Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCMR- 464-01City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE:DECEMBER 17, 2001 CMR: 464:01 SUBJECT:CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTROOM FACILITY AT HOOVER PARK RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Direct staff to expedite a process to approve the privately funded and managed design and construction of a permanent, public restroom at Hoover Park. 2. Direct the City Attorney to develop all necessary agreements with Mr. John~Arrillaga to build the restroom on City property and prepare the required park improvement ordinance. 3. Waive all permit costs associated with the project. BACKGROUND At its June 11, 2001 meeting, Council was petitioned by Palo Alto Little League parents and volunteers, requesting that a permanent restroom be constructed in Hoover Park. Many of these residents signed the petition as well as verbally testifying to the unsanitary situation at Hoover Park. After a brief discussion, Council referred the matter to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC). DISCUSSION The PARC has conducted several public meetings related to this matter. At its September 25, 2001 meeting, the PARC approved the concept of installing a restroom at Hoover Park. Staff is requesting Council's approval to implement PARC's recommendation and recommending that Council direct staff to pursue the installation as quickly as reasonably possible. The incentive driving this request is that the City has received an offer of private funding, construction and management from Mr. John Arrillaga, if the City can provide an expedited process for this to happen. Additionally, a PARC meeting is scheduled for December 18, 2001, when the PARC is expected to approve a policy that defines which Palo Alto parks should contain restroom facilities. The PARC recommendation is that those parks defined as "community parks" CMR:464:01 Page 1 of 3 contain restroom facilities. A "community park" is a "park or turf area that is used by residents from all parts of the City and which supports a variety of sport=activities". Hoo~ Park meets these criteria. The "community parks" that do alt~h~ly contain restr~e/n facilities are: Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park, Gree~:Park, Peers Park, E1 Camino Park and Baylands Athletic Center. t~n~ The only other "community~parks" that do not have restroom facilities are the Cubberley athletic fields and Terman Park. All other parks are defined as "neighborhood parks" and are not recommended to contain restroom facilities, unless a majority of the park neighbors petition the PARC with a request. This report asks for Council delegation to staff, the ARB and PARC of the:,design, site plan, and other aspects of this project, working in tandem with the donor:s'~Iqae issue of restroom installation at the remaining "community parks" will be addressed with the PARC and Council in future months. RESOURCE IMPACT This recommendation is dependent upon the provision of resources by the private sector. Staffing resources have been identified, however it is unknown at this time what the actual cost will be to the City. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This action will require PARC and Council approval of a policy to construct a permanent restroom at Hoover Park. Should PARC and Council approve this recommendation, a park improvement ordinance will have to be approved prior to construction. TIMELINE It is staff's intent to complete this project in spring 2002. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW " : This project may be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303. An opinion from the City Attorney's office will be provided prior to issuing a park improvement ordinance. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Minutes of the July 24, 2001 PARC Meeting Minutes of the September 20, 2001 PARC Restroom Subcommittee Public Meeting Minutes of the PARC September 25, 2001 meeting Minutes of the October 23, 2001 PARC meeting December 11,2001 Memorandum: Park Restroom Draft Policy CMR:464:01 Page 2 of 3 PREPARED BY: ~aCHA~ JA~¢~ Deputy Director o Co~~unity Services DEPARTMENT HEAD: PAUL T. THILTGEN Director of Community Services g~,ffL~! IZIARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:464:01 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A MINUTES PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting July 24, 2001 Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue APPROVED Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Richard Beckwith, Ellie Gioumousis, Jennifer Hagan, Edie Keating, William Garvey, Judith Steiner and Lyrm Torin Staff Present: Paul Thiltgen, Richard James and Paul Dias CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order by Chair, Richard Beckwith at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Conducted by Richard James. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: BUSINESS: 1. Approval of draft minutes of April 24, 2001 and May 29, 2001: Approval of the draft minutes of April 24, 2001 and May 29, 2001 were approved as amended. Evaluation of Commission Retreat (informational item): Discussion of the June 19th retreat continued and comments were mixed. Commissioner comments included, "only meaningful discussion was held during the last half-hour of the retreat", "it was good exercise", "no need to share special interests", "never got to priorities on agenda" and "too much rehashing." Paul Thiltgen felt the retreat was "too structured" and was disappointed with the facilitator's style. Paul suggested that that some of the problems encountered were probably due to the fact that he did not meet with the facilitator prior to the retreat and that perhaps someone with a different style would work better for future retreats. After some discussion, Commissioners decided was that it would be better to stay with this facilitator since she has a good energy level and is now familiar with the Commission. ACTION: The Commission suggested adding an agenda item called, "Priorities Revisited," and create a monthly report detailing a priority list, project timelines, and project updates. Park Restrooms (informational item): Paul Thiltgen requested that the Commission create a subcommittee to investigate and develop a policy recommendation for restrooms in Palo Alto parks. History: Paul Thiltgen discussed the previous installation o.:. *,"oms in Mto parks, which lms been a controversial on-going issue for severa_rohns~ eanor and Hoover P: ~s have all had restrooms installed and remow-time c~ other as a result of .nunity group petitions. Residents living around ~:c ~ zks complain of lack of maintenat~: additional traffic from outside groups using the park, homeless and drug element of me park increasing and petition for the restrooms to be removed. At the B~ ,;::~et .Session on June 1 lth, Little League Community Group presented a petition to the Ci-, . ouncil asking that restrooms be installed in Hoover Park. Temporary portable restrooms have been installed at the and will be removed shortly. A vendor will then provide a restroom at Hoover until ~ end of December. There are two issues that this Commission needs to resolve: ¯ The first is a general policy issue stating that only specific Palo Alto parks have restrooms (regional parks and athletic fields). The Commission needs to develop a recommendation and policy definition for Council relative to putting restrooms in all City parks, or selected city parks. ~actors need to include interim and long-term plans, building a:~d operational funds ~affing, and resident objection. The second issue ~s the need to start looking at the Hoover Park area and begin setting a schedule to meet with the Hoover Park community, so that if a policy change allows restroom placement, a fast-track the process can begin. Public Testimony Marta Tolma: 2778 Gaspar Court, Palo Ako. I live on a cul-de-sac that has entrance to Hoover Park, so I am real familiar with the port-o-potties. I know that we had a Little League game in July, and one afternoon I noticed that I had all these flies in my house - about 100 black flies. I was so bewildered as to why I had all these flies in my house. I was taking a walk that same evening and one of my neighbors said you must be concerned because the three port-o-potties have been there this long and no one has serviced them. I went over and looked at the port-o-potties, talked to the neighbor some more and come to find out, the three port-o-potties had been delivered July 1 st, while the event took place two weeks later. A week after that, they still had not been serviced and they hadn't been picked up. I would not say that the community wants port-o-potties, but if the Little Leaguers and some of the sports people want them, I don't have an objection per se about it, but I do have a real objection as to where they are placed and planning to place them. The temporary placement is right at the entrance to the park at the cul-de-sac. It seems that if you built a permanent facility, it would not be placed in that location. I would suggest that on the other side of the park there is a dog run and a creek, and no resident houses that border the park. I would suggest that the port-o-potty be located there. According to Steve Sims of the Parks Department, the potties have been located in the cui-de-sac for convenience because of the location of the service road. I hope that the Park Department can come up with a way to put it somewhere else so that it won't be right at the entrance of the park. I am spea?~ng fc nyself as well as my neighbors. David Siegel: 2733 Ramona Street, Palo Alto. (about ½ mile from Hoover park) Next season will be my 20th year with Little League. I don't have a 19repared statement but a couple of issues came up that I think I can address. First reg~ding the last speaker, I'm totally in agreement. I think that port-o-potties are a terrible idea. And as an interim solution, as a Little Leaguer I would not have port-o-potties. We have got by for the last 20 years without anything there and I think this is a better option than port-o-potties for our regular season. The previous speaker was referring to a district tournament that we hosted. We had 17 teams fi'om the peninsula playing from July 1st to approximately July 20th. Those port-o-potties were put at the end of the service road. This spot was the best of several terrible alternatives. Port-o-potties would be a real mistake, even temporary solution, but with this toumament and all the people, there was really no other choice, and still the next best option. I also want to mention that the reason Hoover Park is different is because of baseball. Our average Little League game is between 2-3 hours, major and minor games are also played there which are longer than the typical T-ball game. Also AYSO soccer plays there as well. It does happen that they play on the "mini" fields cause the two fields which are there are smaller than standard soccer fields. The reason that this is important is because Little League has a very strong policy that we only allow Palo Alto residents, not even people that go to school here. AYSO soccer, I can't speak for their registration terms are, but my belief is that they overwhelming majority of benefits of port-o-potties would flow to residents of Palo Alto. And I don't see it becoming a regional use facility. It is a citywide use facility and not a neighborhood use facility anymore. Both north and south of Oregon Expressway Little Leagues play an equal number of games there during the year and is filled all fall with AYSO soccer and some baseball in the fall as well. So I think this addresses some of the issues. I stood in this room six weeks ago before the City Council to bring to light the need for restrooms at Hoover Park. The primary reason for the need is obvious. Sporting events, particularly baseball, are held at Hoover Park and last too long to expect players and spectators to last for the duration of the event. As a consequence, the way that people confront the issue today as pretty much unacceptable. I mentioned the last time I was here that as a baseball manager, I've had to direct players to what I call the "men's trees" when the needs arose. Other players and fans have crossed Middle field Road to the Safeway or other local merchants, or occasionally have called on friendly neighbors such as the previous speaker, or the church that also sits on the back side of the field. Many of Palo Alto's facilities like Baylands, Greer and Mitchell do have proper facilities, but unfortunately do not have the 50-60 foot baseball diamonds that Little League games are played on. Palo Alto Little League just finished hosting our District 52 tournament where 17 teams from the peninsula came to play. Just under ½ the games were played at Hoover Park and the setting was really wonderful. There were cool breezes there, even on the warm evenings, trees and grass all around, spacious green lawns off the diamond for pickup T-ball games that were played during the tournament. As nice as our own field is at Middlefield Park, in many ways the quieter setting at Hoover was even nicer. Of course we had the portable bathrooms that were mentioned for the event. But a more permanent solution to the restroom problem would significantly elevate the experience every day at Hoover Park. Obviously there are some real world costs in continuing without adequate facilities. Paul mentioned some of the negatives, which were quite clear and I agree with all of them. However, there are some issues of sanitation and exposure when folks use the natural facilities that are there right now. There are also some minor safety issues related when kids head to mid-town to fmd relief. Hoover has matured into a tree City park rather than a neighborhood park it once was. Little League is comprised of 100% Palo Altans and AYSO soccer, which also uses the fields, is similar in makeup. Therefore, as I said all the benefits of an upgrade would flow directly to City residents. Lastly, Little League has had a defacto partnership with the City. We provide the volunteers and the money to run our league for between 700-800 children, as well as one gem of a diamond of our own on Middlefield Park facility. It's a pretty good deal for both sides as the City provides the fields for us and our kids benefit. Over the last three years Little League has significantly upgraded our own fields and the facilities at Middlefield Park, as well as other aspects of our league with successful funding efforts by our Board of Directors. Now we need the City to undertake and upgrade as well to keep this partnership in a reasonable balance. Thanks. Ronald Pearl: 580 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto. I've been a Palo Alto resident for 24 years and my kids have come to Hoover Park for 18 of those years. The issues have been pretty eloquently stated both at the budget meeting and by Dave again. I'm not sure I need to go on very long because it seems the pros of the parks are pretty obvious. I would just again emphasize that Hoover Park is not simply a community park. Almost every parent I know in Palo Alto has used Hoover Park for either soccer or baseball as their kids have grown up. It really is almost a part of everyone's culture at some point or another as their kids have gone through the sports years. The facilities there are non-existent obviously. The issue has been brought up that if you have bathrooms would that create a sanitation problem. We already do have a major sanitation problem now because everything you are thinking about occurring is occurring on the trees and bushes. I think it's an issue that is degrading to the kids to have to use the park. It's a problem for the parents who come to the soccer or baseball games or to use the park for any other reason. As part of the Little League tournament, I found it rather embarrassing that our public image of Palo Alto to people coming in from elsewhere, was of these port-o-potties, which were not serviced very well. I would echo the sentiment that the solution should not be to put port-o-potties there, but instead should be a permanent facility solution. Thank you. Mary Dunn: I am a Palo Alto Little League board member and have been a Palo Alto homeowner for the last 22 years and am very active in the Parks and Recreation Department. I think it is a department that works hard for their money. I see these people out there working cleaning the bathrooms at Mitchell Park, Greer Park, and Rinconada Park keeping the restrooms spotless. So I am in favor of a permanent bathroom similar to the ones I've just mentioned. Not the port-o-potty as this lady so eloquently described. It's not really a solution to this problem and I think that because Palo Alto is a City that works, we can work together and find a solution to the city park problem. In addition, I was the one who went door-to-door with my petition, asking neighbors directly across the street what they thought. I will submit this to you tonight, 34 pages of signatures from just the immediate area, just Palo Alto people, asking them if they would like to see a bathroom. Would they like to see the City Park and Rec Department solve this problem and put a bathroom in Hoover Park? They are strongly supportive, as are the City Council members I've spoken to. Mayor Eakins was very supportive and sympathetic and told me to talk to the Parks ;an.d2~Rec Department, they can solve it. Vic Ojakian, another supportive person, said -~-yes;2~_ lk to the Parks and Rec Department, they can solve it. So I ask you to really consider this as a need for Palo Alto residents and the people who are enjoying the beautiful parks of Palo Alto. Thank you Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto. I did ra~ concerns about the port-o-potties or the bathrooms because in general, the budgets are not factoring in the maintenance aspect and if you have bathrooms that are as heavily used as has been testified to here, you need daily maintenance. The same for those port-o-potties, which should have been serviced every day or at least every other day. I do know that St. Mark's did volunteer and did put port-o-potties in for the Little League in the last few years, but for whatever reason they no longer allow or have that facility for them. I believe that cleanlinesssis part of the problem, but I have to say that these port-o-potties and in some cases,permanent bathrooms are ugly,rand they smell, and those that live near it have fly problems and extra problems from insects. And in thaf particular park, we've had problems with graffitti and drug use. I'm not sure what else has gone on there, but it has been a problem in the past so it concerns me if the maintenance is not factored in with money for that maintenance. That's every day, twice a day, you open it, you check it, you close it, you check it, and if its dirty when you check it, you or someone has to clean it. It doesn't just stay dirty all night so the neighbors get the smells and the flies and things. This has not been happening in most cases. So my concern is that the permanent one is probably all right if the maintenance is factored in. Unfortunately, so many times budgets are approved sans the maintenance. That's why we have so many building and parks that have overhead problems and capital improvements necessary and we have such long delays. So my problem is how are they going to be cleaned, and what responsibility do the heaviest users, which is Little League and soccer, to report and be responsible instead of it's your problem kind of thing. As a long time resident who has seen the graffitti, drug use, and a bit of gang warfare between the north and the south during a very bad period in mid-town, I would not want to see those become a battleground. So I'm very concerned about the responsibility aspect of keeping them clean. And I don't think they should be put where they are visible to residents. They should be put where Little League and soccer can get at them easily. Thank you. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto. I believe that in addressing this issue you need to look at the City as a whole and find out schedules and intensity of use on parks throughout the City for organized sports activities. That is something that is growing though the years. I recall that when the original Hoover School was closed, the neighborhood was told that one of the benefits would be a piece of that former school site was being added to Hoover Park so that the neighborhood would have extra park space. That is something that I can go back and look for in the minutes and believe it was Larry Klein who said it. At the same time Council was saying that, staff was meeting with organized sports groups to use that space for soccer and the neighborhood never had an opportunity as neighborhoods at the other end of town had in designing their own park space when there are new parks. I believe that you need some sort of equality, that is h'a parks of similar sizes and intensity of use. If you're going to have restrooms, whether permanent or portable ones, it should not be done on a park by p~kObasis, but it .should be a policy throughout the City so that various neighborh66ds and parks are treated equally. Someone who wants a facility in someone else's neighborhood might not want it in their own neighborhood. I believe you should get from staff or the sub-committee that you plan to form a complete usage throughout the City and see which ones already have restrooms and which ones don't and why its only being asked for in one place. Thank you. (End of public testimony) Lynn Torin suggested that the subcommittee also look at the question of restrooms at Cubberley since this has been an issue in the past (fields receive heavy usage and there are no restrooms on the field). Paul Thiltgen referenced a point made by Herb Borock regarding the City's past negotiation with PAUSD to obtain the turf area of Hoover School. For the Commission's clarification, the land, already being used as athletic fields and by Little League, was obtained and brought into the park. The City protected its use as athletic fields. Previously there was a school on the property, which allowed access to restrooms. These restrooms no longer exist and this changed the use pattern of that park when the school closed down. Suggestions included looking at semi-permanent solutions (i.e., a deluxe port-o-potty with sinks to wash hands), groups (i.e., Little League) bringing in their own port-o-potties for special events, maintenance and cleaning of both permanent and temporary facilities, maintenance and placement of temporary port-o-potties, restroom monitoring, and the limited options for the servicing and placing of temporary restrooms. Selection of a Subcommittee to Develop a Policy Recommendation for Restrooms in Parks. (action item) It was agreed that the subcommittee will consist of two Commission members. Bill Garvey volunteered and Richard Beckwith is to act as an alternate. Richard nominated Judith Steiner for the Sub-committee and will contact her with the request. Neighborhood Meeting Schedule. An evening meeting is to be scheduled for September, preferably at the Hoover site to meet with the neighborhood. If the Hoover site is not available, the meeting should be at closest school for an hour to an hour and a half. The initial meeting will be used to gather feedback. It is hoped that the park restroom subcommittee will bring back policy recommendations for all Palo Alto parks and bring Cubberley into it. City staff will assist the subcommittee with a financial breakdown for a permanent restroom at any particular site, including the maintenance and service costs. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: ¯ Paul Thiltgen brought up the subject of the New Library Plan and the creation of a new Ad Hoc Committee for the Library's Fast Track and Mitchell Park Library Plans. Commissioners were given copies of the Library Plan for review and information. Council agreed to a 2002 tax initiative election and all the material for the election process must be ready by August 2002. The Mitchell Park feasibility study will be complete around the first of January and between January and March 2002, there needs to be a review process to prepare the basic policy issues that the council will need to consider about these two major projects. It is a 6-9 month process for all the various boards to review the issues to create recommendations. A new board will be created using a board member from each of the existing boards. Meeting schedules will need to be arranged around other meeting schedules in order to accommodate the fast track schedule. It may also be necessary to call a special meeting to select a member for the new board. Key issues of the Library Plan: parking, community garden, expansion, Art Center changes, and Commission involvement were pointed out to the Commissioners and the major decisions that the Council needs to make very quickly. Ellie Gioumousis reported that the Open Space subcommittee met and were scheduled to meet with the City Manager, but this meeting was unexpectedly cancelled and a new meeting date has not been set. It was decided that the invasive plant problem is an on- going problem that needs to be dealt with on an on-going basis. Paul Thiltgen reported on the Council approval of the Arastradero Gateway Plan. Grant applications are being submitted to the State of California in hopes of obtaining additional funding. ¯Edie Keating raised the issue of Stanford's requirement to provide new trails. suggestion ofVic 0jakian, this became a future agenda item. AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 25TM MEETING ¯Fast Track Library Plan ¯Restroom Policy Progress Report ¯Hoover Park Neighborhood Meeting At the Future Agenda Items ¯ Report on Use and Over-use of Parks ¯ Reports by Sub-committees ¯ Stanford Trails MEETING ADJOURNED Attachment B Public Meeting Summary PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Park Restrooms Subcommittee Hoover Park Neighborhood Meeting September 20, 2001 Lucie Stern Community Center Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Richard Beckwith, Ellie Gioumousis, William Garvey, and Lyrm Torin Richard James, Paul Dias, Eric Christensen, Erin Solheim Concerns or suggestions regarding the placement of a restroom at Hoover Park: Traffic congestion and cars parking on Cowper and E1 Dorado streets, with kids trying to cross the street, leads to safety issues. ¯The neighborhood is supporting cars and sports for more than just the neighborhood kids. ¯If park use is converted to sports, the park cannot be used as a quiet place to hang out. ¯The addresses listed on the petition submitted by Little League are not all park neighbors. ¯Hoover Park has graduated from a "neighborhood" park to a "regional" park. ¯It's not a healthy situation for kids at the park who do not live in the neighborhood. Kids and guests watching the Little League games need to leave the park to use the bathroom. ¯Port-a-potties attract small flies and smells bad. ¯Hoover Park is small and can't handle the large crowds of people. The park is surrounded on all sides by homes and there isn't a lot of room for a parking lot. ¯Little League should be in a park that accommodates more people and can handle the parking and safety issues. ¯Temporary restrooms (Port-a-Potties) work in temporary events and construction sites, not in permanent situations. ¯Permanent restrooms alleviate smells, and the fast traffic coming and going to use the restroom elsewhere. Park neighbors prefer the park to be used for the neighborhood; therefore no restrooms are needed. Peers Park is a smaller neighborhood park and it has restrooms. Increased facilities at the park equals increased traffic in the neighborhood. Discussion items: Regional vs. neighborhood parks Should only regional parks have restrooms? This topic should be discussed with user groups. Concerns or suggestions turned in on the comment cards: Mary Dunn, 580 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto. "I suggest the restroom at Hoover Park be a permanent one as opposed to a portable one. I suggest the Public Works Department of Palo Alto be responsible for maintenance / cleaning it as they do thoroughly do at Rinconada, Mitchell and Greer Parks. I suggest Palo Alto Parks and Rec Department concern themselves with the health, safety and enjoyment of Hoover Park for its many users/residents." 1 David Siegel, 2733 Ramona Street, Palo Alto. "Port-a-potties is not a solution- even temporary- please take them out! We need a permanent bathroom there when games are played that last over 2 hours." ~ 50.', . : Anonymous. "We need 6he immediately! This is a sanitation and health issue. Please proceed immediately and build a bathroom for kids, parents, grandparents, umpires, etc... This is ridiculous. We should be embarrassed" Anonymous. "Let's do it!" Anonymous. "Hoover is a neighborhood park. The function of the park is a question. We don't like to see it become a sports fimction park only! So, I do not agree to put a permanent restroom there. Besides a traffic issue, it is a big problem. The permanent restroom will bring a big traffic load. That's not what a neighborhood park is." Doug Cox, 485 E1 Dorado Avenue, Palo Alto. "I am opposed to a permanent restroom at our "neighborhood" park; it would make it a "regional" park and would support even more uses in the future. Sports use of our park have increased to the point that car parking is too much and creates an unsafe, congested mess where kids crossing Cowper can't be seen and there will probably be injuries in the future. A new area should be found which has parking lots and create restrooms there." Andy Poggio, 2708 Gasper Court, Palo Alto. "Do not make any changes regarding a restroom at Hoover Park until there is a comprehensive plan for such changes at all parks. Do not put a restroom at Hoover Park at all. It is surrounded on all sides by residences, has no off street parking, cannot handle more traffic, and is a neighborhood (small) park, not a regional park." nt achme C HNUTES PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION . -Regular Meeting " September 25, 2001 Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue APPROVED Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Richard Beckwith, Ellie Gioumousis, Jennifer Hagan, Edie Keating, William Garvey, Judith Steiner and Lynn Torin Staff Present: Paul Thiltgen, Richard James, Paul Dias, Greg Betts, and Erin Solheim CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order by Chair, Richard Beckwith at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Conducted by Erin Solheim. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: Agenda item #2- to be rescheduled. This item will come back to the Commission in October. BUSINESS: 1. Approval of draft minutes of July 24, 2001: The draft minutes of July 24, 2001 were approved as amended. ¢Update on the Library Master Plan- Fast Track: Paul Thiltgen explained that the process is no longer called the "Fast Track" process. The Commission received a copy of the New Library Plan Schedule in the packet (Attachment 1). Thiltgen said that the schedule is already outdated but the concept is there. The last time this topic was discussed, the plan was to form a large combined committee, with representatives from of a variety of commissions that have impact on the projects. Thiltgen explained that committee concept idea has since been abandoned, and that instead, the projects will be reviewed as they come forward. Thiltgen went over the changes to the chart, saying that lots of meetings will be coming up. Between meetings, subcommittees will be working to put together recommendations. Public meetings will also take place early into the projects. There was a public meeting on Saturday, September 22n~ on the Main Library/Art Center project. Thiltgen said that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be getting pieces as the project comes down. The long-term goal is to get the conceptual drawings done of all three buildings, and have the dollar amount ready, to make some decisions by June as to how much money and what types of projects would be included under the bond or tax initiative in November 2002. The City has hired an advisor to assist the City with the surveys to find out what the community's interests are, and what kind of projects the community would be interested in voting for. All that work and the decision of how much money will need to be determined by June of 2002. At that point in time, the whole project, if Council decides to put it on the ballot (which they will need to do by August 1, 2002) will be turned over to a citizen's committee. State law precludes government staff from selling or promoting the ballot initiative. The City Manager will be having community dialogue meetings to gather information and input on these projects. Update from Open Space Management Subcommittee: Edie Keafing reported that the Open Space Management Subcommittee met with the City Manager to inform him of the Open Space Division's plans to seek grant funding in order to hire a botanist. The botanist will be able to guide volunteers, working on the non-native species in Foothills Park and Arastradero Preserve. The Subcommittee gave a brief presentation on non-natives and what is currently being done to fight them, and also discussed the need for more expertise. Keating also brought up the possibility of a contingency plan if grant funding doesn't come though to support the botanist position. Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan: Greg Betts included an informational report in the Commission packet summarizing tonight's presentation (Attachment 2). The consultants working on the Foothills Trails Maintenance Plan are the same consultants that worked on the Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan: Sheryl Miller, Amphion Environmental, Julie Bondurant, Project Manager & Planner, Amphion Environmental and Senior Associate Taylor Peterson, Thomas Reid & Associates. Betts explained that unlike the trails at Arastradero Preserve, where the trails have evolved over the years, the trails at Foothills Park were engineered and designed for hiking routes. The trails haven't ever had guidelines to say how wide the trails should be and it's just been left up to staff members or the California Conservation Corp. to use their own traditions to determine those things. Thomas Reid Associates have been hired to take a look at Foothills Park trails and to develop a policy-setting trail maintenance plan and also to update the trails in terms of safety and ADA accessibility. Sheryl Miller explained that since June, they have been walking the trails and meeting stakeholders to get an idea of what the issues are.. They have an outline of general trail issues and an idea of a maintenance conceptual plan. Peterson went over the outline of the specific plan elements of the Trail Maintenance (included in Attachment 2). Bondurant reviewed the management objectives (included in Attachment 2). Bondurant said that they have had a good response from stakeholders and questionnaires. One of the key discussion items is trail width and providing a clear passageway. Bondurant explained that trail width should be a minimum of 3-feet wide. Pictures were passed around the table of current Foothills Park trail widths. Trail maintenance also focuses on eliminating hazardous situations for trail users by removing overhanging vegetation to provide 8 feet of vertical clearance at a minimum. Also, maintaining the structural integrity of the trail tread so it has smooth soil. Franklin Olmsted, Friends of the Foothills Park, said that bushes do require maintenance. He explained that in the past the Friends of the Foothills worked on trail maintenance, and as they learned about the problems of the evasive weeds they switched their emphasis to 2 non-native weeds. Gioumousis said that it was the philosophy of the Friends, that every time they went for a walk they'd bring along clippers and maintain the trails. Keating asked if a 3-foot wide trail meant that the trail was 18-inches wide, with a six-inch shoulder on either side. Bondurant said that was correct, but unlike a paved bike trail, with a defined shoulder, the hiking trail would have vegetation on each side. Keating asked if there was any disagreement between the stakeholders in terms of the definitions (3-4 feet wide trails and smooth trail tread) and Bondurant said there was a strong consistency of wanting to keep the hiking trails as narrow as safety allows. Bondurant said that the term "smooth" comes from the accessibility guidelines, and is the base that you start with for accessibility. Keating asked if the trails would maintain "natural condition". Smooth means a trail without gullies and trenches. Gioumousis said she was also concerned with the minimum 3-feet wide guideline. She posed an example of an existing 2-feet trail cutting through the side of a hill. She asked if the trail would have to be cut further into the side of the hill to make the width 3-feet, which would create further erosion. Torin asked if the 3-feet wide guideline is flexible depending on the situation as Gioumousis described. Bondurant said that they could remove the word "minimum" from the maintenance guidelines and add language to maintain the existing trail and tread. Edie Keating offered language the consultants could use: "Excessive trail clearing is undesirable and detrimental to the natural habitat of Foothills Park. Avoid excessive trail clearing." Hagan said they'd have to define the word excessive. Bondurant continued with the Trail Maintenance Objectives explaining that another objective is to develop procedures for periodic systematic inspections and maintenance and developing policies and procedures for trail management (ex. temporary closures, signing, monitoring and enforcement). Trails would be evaluated every year for areas of erosion or sliding with a step by step policy for trail repair or correction. Edie Keating suggested the language: "Major engineering is the last resort." Lyrm Torin wanted to clarify (pg. 3-1) if all employees of businesses in Palo Alto were able to visit Foothill's Park, and the answer is no, only City of Palo Alto employees. Torin also commented (pg. 3-2) that she wasn't in favor of the trail maintenance objective "providing rest areas along the side of the trail that allow other users to pass". Torin thought that you couldn't predict where people will need to pass, and that there's plenty of room to pass along the trail. Although providing one or two natural places to sit down and have a picnic would be a good idea. Public Testimony: Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto. Borock said he is concemed about having a document that gives staff latitude of discretion to change the balance of open space nature and that it sounds like it's going in the wrong direction. In terms of increased numbers of people, the park has a limit on how many people can come into the park. People drive their car, and there are limits on how many cars go into the park. Open space character is maintained by limiting impact on the park's trails. One Commissioner talked about opening up the park to non-residents, as if everyone here knows it's on some agenda. Borock said that if it is, he'd like to be directed to the document in which it's been discussed. In terms of accessibility, open space areas are not areas that are always accessible to everyone at all times. Borock said that he couldn't comment on the document itself, but if you want to change Foothills Park into something other than it is, a policy would have to go to City Council, the decision makers. In terms of the trails, he is concerned that this is going in the wrong direction. Franklin Olmsted, 240 W. Charleston Road, Palo Alto, 94306. Olmsted read a statement dealing with trails in Foothills Park: "I notice that many of the trails had somewhat recently had a maintenance overhaul. The apparent widening of many areas of the trails had many bare slopes in highly erosive areas. These areas should be allowed to re- vegetate. I would suggest that the park implement a policy of "no bare soil" in its trail operations. Preservation of low trailside vegetation could be achieved through trail maintenance with motorized weed whips or with hand trimmers instead of the more destructive hoes, mattocks, and pulaskis. Another measure that could help counter erosion and decrease long term costs of trail maintenance is the preservation of natural mulch on the trail itself." End of public testimony. Update from Park Restrooms Subcommittee: Public Testimony: Andy Poggio, 2708 Gasper Court, Palo Alto. Poggio had heard that there was a request to add restrooms to Hoover Park and wanted to make some suggestions on why this was a poor idea and how to solve some of the other issues. 1. Hoover is really a neighborhood park. It's small and surrounded on all four sides by residences with no off-street parking and no substantial facilities and believes it should stay that way. Any further development of the park including a restroom will transform the park into a regional park, attract more people and cause crowding. 2. There is no off-street parking and the parking along Cowper and it's already a borderline dangerous situation when there is anything going on in the park. It's hard to cross the street, and it's dangerous for children. 3. The City is considering this without having a master plan for the park, there is no traffic study, no environmental impact, and he'd really like that to proceed. There is also the problem of the Little League organization who would like a diamond and some nice facilities for their activities. Poggio proposed that the City develop a master plan for all the parks and halt non-trivial development before this happens. Define regional and neighborhood parks. Designate which parks are which. After having come up with this plan and coming up with guidelines, identify a park that is a better match for Little League that already has off-street parking and facilities. End of public testimony. Bill Garvey recapped the September 20th public meeting on the Hoover Park restroom issue. Approximately 7 residents attended the meeting. There were three neighbors who lived adjacent to the park at the meeting. Three things came out of the overall discussion: 1. No one wanted to continue with the port-a-potty. 2. Folks who lived near the park were unanimous not to have a permanent restroom for many reasons (traffic, park usage) 3. The people who didn't live near the park use it for sports related activities. Their feeling is that people from all over the city go to the park and stay there for hours and because of the length of time, the parents and kids tend to need to use the restroom and they are forced to use the bushes and Safeway. Ellie Gioumousis mentioned the people who came to the previous mee:. :, who lived near the park, and were in favor of having a permanent restroom because they were tired of the port-a-potties .an~.smells and flies.Rick Beckwith told the Commission that he went to the park over the ~ggtfgnd for four hours and witnessed the traffic issues. He took pictures to illustrate the continuous usage of the port-a-potty. The port-a potty is in a poor location, but is heavily used. Beckwith felt that the park has evolved imo a "community" park and has gotten to the point where a restroom is necessary:-, The City needs to find a type of restroom that would work for everyone. Thiltgen explained that the Little League used to be on the Hoover School grounds when the school was still there and at that time, arrangements were made with Hoover School so that the users of the fields could use the school bathrooms. When the school district decided to close the Hoover School, the City purchased the field. Beckwith said that with all the uses he saw, and all the different types of activities at Hoover Park, he would recommend some type of restroom facility, but at the same time try to accommodate the residents of the area by controlling how the fields are brokered. Lynn Torin suggested the Commission try to come up with a general policy for park restrooms. A real neighborhood park doesn't necessarily need restrooms, but when there are lots of athletics events, with lots of people and children, there should be a restroom. Torin also brought up the issue of the Cubberley fie!ds, which are more populated than Hoover, and there aren't restrooms. She suggested th~ ~ the long-range plans a restroom should be placed at Cubberley as well. Torin was concerned about the Commission responding to Hoover Park only, because it would set a precedent. If the group decided that there should be a restroom facility in every park where there are a lot of organized games, then the Commission should recommend having a restroom at Hoover. Torin thought it didn't make sense to say that Hoover should have restrooms, but not in other similar parks and facilities just because some people have come and ask for it. Councilmember Lytle said that she saw this as a sense of urgency because of the issue of health and sanitation. Keating mentioned that soccer is played at Ramos Park and there isn't a bathroom. Councilmember Lytle said that people could get through a soccer game, but not a baseball game because of the length of the baseball games. Judith Steiner motioned to support the installation of permanent restrooms at Hoover Park. Beckwith asked for further discussion. Edie Keating mentioned that the use of the park for Little League is what convinced her to support the restroom. There was the suggestion to relocate the Little League to somewhere else, but the other sites where Little League is are all being used. Thiltgen said that this is just a big issue and we need to figure out what to do about it. Garvey expressed his opinion that the people who are opposed to the restrooms, are not opposed to the restrooms itself, but the amount of use the park will be getting. The park has evolved from a neighborhood park to a regional park. The park has tennis courts, a baseball field, a dog run, two playground areas and a picnic area. If the park gets a restroom, then the people in Palo Alto that use the park will get the advantage of being able to use the restroom. The restroom will not draw people from neighboring cities and will not cause additional traffic. ~ Paul Dias mentioned that the current port-a-potty at Hoover is a unisex restroom. Beckwith said that no one seemed to have had a problem with that. Dias said that they were going to try to move the port-a-potty to the other side of the park about 50 feet offthe street and see how that goes. The wind this time of year blows towards Gasper Court and that's probably why the neighbors in that area smell the port-a-potty. Dias said the portable restroom needs to be placed near the road so that the cleaning crew can have access to the restroom. Jennifer Hagan said that this is an issue between the users and the landowners. She said that the landowners do not want port-a-potties, and that putting a restroom in the park would create an attractive nuisance. This could potentially create such problems as, who will to gravitate towards the park, the cost and expense of keeping it clean, and all this will impact the landowners. Hagan said that there are landowners that had no idea that the park would have so much usage when they bought the land, and this is a nuisance coming to the landowner. The neighborhood needs an opportunity to respond. Richard James said that in order to do any kind of building in the park, the City would need a Park Improvement Ordinance and that will be the function where people can come out and argue against it. Motion to support the installation of a permanent restroom in Hoover Park. (Steiner/Garvey- 6/1- motion approved) COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilmember Lytle said that after the Hoover Park public meeting on September 20, 2001, lots of questions came up about AYSO soccer field use. Lytle said she contacted the Regional Commissioner of the Palo Alto AYSO soccer, and he sent her a letter that she will pass on to the Commission. Lytle said that one of the Regional Commissioner's goals is to increase public awareness of field space shortage in Palo Alto. In his letter, the Commissioner talks about what has happened over the last decade in the erosion of field space in Palo Alto, and the difficulties his organization has ran into in stopping the depletion of field space. AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 23RD MEETING Presentation on Recreation's Building Program Study at Mitchell Park Community Center by Tom Lalonde of Phillips Swager Associates (PSA) ¯Update on the New Library Plan ¯Use and Overuse of Parks and Fields ¯Impact Fees ¯Park Restrooms ¯Stanford Trails FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS MEETING ADJOURNED Attachment D PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 23, 2001 Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue APPROVED Commissioners Present:Richard Beckwith, Ellie Gioumousis, Edie Keating, William Garvey, Judith Steiner, and Lynn Torin Commissioners Absent: Jennifer Hagan Staff Present: Paul Thiltgen, Richard James, Dan Williams, Dawn Calvert, Paul Dias, Greg Betts and Erin Solheim CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order by Chair, Richard Beckwith at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Conducted by Erin Solheim ORAL COM]VIUNICATIONS: BUSINESS: 1. Approval of draft minutes of September 25, 2001: The draft minutes of September 25, 2001 were approved. o Presentation on Recreation's Building Program Study at Mitchell Park Community Center by Tom Lalonde of Phillips Swager Associates (PSA): The Mitchell Park Community Center final draft report was passed out to the Commission for review and to make comments. PSA was also involved in the Mitchell Park Library programming study. The draft report was put together to look at the possibility for shared uses between the library and the community center. The report outlines the purpose and process and shows a comparison of the two community center and library and the possibilities for shared uses. Both the library and community center programming studies will go to the Mitchell Park Library Community Center project site committee. The site feasibility study will be completed in four or five months. Then the conceptual design process will begin, which will combine all the study results together. Oral Communications: Shelby Valentine- 3116 Stelling Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303. Valentine is the President of the Friends of the Library Board. The Friends are very excited about working together on this project. The Friends have been making recommendations to the City to hone down the focus of the project because the Mitchell Park library site is the project that is most competitive for applying for Proposition 14 funding. Round one funding is in June of 2002. The Mitchell Park collaborative recreation!library project is really important because it's in the south part of town and has the greatest potential for being something that is really exciting and great for all Palo Altans. The Mitchell Park facility has experienced the most growth. The Friends are very sensitive to the needs of the site and see a lot of potential for overlap and shared space. Valentine said she would love to see the development of a plan 3 that serves the southern Palo Alto population, because when/if we go out to the voters to ask for funding, it's important that we are viewed as being team players with what will be a public service and a community asset for the whole to.wlz ~,~i ~,.~ Park Restrooms (action item): Lynn Torin suggested-that the Commission develop a park restroom policy for the entire community that is fair for all athletic fields and parks across the board. Torin said that just because one group requested a restroom at Hoover doesn't mean that Hoover should be the only pa~. ~to get one. Cubberley fields have a tremendous amount of use, and the issue of restrooms has been discussed for a long time and it hasn't happened. The Commission should also,consider recommending the installation of a restroom at Cubberley. Presentation by Del Thorpe, Manager, Cubberley Community Center, on Restrooms in Cubberley Fields: Thorpe passed out an aerial map of Cubberley to show where the existing restrooms are located and how far people have to walk to ~geit to them. Portable toilets are located on the Cubberley fields, which aren't adequate -for public use. Cubberley is a 35-acre site, of that, 15-acres is either athletic fields or athletic facilities. The facilities are used almost every day of the year. Tenants use the restrooms during the daytime. Soccer groups use the fields after school until dark. Bobby Socks softball uses the field exclusively as their home field. Cubberley is one of the most heavily used facilities in the city. In order to get to the restrooms from the fields, you'd have to go several hundred feet up to a ¼ mile through the open Cubberley campus. Another issue is that the restrooms may be locked on the weekends. The restrooms are locked for safety and to prevent vandalism. Keys to the restrooms are issued to tenants. Thiltgen said that when the City first took over Cubberley, there was a proposal from Bobby Socks and the tennis club to help build and finance a restroom. The big problem is connecting to the nearest sewer line, the line is uphill, which would cause a major backup problem. Composting toilets were suggested for use in the parks. State and national parks use nicely built port-a-potties with a good ventilation system, no odors, which may be cheaper for Cubberley than putting in a sewer line. Steiner said that Santa Clara County is not permitting composting toilets at this time, but that there was indication that they might be able to do it on a pilot project basis. Torin asked what other highly used fields in Palo Alto do not have permanent restrooms. Paul Dias said that E1 Camino, Greet, Peers, Rinconada, Mitchell Park and Terman parks all have permanent restrooms. The school sites do not have restrooms. Gioumousis commented that if junior high and high school fields are used heavily for playing fields, they might need restrooms as well. Thiltgen said that the fields are already being used heavily for athletics and that the restrooms at school sites are locked up on the weekends and afternoons. Restrooms at school sites are built to accommodate the .school, not the playing fields. Thiltgen said that the use pattern and location of the restrooms at Cubberley (not visible or easy to find on the site), probably justify a separate field restroom. Thiltgen said that out at the Baylands, the City worked together with Babe Ruth and opened a snack shack/ restroom facility where revenue was contributed to help pay for the cost of the restroom. Torin proposed that when the Hoover restroom issue goes to the Council, that they consider the Cubberley restrooms as well. Torin said the Commission needs to think more about providing space for athletic facilities, as there is more of a demand, and that while planning for the athletic facilities, the Commission ought to keep the issue of restrooms in mind. Thiltgen said that the reality is that all of the parks are being used for athletic fields, and that the parks were not designed to take all the heavy usage. Thiltgen said that his personal feeling is thal every park should have a restroom. Because the City doesn't have a budget that can afford placing a restroom in every park, we need to focus on the areas that have the biggest impact- such as Hoover and Cubberley. Eleanor is probably the next park to have a big impact because it has such a large turf area. Both times this issue has been taken to the Eleanor community, it has been rejected. Torin said that the Commission needs to be fair, and should propose restrooms at the two locations, (Cubberley and Hoover) and then come up with a policy to work towards regarding the rest of the parks, keeping in mind funding. The neighborhood supports a restroom at Cubberley. The Cubberley Advisory Committee and the neighborhood association support a restroom. Thiltgen asked what the criteria should be for installing a restroom, versus putting a restroom in every park. Some neighborhoods may not want a restroom, and the City wouldn't be able to implement that. JLS and Jordan and Cubberley have huge playing fields and which often host tournaments. Those might be a place to start. Then get into the neighborhood parks. Keating asked about the rule about the majority, or two-thirds of the homeowners support having a restroom there, that then one could be put in. But if the neighbors around the park didn't want a restroom, then the issue is dead. Thiltgen said that we should think about a policy because this issue will surface at the Council level, and it gets sent back to the Commission and it would be nice if the Council had some guidance so that when the issue surfaces, they know what the criteria might be. Suggested criteria for the Commission to consider installing a restroom in parks: Regional (community) parks, with a great deal of athletic activities; Lots of young people, families, older people, who come from far away for long time periods, involved in long games; and Broad commtmity/neighborhood desire/demand/support for a rest-room. Neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Thiltgen said that staff would go back and draft up a policy statement/guidelines for park restrooms to bring back to the Commission. The policy statement can go to Council separately of the Hoover/Cubberley restroom issue. Motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that a restroom be constructed in the field area of the Cubberley Community Center and that this recommendation be added to the previously approved recommendation to construct a restroom at Hoover Park. (Torin/Keating, 6-0 in favor, Commissioner Hagan was absent) Use and Overuse of Parks and Fields (informational item): Dawn Calvert, Recreation Superintendent, and Don Piana, Parks Superintendent, passed out two handouts, the first of which the Commission had also received about a year ago during a presentation introducing the fields and the field brokering system. The second handout discusses overuse of fields and the lack of field space. Calvert explained that most of the parks in Palo Alto are being used for soccer. The parks are not built for this type of overuse. Causes for over usage are the demographics of Palo Alto, the increase in the youth population, also the school district and their need to bring in fewer children per classroom, which takes up athletic field space where portables have taken over. Because of limited space, rather than splitting the field in half, the fields may be split into quarters and that impacts the fields in a much greater way than it has in the past. Piana said that the issue is that there is not enough athletic field space. There are 42-acres of school turf area available-for use and approximately 80-acres~rfCity park space. Every square inch is being used. The field closure program, which was started years ago, has been really successful and gives the City the time to renovate and re-seed the fields. There are multi-use facilities that aren't getting enough time to rest. The City and the school district will be meeting periodically to discuss how to address the field maintenance. There are about 23 soccer fields in Palo Alto, but realistically every bit of turf is being used. Renovation takes approximately 3 days, and then the fields are closed for a resting period of approximately 6 weeks. This isn't really long enough, it takes 7-21 days to grow grass, and to get a field established, and it should be kept closed for a 3-month period. Before fields were used so much, they were closed for 3 months. Soccer and softball are being played year around. This doesn't give fields time to rest. Bill Garvey suggested using the available Mayfield site for athletic fields. Richard James suggested lighting fields such as Cubberley and Greer, to make better use of the fields that already exist. Since both the Cubberley and Greer fields are located in residential neighborhoods, lighting Mayfield might work better. James also said that there is an acre section of the Greer site that is undeveloped. The Greer site has a master plan that was set many years ago, but we can look at the site with the neighborhood's support. A soccer field takes about 1.5 acres for a full field. Garvey also suggested using artificial turf, which can be used 365-days/year. Beckwith suggested that because more kids are playing soccer these days, the Baylands could be converted into three soccer fields. The baseball program could be moved onto the high school baseball fields. There are four baseball fields in Palo Alto. Two at middle schools and two at high schools. This could easily accommodate all the baseball activities in Palo Alto. Three full sized soccer fields could be built at the Baylands and they could be lighted at night. This would leave enough space so that one field could be left unused for a year for maintenance. James said that this issue could be brought up at the City/School Committee. James said that they are also exploring the idea of sharing fields with Stanford University. Another idea is to work together with Menlo Park, and turn the Veteran's Hospital site into a regional soccer complex. Oral Communications: . Council member Nancy Lytle spoke to the Commission on three points: demographics, land and money, to keep in mind when making a recommendation to Council re: athletic fields. 1- Demographics: There has been a 25% increase in the population of kids. 2700 kids under 18 have been added to the population of Palo Alto in the last decade. We are not tracking the daytime population, the people who come and use services, but do not live here. Palo Alto's daytime population is 3-4 times the nighttime population. 2- Land: Mayfield, Ventura and Cubberley sites will be coming up on the Council agenda. There is a group of Paly parents who want to raise money to improve athletic facilities at Palo Alto High School. This could be an oppommity for joint facility planning. 3- Money: 415 years ago, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, field and park space shortages were documented. Mitigation measure- the City adopted park development impact fees so that residential and commercial development would be charged for the pressure and impact to the facilities and parks. This item is stuck with the Finance Committee, but has not moved forward. Fees need to be collected in order to mitigate impacts. Action: Development fees will be discussed further at the next month's Commission meeting. Keating suggested staff drafting up a one-page summary about the issues and needs about fields. Stanford Trails (informational item): Commissioner Keating handed out a draft of Stanford Trails Position Paper and map of the Stanford University Trail Route Proposal (attached). Keating explained that Stanford has been granted development rights to build community centers and housing on Stanford land, but that they have obligations they must comply with in order to go forward with the development. Stanford has a deadline of December 12, 2001 to comply with providing trail alignments. Stanford must dedicate easements for, develop and maintain the portions of two trail alignments, which cross Stanford lands to be in accordance to the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan. These trails would link up and provide regional trail connections to the Bay-to-Ridge Trail. Keating described the problems with Stanford's proposed alignment for trails C-1 and S-1 (see attached map) and gave suggestions for improved alignments, such as using existing trails and gates, and using the existing cow tunnels under 280. Keating said that the trails should be safe and should avoid busy intersections and the Highway 280 underpass. Trails should be designed for recreational use- not for transportation, such as along a busy road or alongside the highway. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MEETING *Development fees *Use and over use of athletic fields and parks ¯Policy on park restrooms ¯Library building projects FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS MEETING ADJOURNED Attachment E Community Services Department MEMORANDUM From: D~e: Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission r~chard James December I I, 2001 Park Restroom Policy Draft At its October 23, 2001 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission requested that staff prepare a draft of a policy that would set guidelines for potential installations of restrooms in Palo Alto parks. Staff is requesting the Commission to discuss the draft policy and provide comments as to its content. Staff will then prepare a final draft for Commission approval in December. Definitions Community Parks: A community park is defined as a park or turf area that is used by residents from all parts of the City and supports a variety of sport activities. Community Parks include: Restrooms Available Mitchell Park Rinconada Park Greer Park Peers Park E1 Camino Park Baylands Athletic Center Restrooms Needed Hoover Park Terman Park Cubberley Fields Neighborhood Parks: A neighborhood park is generally a small park (1-4 acres) that is mostly used by the neighborhood that surrounds the park and may support some sport activity. Restroom Policy Community Parks: Due to the nature of park use it is recommended that all community parks have permanent restroom facilities. Under the definition of Community Parks there are three parks that will require the installation of restroom facilities. The most pressing of the three are Hoover Park and the Cubberley Fields. Both support year round youth sport activities including soccer, baseball, and girl's softball. Neighborhood Parks: All other parks not m~ntioned above are considered neighborhood parks. Because these parks do not support major sporting events it is recommended that restroom support is not required. However, should a majority of neighborhood residents desire restroom facilities, they may approach the Parks and Recreation Commission for approval. Financial Impacts The Commission recognizes the economic impact of this recommendation and suggests phasing in restroom facilities over years, starting with Hoover Park.