capacity are not anticipated in Palo Alto, so the Transportation Element
addresses congestion with policies aimed at reducing automobile dependency, increasing travel alternatives, and encouraging fewer trips.
Since 2011, transportation elements have been required to “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs
of all users of streets, roads and highways for safe and convenient travel...” ‐‐ a concept that is referred to as “complete streets.”
The Current Plan
The Transportation Element lays the foundation for a multi‐modal circulation network that serves vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit
users. Transportation and land use are inextricably linked, as higher density and mixed use generally lead to more transit usage and
pedestrian activity. The Transportation Element encourages a land use pattern that supports reduced dependence on cars and guides City
decision‐makers to take into account the environmental and social costs of increased traffic when considering future projects.
The Element capitalizes on the fact that Palo Alto is the second largest generator of weekday Caltrain trips behind San Francisco and a
nationally recognized leader in innovative bicycle projects and programs. Transportation Element policies call for more northeast‐southwest
bike routes, easier navigation at railroad tracks and freeways, and better accommodation for bicycles on trains and buses. Much of Palo
Alto is ideal for pedestrians, but additional policies emphasize filling in gaps in the sidewalk system and making intersection crossing easier.
Goals, policies, and programs in the Transportation Element are still current, supporting the community’s vision of a less congested and
more walkable, transit‐rich environment. As a result, the majority of its policies should be considered for retention in the updated plan,
including those addressing the following concepts:
Reducing auto use through carpooling, increased emphasis on electronic information services, and education about
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 15
transportation alternatives.
Encouraging employers to develop shuttle services connecting employment areas with the multi‐modal transit stations and
business districts.
Supporting efforts to integrate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi‐modal transit stations to make public transit use more
time‐efficient.
Acquiring easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments.
Reducing neighborhood street and intersection widths and widening planting strips to slow speeds and improve safety.
Providing sufficient parking in business districts to address long‐range needs.
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
The effort to update the Comprehensive Plan is expected to build on the existing Transportation Element, fine‐tuning it to respond to
emerging trends and community concerns by:
Reinforcing “complete streets” concepts and policies.
Supporting Caltrain modernization and grade‐separated crossings.
Requiring proposed development to implement robust transportation demand management strategies that can be effectively
monitored and enforced.
Supporting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through vehicle trip reduction and by promoting electric and alternative fuel
vehicle technology.
Reflecting the City’s control of the Municipal Airport.
Strengthening policies on preservation of neighborhood residential streets, Safe Routes to School, and general traffic safety.
Addressing the regional Grand Boulevard Initiative for El Camino Real, and opportunities for improving transit and
pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the corridor.
The updated element also provides an opportunity for the City Council to articulate its objectives (e.g. 30% reduction in SOV trips?), and the
strategy for transportation investments discussed on August 17, 2015. City Council guidance is also required to determine whether the
updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and
what specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 16
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISION
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will provide accessible, attractive,
economically viable and environmentally sound
transportation options that meet the needs of residents,
employers, employees and visitors for safe, convenient
and efficient travel by a variety of methods. Streets will
be safe and attractive, and designed to enhance the
quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the
automobile, including walking, bicycling, public transit,
and car and van pooling. The adverse impacts of
automobile traffic on the environment in general and
residential streets in particular, will be reduced. Solutions
that reduce the growth in the number of automobiles on
City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be
supported. It is hoped that individuals will reduce their
automobile trips by 10 percent by 2010, as alternative
transportation methods are implemented. The City will
seek out innovative funding sources and approaches to
construct and maintain needed transportation systems.
Palo Alto recognizes the regional nature of our
transportation system, and will be a leader in seeking
regional transportation solutions through long‐term
planning.”
“Maintain and promote a sustainable network
of safe, accessible and efficient transportation
and parking solutions for all users and modes,
while protecting and enhancing the quality of
life in Palo Alto neighborhoods including
alternative and innovative transportation
practices and supporting regional transit
facilities and reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.”
City Council Comments:Majority of the Council
members preferred the PTC version of the Vision
Statement along with inclusion of language from
existing Vision Statement to strengthen it. (Some
Council members preferred the existing Vision
Statement stating it is still relevant, viable and
meaningful in spite of PTC version adding updated
language on Green House Gas reduction.) Following
are the suggestions made by the Council to
incorporate to the PTC version:
Add language on flexible, dynamic, performance
measures and alternatives to driving for all;
Replace the word neighborhoods with
“Citywide” in the PTC drafted Vision statement;
The word “Network” does not adequately
describe the vision. Add diversity of modes and
integrated systems of modes in the PTC Version;
Add the following language from the existing
Vision Statement “. The adverse impacts of
automobile traffic on the environment in
general and residential streets in particular, will
be reduced.”
Based on this input, staff will develop revisions to the
PTC’s version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 17
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Current Organization
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
T 1. Reducing Auto Use
T2. Public Transit
T3. Bicycling and Walking
T4. Roadways
T5. Neighborhood Impacts
T6. Traffic Safety
T7. Special Needs
T8. Parking
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC recommended very little revision to the existing Transportation Element,
with primary focus on deleting redundant language and editing to make the
document more readable. Although the existing element is fairly comprehensive,
some new ideas have surfaced in transportation planning since the Element was
adopted in 1998 and the PTC’s draft reflects these changes. Revisions suggested
to better organize material in the element included the following:
Consolidation of existing Goals T1, T2, and T3 under Sustainable
Transportation as Goal T1;
Renumbering existing Goal T4 to Goal T2: Roadways;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal T5 to Goal T3: Residential
Streets;
Renumbering existing Goal T6 to Goal T5: Traffic Safety;
Renumbering existing Goal T7 to Goal T6: Special Needs;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal T8 to Goal T4: Motor Vehicle
and Bicycle Parking;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal T9 to Goal T7: Regional
Collaboration
Renumbering existing Goal T10 to Goal T8: Airport
Changing three Goal headings and introducing Sub Sections to improve
organizational clarity.
The PTC’s recommendation also includes new policies and programs to address
community concerns on parking, traffic mitigation, and neighborhood street
traffic safety, and to provide consistency with the adopted Bicycle Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, the Rail Corridor Study, and the Climate Protection Plan.
Specifically, the PTC’s version:
• Added a new section under Goal 1 to incorporate the Rail Corridor Study,
including support for grade separating Caltrain in a trench below grade;
• Strengthened the section on Complete Streets;
• Added new policies on Level of Service at Protected Intersections and
Multimodal Level of Service Evaluation;
Proposed PTC Revisions
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
T1. Sustainable Transportation
• Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
• Public Transit
• Bicycles and Pedestrians
• Rail Corridor (New)
T2. Roadways
T3. Residential Streets
T4. Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
• Parking in Business Districts
• Parking Technologies
• Parking in Residential Districts
• General Parking Policies
• Parking Facility Design
• Bicycle Parking
T5. Traffic Safety
T6. Special Needs
• Accessible Streets
• Accessible Public Transit
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 18
• Strengthened Safe Routes to School policies; bicycle safety policies, and
preservation of residential street policies;
• Added new policies on Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Requirements;
• Included new policies on alternative modes of transport, trip reduction
strategies, no net new trip for new developments, and GHG emissions
reduction strategies;
• Added Parking policies on adoption of new parking technologies for business
districts; parking facilities design, bicycle parking;
• Included policies on Regional Transportation efforts and Highway 101 and
Interstate improvements and
• Reflected transition of the Municipal Airport from County to City.
The revisions were developed in consultation with City staff and stakeholders,
and referenced the following studies:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2012;
• Rail Corridor Study 2013 and
• City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan (in process of being updated)
There is now an opportunity to incorporate input from the May 30 Summit,
incorporate information on ongoing parking and TDM initiatives, and describe the
State’s transition away from using intersection Level of Service as a key metric for
impact evaluations.
T7. Regional Collaboration
• Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies
• Highway 101 and Interstate
Improvements
• Regional Transit Networks
T8. Airport
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs. The current Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on
reducing auto use is somewhat more direct than the broader goal of “sustainable transportation,” but the PTC’s addition of goals related to regional collaboration and the
airport are desirable, and the PTC’s overall organizational structure seems clearer. If the City Council would like to retain the existing structure, goals related to reducing
auto use and public transit could be revised somewhat to reference greenhouse gas reductions and the rail corridor, and goals related to regional collaboration and the
airport could be added. If the City Council prefers the PTC’s organizational structure, reducing SOV trips could be further emphasized, along with desired transportation
infrastructure investments.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 19
DETAILED COMPARISON ‐ TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Reducing Auto Use
GOAL T‐1: Less Reliance on Single‐Occupant
Vehicles
Consolidated existing Goals T1, T2, and T3 under
Sustainable Transportation Goal T1.
This goal added new policies and programs on reducing
GHG, supporting electric or alternative fuel vehicle
technology, improving bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure, ensuring consistency with Bicycle
Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Rail Corridor study.
Sustainable Transportation
GOAL T1: Create a sustainable transportation
system that emphasizes walking, bicycling, and
use of public transportation, and other methods
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use
of
Public Transit
GOAL T‐2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit
System that Provides a Viable Alternative to
Driving
Bicycling and Walking
GOAL T‐3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that
Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling.
Roadways
GOAL T‐4: An Efficient Roadway Network for All
Users.
Renumbered existing Goal T4 to Goal T2: Roadways.
This goal retained all the existing policies and added
new policies on “Complete Streets” to satisfy
requirements of AB1358 and Multi Modal Level of
Service.
Roadways
GOAL T2: Maintain an efficient roadway network
for all users.
Neighborhood Impacts
GOAL T‐5: A Transportation System with Minimal
Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T5 to Goal
T3: Residential Streets.
All existing policies are carried over, in addition, new
policies on minimizing traffic impacts from new
developments in residential neighborhoods has been
added.
Residential Streets
GOAL T3: Protect neighborhood streets that
support residential character and provide a range
of local transportation options.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 20
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Traffic Safety
GOAL T‐6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists,
Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets.
Renumbered existing Goal T6 to Goal T5: Traffic
Safety.
Apart from adding new policies and programs on
improving bicycle safety, multi modal safety at
intersections and technology enhancements, all the
relevant existing polices are carried over to the PTC
draft.
Traffic Safety
GOAL T5: Provide a high level of safety for
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto
streets.
Special Needs
GOAL T‐7: Mobility for People with Special
Needs.
Renumbered existing Goal T7 to Goal T6: Special
Needs.
This goal includes policies on addressing needs of
people with disabilities. New policies on Universal
Design standards to accommodate persons with special
needs, beyond standards prescribed by American
Disabilities Act have been added.
Special Needs
GOAL T6: Provide mobility options that allow
people with special needs to reach their
destinations.
Parking
GOAL T‐8: Attractive, Convenient Public and
Private Parking Facilities.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T8 to Goal T4:
Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking.
This goal includes policies on automobile parking, to
this; the PTC draft has added programs on innovative
parking management strategies for both residential
and commercial areas, programs on improved parking
technologies and requirements for new developments.
Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
GOAL T4: Encourage attractive, convenient public
and private motor vehicle and bicycle parking
facilities.
Regional Leadership
GOAL T‐9: An Influential Role in Shaping and
Implementing Regional Transportation Decisions.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal T9 to Goal T7:
Regional Leadership.
This goal includes regional transportation
improvement policies and encourages regional
transportation collaborations to reduce GHG
emissions.
Regional Leadership
GOAL T7: Influence the shape and
implementation of regional transportation
policies to reduce traffic congestion and
greenhouse gas emission.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 21
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Airport
GOAL T‐10: A Local Airport with Minimal Off‐site
Impacts.
Renumbered existing Goal T10 to Goal T8: Airport.
In addition to the existing policies and program this
goal includes new policies on transition of airport
management to City from the County of Santa Clara.
Airport
GOAL T8: Maintain a local airport with minimal
environmental off‐site impacts.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 22
LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 23
The Land Use and Community Design Element is the guiding force behind the physical form of our city. It lays out a framework for conservation
and development to preserve neighborhoods, protect historic and natural resources, channel growth and commercial activity to suitable sites, respond to
climate change, reduce pollution, and promote active and healthy lifestyles.
State law requires a Land Use Element to establish the location and intensity of housing, business, industry, open space, recreation, natural
resources, and public facilities. The added Community Design component reflects a special interest in Palo Alto in maintaining historic integrity
and enriching the built environment.
The Current Plan:
Palo Alto was an early adopter of compact development principles, as embodied in the Urban Service Area designated to manage growth in
the current Comprehensive Plan. Through this strategy, the City has endeavored to direct new development into appropriate locations—such
as along transit corridors and near employment centers—while protecting and preserving low‐scale residential neighborhoods and open space
lands that together comprise about 80% of the city.
The Land Use and Community Design Element identifies the residential areas, commercial centers, and employment districts that together
constitute the city’s “structure.” Understanding how these parts of the community are connected to each other and the region is essential to
resolving transportation and traffic issues and ensuring that businesses can thrive in places where they can serve residents and visitors without
increasing impacts on neighborhoods. As the appearance of buildings and public spaces greatly affects how people experience Palo Alto, the
Element calls for high‐quality design to encourage social gathering in attractive settings.
The existing Land Use and Community Design Element is ably supporting the community’s objectives for growth management, and its
cornerstone goals and policies are about:
Supporting the city’s future needs by accommodating an appropriate mix and amount of residential, commercial, and employment
uses within the Urban Service Area.
Maintaining and enhancing Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, while ensuring that new development respects existing
neighborhood character.
Providing adequate public services and facilities, parks, and open space.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 24
Reducing emissions through energy efficiency standards and land use decisions that support walking, biking, and transit.
Fostering high quality design by improving streetscapes, maintaining and increasing connectivity, and enhancing gateways.
Preserving and protecting historic buildings and cultural and natural resources.
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
The updated Plan is intended to build on the solid foundation of the existing Land Use and Community Design Element to direct growth to
urbanized area where services and transit are available, provide clear development standards, reexamine the growth management strategies
(i.e. cumulative growth caps) adopted for the City and Downtown, and focus on the relationship between infrastructure, transportation
investments, land use, and development. The updated element is also expected to respond to emerging trends and community concerns,
including:
Limiting the conversion of retail to residential use.
Requiring proposed development to demonstrate that adequate public services are available and that its design supports walking,
biking, and transit.
Instituting new California Green Building Code requirements.
Distributing priority infrastructure improvements equitably across the city.
Providing infrastructure to strengthen Downtown as a regional economic center.
Expanding the City’s tree network, and restoring the Baylands.
Meeting the City’s adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets.
City Council guidance is required to determine whether the updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or
use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what specific goals should be included.
The City Council has already provided direction on concurrent zoning changes it would like to see, and is separately considering growth
management strategies, retail preservation strategies, an update to the City’s Climate Protection Plan, and reforms to the PC zoning process.
Specific City Council input on Policy L‐8 about the Citywide cap on non‐residential development and Program L‐8 about the Downtown Cap will
be requested separately.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 25
LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
LA
N
D
U
S
E
AN
D
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DE
S
I
G
N
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will be a vital, attractive place to live,
work, and visit. The elements that make Palo Alto a
great community—its neighborhoods, shopping and
employment centers, civic uses, open spaces, and
natural resources—will be strengthened and
enhanced. The diverse range of housing and work
environments will be sustained and expanded to
create more choices for all income levels. All Palo
Alto neighborhoods will be improved, each to have
public gathering spaces, essential services and
pedestrian amenities, to encourage less reliance on
the automobile.”
“Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our
future growth needs with the preservation of our
neighborhoods, address climate protection
priorities and focus on sustainable development
near neighborhood services, and enhance the
quality of life in our community.”
City Council Comments: The majority of the Council
members preferred the existing Vision Statement
because it is simple and elaborative, it calls out
specific uses and neighborhoods, does not use buzz
words, and does not dilute the concepts present in
the existing Introduction section. Some Council
members felt the existing Vision Statement is too
long, with absolute statements that are difficult to
live up to.
The following are the comments by Council on the
PTC version of Vision Statement:
Use of the word “future” growth is
redundant and use of word “ growth”
implies that it was needed;
Broaden Climate protection priorities to
”environmental protection priorities”;
Following are the suggestions made by the Council to
incorporate in the existing Vision Statement :
Integrate concepts of urban forest and
canopy into our built environment;
Include languages present in the
Introduction section(Themes) of the
Comprehensive Plan to the Vision Statement
of Land use Element
Based on this input, staff will develop minor revisions
to the existing version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 26
SUMMARY COMPARISON LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS
Current Organization
LAND USE and COMMUNITY
DESIGN ELEMENT
L 1. Local Land use and
Growth Management
• Extent of Urban
Development
• Commercial Growth Limits
• Mixed Use Areas
• Land Use and Circulation
Map
• Land Use Definitions
L2. City Structure: Fostering a
Sense of Community
L3. Residential
Neighborhoods
L4. Centers
• All Centers
• Regional Centers
• Multi‐Neighborhood Centers
• Neighborhood Centers
L5. Employment Districts
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC recommended substantial revisions to the Land Use and Community Design
Element intended to improve the clarity and readability of the document. The
proposed element contains five consolidated goals with corresponding policies and
programs. Goal 3 of includes a referral to the two new Concept Area Plans: the East
Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Concept Plan and the California Avenue/Fry’s Area
Concept Plan. Reorganization of the Element’s structure included:
• Distributing existing Goal L1policies and programs to Goal L1, L2, L3 and L5;
• Distributing existing Goal L2 and L3 policies and programs to Goal L2 and L3:
Sustaining Public Places and Guiding Private Development;
• Distributing existing Goal L4 to Goal L2, L3 and L5: Sustaining Public Places,
Guiding Private Development and Regional Land use;
• Distributing existing Goal L5 to Goal L5: Regional Land use;
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal L6 to Goal L2: Sustaining Public
Places;
• Renumbering and renaming existing Goal L7 to Goal L4: Preserving Historic and
Archaeological Resources;
• Renaming and renumbering existing Goal L8 to Goal L2: Sustaining Public
Places and
• Distributing policies and programs in existing Goal L9 to Goal L2: Sustaining
Public Places
• Changing all Goal headings and
• Adding new Sub Sections to improve organization of the document.
Existing, policies and programs were revised to incorporate key City Council
priorities at the time, including limiting the conversion of non‐residential land to
residential uses, encouraging economic development including limiting the loss of
neighborhood serving retail, strengthening provision of services and addressing
sustainable development. New sections were added on climate change, sustainable
land use development and urban design, retail retention, below grade alignment for
fixed rail and airport and baylands land uses.
Proposed PTC Revisions
LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT
L1. Land use to Support the City’s Future
Needs
• Climate Protection (New)
• Land use in Urban Service Area
L2. Sustaining Public Places
• Urban Design Guidelines
• Downtown Public Spaces
• Mixed Use Guidelines
• Public Facilities Design Guidelines
L3. Guiding Private Development
• Citywide Residential Guidelines
• Guidelines for Neighborhood Centers
and Employment Districts
• East Meadow Circle Concept Area Plan
• California Avenue Concept Area Plan
L4. Preserving Historic and
Archaeological Resources
• Encourage Preservation
• Archeological Resources
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 27
All Employment Districts
• Stanford Research Park
• Stanford Medical Center
• East Bayshore and San
Antonio Road/Bayshore
Corridor
L6. Design of Buildings Public
Places
L7. Historic Character
L8. Civic Uses
L9. Public Ways
• Streets & Paths • Street Trees
• Gateways • Public Arts
• Parking Lots • Infrastructure
Specifically, the Commission recommended a new section on Climate Protection
goals and policies under Goal 1, added policies and programs to improve
consistency with Baylands Master Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Rail
Corridor Study, and added two Concept Area Plans: East Meadow Circle Concept
Area Plan and California Avenue Concept Area Plan.
The revisions were developed in consultation with City staff and stakeholders, and
referenced the following studies:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2012
• Rail Corridor Study 2013.
• Baylands Master Plan 2008
• City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan
There is now an opportunity to re‐look at some of the issues and incorporate more
recent Council priorities related to managing the pace of office growth, providing for
a range of housing opportunities as called for in the updated Housing Element,
preserving ground floor retail, and making some adjustments to commercial zoning
regulations.
L5. Regional Land Use
• Regional Land use
• Stanford Land use (Shopping Center,
Research Park and Medical Center)
• Downtown Palo Alto
• Airport Land use
• Baylands Land use
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs, however many Palo Altans are familiar with the
current structure of the element and may find it difficult to adjust to a new structure. If the City Council would like to retain the existing structure, some of the goals could
be renamed or expanded to encompass issues such as climate protection.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 28
DETAIL COMPARISON ‐ LAND USE and COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Local Land use and Growth Management
GOAL 1:A Well‐designed, Compact City, Providing
Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts,
Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
Distributed existing policies and programs of Goal L1 to
Goals L1, L2, L3 and L5.
This goal includes policies on land use in urban service
area, and new policies on maintaining consistency with
City’s Climate Protection Plan. The goal language adds
the concept of balancing natural resources and
community needs to support growth.
Land use to Support the City’s Future Needs
GOAL L1: Urban space is a limited resource;
therefore, development needs to be compact
and the best use made of land to balance natural
resources and community needs.
City Structure: Fostering a Sense of Community
GOAL L‐2: An Enhanced Sense of “Community”
with Development Designed to Foster Public Life
and Meet Citywide Needs.
Distributed existing Goal L2 policies and programs to
Goals L2 and L3: Sustaining Public Places and Guiding
Private Development.
This was done to consolidate all goals related to urban
design guidelines which guide private residential and
commercial developments.
Residential Neighborhoods
GOAL L‐3: Safe, Attractive Residential
Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct
Character and Within Walking Distance of
Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public
Gathering Places.
This goal consolidates its existing policies and programs
with sections from existing Goals L1, L2, L3, and L4 on
guiding private development. This goal identifies
distinct qualities of individual Palo Alto residential and
commercial neighborhoods, and adds new policies on
preserving these unique characters. This goal also
includes policies and programs referring to the two
concept area plans.
Guiding Private Development
GOAL L3: Guide growth, change and preservation
of residential and business areas through
planning policies that sustain their unique
character.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 29
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Centers
GOAL L‐4: Inviting, Pedestrian‐scale Centers that
Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial Services
and Provide Focal Points and Community
Gathering Places for the City’s Residential
Neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
Distributed existing Goal L4 policies and programs to
Goal L2, L3 and L5: Sustaining Public Places, Guiding
Private Development and Regional Land use.
This was done to consolidate all policies and programs
on urban design guidelines for private developments
including neighborhood centers and employment
districts.
Employment Districts
GOAL L‐5: High Quality Employment Districts,
Each With Their Own Distinctive Character and
Each Contributing to the Character of the City as
a Whole.
Distributed existing Goal L5 policies and programs to
Goal L5: Regional Land use.
This consolidation was done to facilitate all policies
related to Stanford Research Park and Medical Center
under Regional Land Use.
Design of Buildings Public Places
GOAL L‐6: Well‐designed Buildings that Create
Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance
City Streets and Public Spaces.
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal L6 to Goal
L2: Sustaining Public Places.
This goal provides distinct guidelines for all public
developments including public facilities design, mixed
use building design, urban streetscape and Downtown
public spaces. Policies and programs from existing
Goals L1, L2, L3, L4, L6, L8 and L9 are consolidated to
make the goal comprehensive.
Sustaining Public Places
GOAL L2: Plan for streets and public spaces to
enrich Palo Alto’s sense of place and community.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 30
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Historic Character
GOAL L‐7: Conservation and Preservation of Palo
Alto’s Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal L7 to Goal L4:
Preserving Historic and Archaeological Resources.
This goal includes all existing policies on historic
preservation as well as new policies on archeological
resources.
Preserving Historic and Archaeological Resources
GOAL L4: Recognize the value and importance of
archeological resources, historic buildings and
places and their importance to a sustainable
environment in Palo Alto.
Civic Uses
GOAL L‐8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural
Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and
Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and
Enrich Public Life.
Renamed and renumbered existing Goal L8 to Goal L2:
Sustaining Public Places. Distributed existing Goal L8
policies and programs to Goal L2 to consolidate all
policies on public facilities design.
Public Ways
GOAL L‐9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and
Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of
the City.
Distributed policies and programs in existing Goal L9 to
L2: Sustaining Public Places.
This is not a new goal and includes policies and
programs from existing Goals L1, L4, and L5. This goal
acknowledges the regional influence Palo Alto has in
the area and highlights them.
Regional Land use
GOAL L5: Encourage development in Palo Alto to
provide public benefits and employment to
neighboring cities and counties while improving
land uses, streets, infrastructure and character of
the City
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 31
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 32
The Natural Environment Element in the Comprehensive Plan currently addresses the management of open land and natural resources in
Palo Alto and the protection of life and property from natural hazards. It is one of the broadest elements of the Comprehensive Plan, satisfying
the requirements for four of the State‐ mandated General Plan elements:
Open Space—with policies describing the use of open space for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of
natural resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety.
Conservation—with policies to protect creeks and riparian areas, wetlands, the urban forest, water resources, wildlife, and air quality;
to regulate and limit the use and transport of hazardous materials; and to minimize solid waste disposal and promote clean energy.
Safety—with policies describing how exposure will be reduced to natural hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, and wildfires.
Noise—with policies to decrease exposure to undesirable levels of noise in the community.
State requirements have evolved in the last several years to require policies related to flood hazards, fire hazards and fire hazard severity zones, and to
require consistency with local hazard mitigation plans. Also, the new topic of climate change ‐‐ including curbing greenhouse gas emissions and
adapting to climate change ‐‐ is a natural fit for the Natural Environment Element.
Safety elements are the only element other than the Housing Element that is subject to State review and must be submitted to the California Geological
Survey and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for their review. The State also requires agencies to use their Urban Water Management
Plans as source documents and to maintain consistency with adopted airport land use plans.
The Current Plan
Palo Alto has vast open space resources for a city of our size. The Natural Environment Element seeks to protect the 29 neighborhood and
district parks, large holdings in the Baylands, Foothills Park, Montebello and Arastradero Preserves, and Barron, Matadero, and San
Francisquito Creeks. All of these areas provide important habitat, scenic, and recreational value.
With more than 300 tree species, Palo Alto’s urban forest is an extension of the natural woodland and grassland plant communities and
provides a bridge for wildlife between the foothills and the Bay. The Element supports this resource both for its biological benefits and
contribution to the aesthetic appeal of Palo Alto. The Natural Environment Element has also proven effective in protecting the health and
safety of our community by limiting noise and exposure to hazards. Its goals and policies are about:
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 33
Seeking opportunities for adding open space, including connections between Skyline Ridge and San Francisco Bay.
Re‐establishing riparian and other natural features that have been diminished by development, and protecting surface and ground
water from pollutants.
Expanding the urban forest, including by requiring development to provide landscaping and street trees.
Conserving water and energy, and securing long‐term water supplies and renewable, clean energy.
Reducing waste, recycling construction materials, and encouraging reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods.
Protecting the community from noise, air pollution, hazardous chemicals, and natural hazards.
Updates Anticipated for Our Palo Alto 2030
The Planning & Transportation Commission recommended renaming the element as the “Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element”
to better describe its importance and recommended adding major concepts, including:
Monitoring and adapting to impacts caused by climate change.
Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Emphasizing and supporting community emergency preparedness.
Protecting sensitive habitat from human threats.
Balancing conservation with improved open space access and encouraging low impact recreational use.
Addressing State regulations requirements for transportation noise generated from roadways, airways, and railways, and limiting
construction noise around sensitive receptors.
Since the Commission’s recommendation was completed, members of the community and members of the City Council have suggested that
safety and noise are two important topics that could receive more attention if they are separated into a separate element. City Council
direction is required to affirm this suggestion, and to determine whether the updated plan should maintain the current element’s
organizational structure or use the structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 34
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
NA
T
U
R
A
L
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto will meet today’s needs without
compromising the needs of future generations. Palo
Alto will respect and manage natural resources in a
way that sustains the natural environment and
protects our foothills, baylands, creeks, parks,
wildlife and open space legacy. Elements of the
natural environment will be conserved where they
remain intact and restored where they have been
degraded by past development. A substantial portion
of the City will remain as open space. Even in built‐up
areas, a network of parks will provide access to
nature and an urban forest will provide ecological
benefits and a source of beauty for residents. Palo
Alto will strive for cleaner air and cleaner water. Its
policies and programs will foster energy and water
conservation, reduced solid waste generation, and
cleanup of contaminated sites. The City will be well
prepared for natural disasters and will grow and
change in a way that minimizes public exposure to
hazards like fire, flood, and earthquake.”
“Palo Alto shall preserve its ecosystems, including
its open space, creeks, habitats, and air quality
while working towards a sustainable urban
environment of urban forests, water quality, waste
disposal reduction, emergency preparedness,
community safety and a plan for climate change
mitigation.”
City Council Comments:All of the Council members
preferred the existing Vision Statement. Council felt
that the PTC version blends the concepts of parks,
open space together and there is no mention of
conservation in the vision statement.
Following are some suggestions made by individual
Council members:
Add “wildlife” to Vision Statement of
Natural Environment Element;
Add language on “conservation” in the
Vision Statement;
Recommendation to add “restoring” our eco
systems to PTC version;
Add language to maintain sustainable
water supply for future and
Add language on Climate change
adaptation and implementation
Based on this input, staff will develop minor revisions
to the existing version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 35
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
Current Organization
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
ELEMENT
N 1. Open Space
• Sensitive Plant Species List
• City of Palo Alto Open
Space Development criteria
N2. Creeks And Riparian
Areas
• Special Status Wildlife
Species List
• City of Palo Alto Open
Space Development criteria
N3. Urban forest
N4. Water Resources
• Historic Water
Consumption and Projected
Demand in Palo Alto
• Best management Practices
to Address Water Pollution
N5. Air Quality
N6. Hazardous Waste
Explanation of Proposed Revisions
The PTC recommended extensive reorganization and consolidation of this element
based on input from different stakeholder groups, boards and commissions. They
recommended strengthening the Safety component of the plan, including the
addition of two new goals along with several policies and programs. Several new
topics were addressed, including adapting, monitoring, and mitigating climate
change. The PTC also proposed a name change for this element to Natural and
Urban Environment and Safety Element. Organizational changes recommended
included:
Consolidating existing Goals N1, N2, and N3 under Natural Ecosystems as
Goal N1;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal N4 to Goal N5: Water Quality
and Conservation;
Consolidating existing Goals N5 and N8 to Goal N6: Environmental
Quality; Air Quality and Noise Level Mitigation and Reduction
Consolidating existing Goals N6 and N7 to Goal N4: Solid and Hazardous
Waste;
Renumbering and renaming existing Goal N9 to Goal N3: Energy Sources
and Conservation;
Splitting and renumbering existing Goal N10 to Goal N7 and N8: Natural
Hazards and Community Safety And Emergency Management
Changing five Goal headings and introducing Sub Sections to improve
organizational clarity and
Adding new Goal 2 to be consistent with the City’s the Climate Protection
Plan.
The PTC’s recommendation also included new policies addressing effects of sea
level rise and flooding, and policies to achieve City’s GHG reduction targets. New
policies and programs were suggested regarding Energy conservation, use of
alternative energy (solar), and on maximizing recycling and composting. The PTC’s
suggestion was also intended to strengthen policies on conservation and efficient
use of water resources, and maximizing use of recycled water. Policies were
added regarding the California and Palo Alto Green Building codes, Demolition and
Proposed PTC Revisions
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
N1. Natural Ecosystems
• Foothills, Bay Lands and Public
Open Space
• Creeks and Riparian Areas
• Urban Forest
N2. Climate Change and Adaptation
(New)
N3. Energy Sources and Conservation
N4. Solid and Hazardous Waste
• Hazardous Materials
• Solid Waste
N5. Water Quality and Conservation
• Water Resources: Water
Conservation, Recycling, and
Quality
• Stormwater Quality
• Wastewater Treatment
N6. Environmental Quality
• Air Quality
• Noise Level Mitigation and
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 36
N7. Solid Waste
N8. Noise
N9. Energy
N10. Natural Hazards
General Safety Measures
Seismic and Other Geologic
Hazards
Flood Hazards
Fire Hazards
Emergency Management
Construction Debris Diversion program, and planning for zero waste. Additional
policies were also suggested regarding transportation related noise (roadways,
airways and railways) and construction noise; and on community safety and
emergency management.
The revisions were developed in consultation with City staff and stakeholders, and
referenced the following studies:
• Urban Forest Master Plan;
• Baylands Master Plan 2008;
• Tree Technical Manual and Tree Preservation Regulations;
• City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan (in process of being updated);
• California Green Building Code & Palo Alto Green Building Regulations;
• Zero Waste Operational Plan;
• Integrated Pest Management Plan;
• Foothills Fire Management Plan and Cal Fire Plan;
• Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Emergency Ops Plan and Seismic Hazard Ord
As noted above, there is now an opportunity to re‐visit whether the topics of
safety and noise should be included in a separate element. There is also an
opportunity to view contents of the element through the lens of the current
drought, and ensure consistency with ongoing planning related to water resources
and sustainability/climate action.
Reduction
N7. Natural Hazards
• Seismic Activity and Geologic
Hazards
• Flood Hazards and Mitigation
N8. Community Safety And
Emergency Management
• Public Awareness and General
Safety Measures
• Fire Protection and Awareness
• Community Safety (New)
• Emergency Management
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs. The existing goal regarding the urban forest
highlights this issue (which was subsumed within Natural Ecosystems by the PTC), although the PTC’s recommendations effectively incorporate new subjects/focus on
sustainability and climate change. Also, separating‐out safety and noise into a separate element would provide for greater focus on these issues.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 37
DETAIL COMPARISION ‐ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Open Space
GOAL N‐1: A Citywide Open Space System
that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto’s
Natural Resources and Provides a Source of
Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto
Residents.
Consolidated existing Goals N1, N2, and N3 under Natural
Ecosystems as Goal N1.
All elements of natural eco systems are included in this goal.
Additional policies on protecting our sensitive habitats from
all types of impacts, human or animal, conservation and
protection of native plant and animal species have been
added. New policies on meeting compliance with City’s
Foothills Fire Management Plan, Stream Corridor Protection
Ordinance, Urban Forest master Plan etc. are added under
this goal.
Natural Ecosystems
GOAL N1: Preserve our open space, natural and
urban habitats, and protect our ecosystems and
natural resources that are the foundations of our
environment.
Creeks And Riparian Areas
GOAL N‐2: Conservation of Creeks and
Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities,
Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements of
Community Design.
Urban Forest
GOAL N‐3: A Thriving “Urban Forest” That
Provides Ecological, Economic, and
Aesthetic Benefits for Palo Alto.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 38
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is a new goal to address climate change and adaptation.
It includes polices on complying with City’s Climate
Protection goals, including meeting goals in reduction of
GHG, achieving Net Zero energy home goals, and addressing
sea level rise.
NEW
Climate Change and Adaptation
GOAL N2: Actively support regional efforts to
reduce our contribution to climate change while
adapting to the effects of climate change on land
use and city services.
Water Resources
GOAL N‐4: Water Resources that are
Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and
Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and
Protect Public Health and Safety.
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal N4 to Goal N5:
Water Quality and Conservation.
This goal includes all existing policies and programs and also
adds new policies on conservation and efficient use of
water, use of recycled water whenever possible, and
retention and use of rain water.
Water Quality and Conservation
GOAL N5: Conserve water resources and protect
water quality to support our natural environment,
public health and safety, plant and animal life, and
the vitality of our diverse urban activities.
Air Quality
GOAL N‐5: Clean, Healthful Air for Palo Alto
and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Renumbered existing Goals N5 to Goal N6: Environmental
Quality; Air Quality.
This goal includes all existing policies as well as new policies
on reduction of air pollution through enforcing existing
ordinances and maintaining existing tree canopy to reduce
air pollution.
Environmental Quality
GOAL N6: Reduce environmental pollutants to
protect and enhance air quality and to reduce
ambient noise levels in every neighborhood.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 39
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Based on City Council direction of April 2015, staff will
include a new Safety and Noise Element. This will
modify the PTC proposed structure of the element.
Contents of both existing Noise and safety sections are
moved to the new Safety and Noise Element.
Hazardous Waste
GOAL N‐6: An Environment Free of the Damaging
Effects of Biological and Chemical Hazardous
Materials.
Consolidated existing Goals N6 and N7 to Goal N4:
Solid and Hazardous Waste.
This goal has been rewritten to include efforts by the
City to strive for Net Zero solid waste generation by
maximizing recycling and composting efforts.
Additional new policies on educating residents and
developers on available City incentives to reduce
carbon footprints are included in this goal.
Solid and Hazardous Waste
GOAL N4: Strive for zero solid waste generation
and an environment free of the harmful effects of
hazardous and toxic materials.
Solid Waste
GOAL N‐7: Reduced Volumes of Solid Waste;
Solid Waste Disposed in an Environmentally Safe,
Efficient, Manner.
Noise
GOAL N‐8: An Environment That Minimizes the
Adverse Impacts of Noise.
Based on City Council’s discussion in April 2015, a
separate Safety and Noise element is recommended
and can incorporate this Goal.
Noise Level Mitigation and Reduction
GOAL N6: Reduce environmental pollutants to
protect and enhance air quality and to reduce
ambient noise levels in every neighborhood.
Energy
GOAL N‐9: A Clean, Efficient, Competitively‐
priced Energy Supply That Makes Use of Cost‐
effective
Renumbered and renamed existing Goal N9 to Goal
N3: Energy Sources and Conservation.
This goal carries over all existing policies and programs
in
Energy Sources and Conservation
GOAL N3: Move towards a clean efficient energy
supply that makes use of new technologies and
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 40
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Renewable Resources. addition to new policies on maximizing use of
photovoltaic energy, as well as other renewable energy
sources.
cost‐effective renewable resources and promote
energy conservation.
Natural Hazards
GOAL N‐10: Protection of Life and Property From
Natural Hazards, Including Earthquake,
Landslide, Flooding, and Fire.
Based on City Council’s discussion in April 2015, a
separate Safety and Noise element is recommended
and can incorporate this Goal as well as one addressing
community safety and emergency management.
Resiliency and climate adaptation can also be
addressed.
This goal was previous Goal 8 of the PTC revised
Natural Environment Element. On City Council’s
direction this goal has been moved to the new Safety
and Noise Element.
This goal includes new policies and programs on
educating the community and creating awareness to
prevent loss of life and property from all types of
disasters, community safety and emergency
management.
NEW
Community Safety and Emergency Management
GOAL N8: Develop and coordinate a plan for fire,
police protection and effective emergency
preparedness and response.
Public Awareness and General Safety
Measures
Fire Protection and Awareness
Community Safety
Emergency Management
This goal was previous Goal 10 of the existing Natural
Environment Element. On City Council’s direction this
goal has been moved to the new Safety and Noise
Element.
This goal includes policies and programs on earthquake
safety, flood hazards and mitigation, and other natural
disasters.
Natural Hazards
GOAL N7: Protect life, ecosystems, and property
from natural and man‐made hazards and
disasters, including earthquake, landslides,
flooding, fire, and hazardous materials.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 41
BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 42
The Business and Economics Element is not required by State law, but was deemed equally important by authors of the current
Comprehensive Plan. Renowned globally for innovation in research and technology, Palo Alto has regional commercial districts and
neighborhood shopping centers that play a major role in local quality of life. The Element offers policies that emphasize diversity, growth, and
flexibility of businesses, as well as compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses, including residential neighborhoods.
The Current Plan
The City has long acknowledged that revenue generation and other positive effects of business growth have the potential to be offset by
impacts on the community, especially concerning traffic and parking but also including loss of community character if not properly addressed.
Accordingly, the Element calls for modest economic growth in balance with preservation of residential neighborhoods.
In addition to growth limits, the City uses zoning, development review, environmental review, coordinated area plans, and other planning tools
to maintain compatibility between residential and nonresidential areas. The Business and Economics Element addresses:
Maintaining distinct business districts as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base.
Ensuring that neighborhood shopping areas, including California Avenue, are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents.
Promoting public/private partnerships as a means of revitalizing selected areas and providing community benefits and services.
Supporting advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that facilitate the growth of emerging industries.
Encouraging pedestrian‐oriented neighborhood retail along El Camino Real.
The Element also recognizes the important role that Stanford University plays in our local economy as the largest employer in Palo Alto and as
an incubator of new technologies that have helped make Palo Alto a global leader in innovation. The policy framework in the Element supports
Stanford Research Park as a thriving employment district and seeks to sustain Stanford Shopping Center as a major regional commercial
attraction.
Anticipated Updates for Our Palo Alto 2030
The Business and Economics Element provides an opportunity to highlight the City’s place in the region, as well as the City’s desire to direct
growth and change to commercial and mixed‐use areas of the City. Policies can be framed to ensure that economic prosperity does not result
in unconstrained growth and unacceptable impacts on Palo Alto neighborhoods. Other policy guidance can address:
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 43
Encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation.
Enhancing and diversifying the retail mix through business retention and attraction.
Developing positive parking solutions for businesses in California Avenue and Downtown.
The new business registry.
Enhancing Palo Alto’s appeal to visitors and tourists.
Potential alternatives to the cumulative cap on non‐residential development in the City and in Downtown (also see the Land Use and
Community Environment Element).
City Council guidance is required to determine whether the updated plan should maintain the current element’s organizational structure or use the
structure of goals recommended by the PTC, and what specific goals should be included.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 44
BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT VISION STATEMENT COMPARISON
EXISTING PALO ALTO 1998‐2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PTC RECOMMENDATION
APRIL 2014
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
APRIL 27, 2015
BU
S
I
N
E
S
S
AN
D
EC
O
N
O
M
I
C
S
EL
E
M
E
N
T
“Palo Alto’s business environment will be exciting,
dynamic and vital. Businesses will have access to a
wide array of support services and will enjoy positive
relationships with Palo Alto residents, officials, and
City staff. The competing needs of residents and
businesses will be balanced so that neighborhoods
are protected and enhanced while business districts
are competitive and attractive. The local economy
will thrive, and a diverse array of goods and services
will be provided to Palo Alto consumers. Most
development will occur within Palo Alto’s
employment areas, and will be consistent with the
role and character designated for each area by this
Plan.”
“Palo Alto supports a culture of innovation and
entrepreneurship that welcomes innovators,
entrepreneurs, business professionals, the
University, visitors and the community. The City’s
business policies, balanced economic goals, vibrant
downtown, and diverse local and regional‐serving
businesses combine to stimulate and support viable
business opportunities.”
City Council Comments: Majority of the Council
members preferred the PTC Vision Statement
because of its clarity and felt with some additional
language from the existing Vision Statement it can
be strengthened.
Following are some suggestions made by individual
Councilmembers:
Add the following language from the
existing Vision Statement, to strengthen it:
“The competing needs of residents and
businesses will be balanced so that
neighborhoods are protected and enhanced
while business districts are competitive and
attractive.”
Based on this input, staff will develop revisions to the
PTC’s version for City Council review.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 45
SUMMARY COMPARISON ‐ BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT
Current Organization
BUSINESS and ECONIMICS ELEMENT
B1. CITYWIDE: Compatibility
B2. Diversity
B3. Growth
B4. Flexibility
B5. Centers
• All Centers
• Regional Centers
University Av./ Downtown,
South of Forest Mixed Use Area,
Stanford Shopping Center
• Multi‐Neighborhood Centers
California Av.,
Cal‐Ventura,
El Camino Real,
Town & Country Village
• Neighborhood Centers
B6. All Employment Districts
• All Employment Districts
Stanford Research Park, Stanford
Medical Center, E. Bayshore & San
Antonio/Bayshore Corridor
Explanation of Revisions
The PTC proposed significant updates to both the structure and
content of the Business and Economics Element while simultaneously
retaining the intent of existing goals, policies and programs. Though
the number of goals remains the same in existing and proposed plan,
two new goals were added to the element to make it more
comprehensive and some goals were consolidated to reduce
redundancy and improve clarity. The element also highlights
Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue as two distinct major
business centers of the City. The suggested reorganization of the
Element’s structure included:
• Adding a new goal encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship
and another new goal on enhancing Palo Alto’s Visitors and
Tourism;
• Distributing policies and programs under existing Goal B1 and
B2, to Goal B4 and B5: Thriving Retail Districts and Doing
Business in Palo Alto;
• Consolidating existing Goals B3 and B4 to Goal B5: Doing
Business in Palo Alto;
• Moving existing Goal B5 to Goal B4: Thriving Retail Districts;
• Moving and renaming existing Goal B6 to Goal B3: Palo Alto as a
Regional Shopping, Services and Employment Destination
• Changing all Goal headings and introducing Sub Sections to
improve organizational clarity.
Policies were added addressing diversity in retail mix, ground floor
retail design guidelines, creating positive parking solutions for
Downtown and California Avenue business districts. Policies were
also added about enhancing visitor experience in Palo Alto, providing
more opportunities for arts, entertainment, and night life.
Proposed PTC Revisions
BUSINESS and ECONIMICS ELEMENT
B1. Encouraging Innovation and
Technology (NEW)
B2. Business Centers: Downtown and
California Avenue (NEW)
B3. Palo Alto as a Regional Shopping,
Services and Employment
Destination
• Stanford Shopping Center Stanford
Research Park
• East Bayshore, San Antonio and East
Meadow Circle Area
B4. Thriving Retail Districts
• Retail Districts:
• El Camino Real
• South of Forest Mixed Use Area
(SOFA)
• Town and Country Village
• Neighborhood‐Serving Retail Districts:
• Mid‐Town
• Charleston Shopping Center
• Edgewood Plaza
• Alma Village
B5. Doing Business in Palo Alto
• Business and the Community
B6. Visitors and Tourism (NEW)
Note: Staff believes that either organizational structure will work as a framework for a robust set of policies and programs.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 46
DETAIL SUMMARY‐ BUSINESS and ECONOMICS ELEMENT GOALS
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is a new goal encouraging entrepreneurship, in support of Palo Alto’s
image as a global center for innovation.
NEW
Encouraging Innovation and Technology
GOAL B1: Foster the next generation of
entrepreneurship in Palo Alto that builds on
the City’s legacy of innovation.
CITYWIDE: Compatibility
GOAL B‐1: A Thriving Business
Environment that is Compatible
with Palo Alto’s Residential
Character and Natural
Environment.
Consolidated and distributed policies and programs under existing Goal B1
and B2, to Goal B4 and B5: Thriving Retail Districts and Doing Business in Palo
Alto.
These two goals contain policies and programs on Palo Alto’s neighborhood
retail districts, and ways of doing business in Palo Alto. New policies on
improving the viability of the El Camino corridor following the guidelines of
Grand Boulevard initiative, retaining grocery store and neighborhood serving
retails at Alma Plaza is added in Goal 4. Goal 5 includes policies on
sustainable business practices, encouraging local sourcing of materials to
minimize carbon footprint.
Thriving Retail Districts
GOAL B4: Preserve and improve existing
retail districts, and enhance the vitality of
businesses that serve Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods, commercial districts and
visitors
Diversity
GOAL B‐2: A Diverse Mix of
Commercial, Retail, and
Professional Service Businesses.
Doing Business in Palo Alto
GOAL B5: Support businesses that serve our
residents, our visitors, and our workers, that
provide needed local services and local
revenues, and contribute to the economic
vitality.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 47
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
This is new goal highlights the two important business
centers of Palo Alto. New policies include making
these two centers as destination shopping center and
entertainment center. Policies on making these centers
attractive, pedestrian friendly with adequate parking
have been added.
NEW
Business Centers: Downtown and California
Avenue
GOAL B2: Maintain and enhance the
attractiveness of our two primary business
centers by supporting an attractive and
sustainable mix of commercial and office uses
with pedestrian‐oriented neighborhood shopping,
dining and entertainment experiences.
Growth
GOAL B‐3: New Businesses that Provide Needed
Local Services and Municipal Revenues,
Contribute to Economic Vitality, and Enhance the
City’s Physical Environment.
Consolidated existing Goals B3 and B4 to Goal B5:
Doing Business in Palo Alto.
Doing Business in Palo Alto
Flexibility
GOAL B‐4: City Regulations and Operating
Procedures that Provide Certainty and
Predictability and Help Businesses Adapt to
Changing Market Conditions.
Comprehensive Plan Update Comparison Matrix 8.27.2015 Page 48
Current Goals Explanation of Proposed Revisions
Proposed PTC Goals
Centers
GOAL B‐5: Attractive, Vibrant Business Centers,
Each with a Mix of Uses and a Distinctive
Character.
Moved existing Goal B5 to Goal B4: Thriving Retail
Districts.
Thriving Retail Districts
Employment Districts
GOAL B‐6: Thriving Employment Districts at
Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical
Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area
and Bayshore Corridor that Complement the
City’s Business and Neighborhood Centers.
Moved and renamed existing Goal B6 to Goal B3: Palo
Alto as a Regional Shopping, Services and Employment
Destination
This goal highlights Palo Alto as regional shopping
destination, employment destination. New policies are
added to encourage retail and neighborhood service
uses in East Meadow Circle, San Antonio and
Charleston areas.
Palo Alto as a Regional Shopping, Services and
Employment Destination
GOAL B3: Support Palo Alto’s research parks,
shopping centers and employment centers to
improve and enhance economic vitality of the
region.
This is a new goal focusing policies on increasing visitor
appeal, providing space for conference centers, art,
and entertainment centers.
NEW
Visitors and Tourism
GOAL B6: Enhance Palo Alto’s role as an
international attraction to visitors and guests for
its cultural, educational and civic appeal.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6080)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
Summary Title: CP CAC Member Appointments
Title: Appointment of Five Additional Members to the Comprehensive Plan
Update Citizens Advisory Committee
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Appoint five additional members to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) based on the established criteria and applications received by the
close of business on August 25, 2015; and
2. Affirm that the resulting CAC is well equipped to fulfill its role, with 22 voting members
& 3 non-voting members appointed to review all relevant materials, accept and analyze
community input, and provide recommendations on desired updates to the plan’s
policies and programs, recognizing that the City Council will provide direction on the
plan structure, vision statements, and goals, and will be the ultimate decision makers on
the plan that is adopted.
Executive Summary
On August 17, 2015, the City Council indicated their intention to appoint five additional
members to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) established to assist with completion of the
City’s long-running Comprehensive Plan Update. The Council directed staff to solicit additional
applications between August 18th and August 25th and also to invite those who had applied
earlier to “opt in” for further consideration.
The resulting applications will be provided to the Council for consideration and appointments at
the August 31st meeting.
Upon making the additional appointments, staff is requesting that the City Council also affirm
their confidence in the CAC as a whole. The City Council may also wish to comment further on
the draft schedule for the C!C’s activities, which has been revised to reflect the City Council’s
input on August 17th (see Attachment B).
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Background
The City’s current Comprehensive Plan was anticipated to sunset in the year 2010, and the City
has been actively working to update the plan since 2008. In early 2015, the City Council
identified completing the Comprehensive Plan Update as one of its priorities, and a community
“summit” was held on May 30, 2015 to discuss the critical issues of transportation, growth, and
housing that will have to be addressed.
On May 18, 2015, the City Council directed the City Manager to solicit applications for a CAC to
help staff synthesize public input, policies and programs from the existing Comprehensive Plan,
recommendations of the Planning & Transportation Commission, and City Council direction into
a revised draft for City Council consideration. The Council envisioned an iterative process,
where the C!C’s work would be informed by City Council input/direction and its work products
would be reviewed by the Council.
Fifty-nine applications were received from people interested in serving on the CAC, and the City
Manager made appointments considering a variety of factors, which were listed in the
application form without specific weighting or priority. The appointed members are listed
below.
Voting Members
Daniel Garber – Old Palo Alto
Hamilton Hitchings – Duveneck
Jared Jacobs – Evergreen Park
Arthur Keller – Adobe Meadow
Lydia Kou – Barron Park
Steve Levy – Downtown South
Don McDougall – Professorville
Bonnie Packer – Palo Verde
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt – Crescent Park
Amy Sung – Green Gable
Doria Summa – College Terrace
Jason Titus – Downtown North
Elaine Uang – Downtown North
Ellen Uhrbrock – University South
Alex Van Riesen – Midtown
Bob Wenzlau – Crescent Park
Mila Zelkha – Fairmeadow
Non-Voting Members
Adrian Fine – Planning and Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Heidi Emberling – Palo Alto Unified School District
Whitney McNair – Stanford University
There was an attempt to achieve geographic diversity thru neighborhoods, however the
appointments were criticized for not adequately representing South Palo Alto, among other
things. To address these concerns, the City Council voted on August 17, 2015 to add five
additional voting members to the group. The Council’s motion emphasized the need for
balance, and mentioned the desire for more renters and young people (see Attachment A).
Clearly the planning process will be most effective if the CAC is seen as balanced as possible in
its representation of all geographic areas and interests.
Timeline
The CAC had its first (organizing) meeting on July 14, 2015 and elected a chair/vice-chair, and
adopted rules, including a meeting schedule. The C!C’s first substantive meeting occurred on
August 11, and included a discussion of the Community Services and Facilities Element. At that
meeting, the Chair and Vice-Chair indicated their intention to act as “co-chairs” and to agendize
an action item formalizing this intention at the next meeting. The upcoming meeting on
September 8 will include this action item, and will include the first discussion of the
Transportation Element. Staff also expects further discussion of the draft (revised) schedule
and the use of subcommittees, as suggested by the City Council.
!n important part of the C!C’s work will involve its receipt of City Council direction on the
structure, goals, and vision statements for each element of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
critical issues related to transportation, land use, and growth management. The revised draft
schedule for the CAC and Council interaction is included as Attachment B and indicates that the
City Council will be asked to provide guidance on the Community Services and Facilities Element
and the Transportation Element on August 31. With changes requested by the Council on
August 17, 2015, the schedule envisions completion of the planning process in 2017.
The CAC is expected to hold monthly public meetings, allowing Council members and the public
to monitor and comment on their work as it proceeds. Council may see some extended periods
between the Council initial review and direction on elements of the Comp Plan in the proposed
schedule, and when the CAC returns their work on each element back to the Council. Council
member monitoring of the CAC meetings may prove helpful in closing that gap, helping keep
Council Members informed of the C!C’s progress along the way. The staff and consultant work
involved in supporting the CAC and City Council schedule of meetings is just a subset of the
planning- and transportation-related items coming to the City Council in the time period shown.
Environmental Review
The recommended actions are not considered a “project” requiring review under the California
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: City Council Motion of August 17, 2015 (PDF)
Attachment B: CAC Council Timeline revised August 2015 (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES EXCERPT
Regular Meeting
August 17, 2015
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:07 P.M. in honor of Former Mayor Scott T. Carey.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Schmid, Wolbach
Absent: Scharff
Action Items
26. Discussion of Possible Adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan Update
Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 12:00 A.M.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Burt:
a. For Council to directly appoint five Citizen Advisory Committee for the
Comprehensive Plan Update (CAC) Members, using criteria specifically
focused on increased involvement of more neighborhoods south of
Oregon Expressway, with a focus on neighborhood association
involvement. Anyone can apply, using the previous application form.
Timeline proposes accepting applications through August 25, with
voting by Council in two weeks based on the written applications, so
that new members are seated as quickly as possible; and
b. To direct Staff to re-evaluate the schedule and propose an extended
timeline; and
c. To add a process for four CAC Members to submit a minority opinion if
they desire; and
d. The CAC meetings will have written minutes and video recordings.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part a,
sentence one “greater age diversity, and better renter/homeowner balance.”
Page 1 of 2
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes Excerpt: 8/17/15
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES EXCERPT
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add the word “including” after “neighborhood
association involvement” in Part a of the Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER remove the word “association” in Part a of the
Motion.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by
Member XX to remove “including” from the Motion.
Council
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to change “For Council” to “For the City Manager” in the Motion.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part b “including utilization of sub-committees as a part of the Comprehensive Plan
Update work, and sub-committee meetings would be noticed and open to
the public.”
CALL THE QUESTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Mayor
Holman to call the question.
CALL THE QUESTION PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Scharff absent
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Scharff absent
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 1:29 A.M.
Page 2 of 2
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes Excerpt: 8/17/15