2026-09-22 - Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting

12:53Parks and Recreation meeting on Tuesday

12:569:22 20226.

12:59I would like to call the meeting to

13:00order and start with a roll call.

13:05>> Commissioner Brown

13:07>> here.

13:07>> Commissioner Smith. Yes. Here.

13:10>> Uh, Vice Chair We

13:14Chair Freeman

13:16>> here.

13:18Uh, Commissioner Axelrod

13:20>> here.

13:20>> Commissioner Klein House.

13:22>> Yes.

13:23>> And Commissioner Dan

13:24>> here.

13:29>> Okay. So, now we'll open it up for

13:32public comments on non-aggenda items. If

13:36you're here in person and would like to

13:38speak on an unaggenda item, uh please

13:41fill out the uh speaker card and hand it

13:44to the clerk. If you're joining us on

13:47Zoom, uh for an item not on the agenda,

13:50uh just raise your hand and the clerk

13:52will call you on we'll call on you. But

13:55uh due to a recent policy change, uh

13:57we'll hear Zoom comments at the end of

14:00the agenda. Any speakers?

14:03>> We currently have one inperson speaker.

14:06Thank you.

14:08Uh, David C.

14:16Good evening, commissioners. My name is

14:17David Cole. I'm on the bike powto

14:20steering committee and I wanted to just

14:22invite you all to our event on October

14:254th at Fair Meadow School from 1 to 3. I

14:29have some flyers here.

14:35The event is a familyfriendly event.

14:39There's three different routes, actually

14:41four. They're all um less than 10 miles.

14:44There's treat stops on each route,

14:47and we go through and find all the nice

14:50ways to get around Powalto. That's what

14:52makes Powalto a bike friendly city. Um,

14:57at the event site there's registration

15:00and maps and we have helmet fitting and

15:04bike index and bike mechanics to help

15:06you get on your ride. So I enjoy invite

15:09you all to come out and join us either

15:11as a participant or as a volunteer and

15:14if you have any questions all the

15:16information is on the website by

15:18bikepowto.org

15:20and I hope to see you all out there.

15:22Thank you so much. Any

15:25other speakers?

15:27>> There are no more additional speakers at

15:28this time.

15:29>> Okay. Thank you uh for your uh those who

15:32spoke today. We appreciate uh taking the

15:34time to uh share your comments.

15:37Now we'll move to agenda changes,

15:39additions, and deletions. Uh before

15:43we get started, I'd like to like u let

15:45the commission know that um to

15:47accommodate those who wish to attend the

15:49meeting in Zoom. Well, we already

15:52addressed that.

15:53So, are there any changes to the agenda

15:56changes or deletions?

16:02Okay, that'll be a no.

16:05Okay, we'll move to um the official

16:08business. The council last time was not

16:11here tonight, so we'll move right.

16:14>> Chair, would you like to uh for the

16:16approval of the minutes for July 20th?

16:19>> Oh, I did something tonight. Okay,

16:21that's what we get for having a meeting

16:23and then Okay, approval of the minutes.

16:25I'd like to have a vote on the a motion

16:28to approve the minutes for uh July 28

16:3226. Do I have a

16:34>> motion to approve?

16:36>> I have a second.

16:37>> Sure.

16:38>> Okay, that's

16:40okay. Take a vote. Okay. Uh,

16:43Commissioner Brown,

16:44>> yes.

16:46Commissioner Smith,

16:49Chair Freeman, yes. Um, Commissioner

16:52Axelrod,

16:53>> yes.

16:54>> Commissioner Klein House,

16:55>> yes.

16:56>> And Commissioner D,

16:58>> yes.

16:58>> Okay, motion carries.

17:08Now, we'll move to city official

17:09reports. Um, as I said, the council

17:12lesson is not here tonight uh due to

17:15another obligation, we'll start with the

17:17department reports.

17:21>> Yes, thank you, Chair Freeman. Um,

17:25while the department report is getting

17:28pulled up, um, I want to say good

17:30evening. My name is Sarah Robastelli.

17:32I'm the division manager for community

17:35services. We have quite a few updates um

17:39since last month we did not hold the

17:42meeting. Um so we'll start with a summer

17:45recap um go on to upcoming events and

17:49then uh look at some several capital

17:52projects and projects that were

17:54completing in the parks. So, first of

17:57all, um today is fall equinox and um

18:01Uncanny, we're we've wrapped the summer

18:04movie nights. Um it was another very

18:07successful season of the family movie

18:09nights. It continued to be a great

18:11opportunity for families to come

18:13together and enjoy our parks, uh our

18:17community spaces. In addition, um we

18:22throughout the series we had about 250

18:26to 500 attendees per movie. It ranged um

18:31depending on movie and also weather. So

18:35if we advance to the next slide, we have

18:37several um community events coming up

18:40over the next couple of weeks. Um we on

18:44Thursday, it will be our second annual

18:46cornhole tournament. will be on

18:49California A this Thursday

18:52um from 5 to 7 in conjunction with

18:55Thursday live. Uh so that's that's

18:59exciting. And then this Friday is going

19:02to be a very busy day. We have a total

19:05of three uh special events happening.

19:09So, right in the middle of your screen

19:11there, um we will have the PaloAlto

19:14Weekly Moonlight Run and Walk starting

19:16at the Bayands Athletic Center. Also on

19:19Friday is the Bryant Street Teen Center

19:23grand reopening. The Teen Center closed

19:26over the summer and officially reopened

19:28on September 8th. Friday's event is an

19:31opportunity to celebrate the reopening

19:33and invite the teens back. Um,

19:36experience the center and learn more

19:38about what it has to offer. The teen

19:41center is currently open from 3:30 to

19:436:30, which is a slight shift um to the

19:49to later hours. And um for Friday's

19:53event, the celebration will run from 5

19:55to 8:00 p.m.

19:58So if you advance to the next slide, our

20:01our other um opportunity to keep you

20:04busy this Friday is uh the Sister City

20:08Grove tree planting. This is in

20:10partnership with Neighbors Abroad,

20:13Canopy, and the city. Um there will be

20:1610 native red bub trees that will be

20:19planted in the area between the JMZ and

20:23Lucy Stern building. Uh commissioners as

20:26well as the community members are

20:29welcome and invited to attend.

20:33And then um in the middle of your screen

20:35there on Saturday, October 3rd, there

20:38will be a second annual pancakes in the

20:41park. So no need to come cook breakfast.

20:44come on over to Rinkanada Park and um

20:48from 9 to 11 members of the police and

20:51fire will be uh cooking up pancakes and

20:55we'll have also free face painting and

20:57children's entertainment. So, it's

20:59another great community event. And then

21:02finally, um we wanted you to save the

21:06date for the Jacko J uh which will be

21:09held at Linton Plaza Friday, October

21:1230th. Um, and we'll have more

21:15information as we get closer to that

21:16event.

21:19So, special interest classes for the

21:22summer camps. This was a really

21:24successful summer. And our special

21:27interest camps, which are held by

21:29independent contractors,

21:31um, had a really successful season. We

21:34offered 49 special interest camps and uh

21:39the total revenue approximately $450,000

21:44which represents a 5% increase over

21:46summer of 2025.

21:50Uh woodworking, cooking, and building

21:53your dream city continued to be

21:56particularly popular programs.

21:59And if you advance to the next slide,

22:02these are our in-house camps. Um, so

22:05across the department, we offered a

22:07total of 320 camps and served 3,747

22:14campers.

22:16Um, I believe I gave this number, but

22:18just as a reminder, as of July 21st, we

22:21had approximately 1.85

22:24million in revenue. Um some of our

22:27highest demand programs included

22:29included zoo camp, woodworking,

22:33um 2w week theater camp, Jurassic camp,

22:37camp kinetic camp paloalto. Um the

22:41photos kind of give you a variety of

22:43some of the camps we've had through the

22:45summer. Um and looking ahead, staff will

22:49be um continuing to explore more

22:53opportunities for some of the popular um

22:56options. So moving on to the in

22:59progress, the natural grass pilot. Um

23:04these photos are from currently from

23:07Greer Park and show a recent aeration

23:10work that just took place as part of the

23:12pilot. Um staff is continuing to monitor

23:16the field conditions as we plan to

23:19provide a more detailed um update during

23:22your November meeting.

23:26And then some of our capital work that

23:28um is in progress. We have two projects

23:31that are currently in progress. Mitchell

23:34Park for uh four stall restroom

23:36replacement project is anticipated to

23:39open to the public the first week of

23:42October once the contractor completes

23:45the remaining electrical utilities work

23:47and required inspections are completed.

23:51And then on the right hand side of your

23:53screen at El Camino Park, the turf

23:55replacement project mobilized earlier

23:58this month following um an independent

24:00PAS testing which was completed with

24:03results showing no intentionally added

24:05PAS which supported the manufacturer's

24:08claim. The soccer field and a portion of

24:12the parking lot are currently closed

24:14during construction and we're targeting

24:16a reopen uh for early November.

24:22And um we're happy to report that we

24:25also have some other highlights for

24:27Greer Skate Park. The that maintenance

24:30work has been completed and this shows a

24:34before and after photo. We've also heard

24:37from skaters and they're really excited

24:39about the improvements and said the

24:42skatability is um much better now. So

24:45there's that. And then to the right of

24:47the screen, the city and regional

24:49partners recently celebrated the

24:51completion of the natural um based

24:55horizontal

24:57levy and we included a photo from the

25:00ribbon cutting.

25:02And then advancing at the golf course,

25:05we have recently completed a replacement

25:07of the fencing surrounding the

25:09irrigation pump system. Um, previously

25:13the wood fencing has degragated

25:17um and we partially removed part of it

25:20for access due to a water mane break.

25:23Um, it now has been replaced with slats,

25:26chain link fence and a maintenance gate

25:29to improve access. Um, and this shows

25:32the before and after.

25:35Okay, so now on to upcoming capital

25:38improvement work. Um the Adobe Loop

25:41Trail repaving is currently um being

25:44scheduled for um October to November. Um

25:48currently it's slated to start

25:50midocctober.

25:52um uh not on this page but wanted to

25:56include Valley Waters Tiegate project is

25:59advancing

26:00um and it's wrapping up next month uh

26:03with the flapgates replacements and um

26:06is scheduled currently for reopening of

26:10that of Tiggate access um around midmon

26:15in October so the 15th

26:18and then to the right of the screen um

26:21Linton Plaza The fountain grate

26:23replacement is um

26:26all of the water river rock that you see

26:29that are not mortared in um are being

26:33removed and we're adding just a grate um

26:38the since the movable rocks are able to

26:42be moved um we thought it would be best

26:46uh as a safety um to remove those and

26:50then have it just a standard rate. So

26:53that project will um be starting midmon.

26:57And then if you advance to the next

26:59slide, finally um the Hopkins tennis

27:03courts will be resurfaced. We're

27:06anticipating this work to start in

27:09October. And this concludes the

27:12departmental report. As you can see,

27:15there's been a lot going on and a lot

27:17coming up. Um, and we're happy to answer

27:20any questions you may have.

27:28>> Okay, thank you. Uh, there's definitely

27:31a lot a lot going on. Um, I do have a

27:35couple of questions. Um, thanks for the

27:37invite to the uh just for the

27:40commissioners to attend the sis sister

27:42Sister City Grove uh tree campaign. Um,

27:45if you can provide us more information

27:46on that, that'd be great.

27:48Um, and

27:51you mentioned about the uh so uh for

27:55these summer camps you mentioned a

27:58figure of 450,000.

28:00Was that revenue that was collected for

28:03that time period?

28:04>> Correct. Revenue collected and that

28:07actually is just the figure is inclusive

28:13in the 1.85.

28:15So that's not in addition to um and that

28:18is gross revenue.

28:20>> And how does that compare let's say with

28:22the last three or four years? Um do we

28:25see it increasing decreasing or

28:28>> but I but I assume that you've also

28:30added additional programs. So that

28:32number might be slanted a little bit.

28:35>> Yeah. Um in terms of the numbers, we

28:38still haven't kind of closed out the

28:40final number. So, we can bring that back

28:42next month um to see how it compares. Um

28:46and then to your uh first question, um

28:51the tree planting that is taking place

28:54this Friday, uh September 25th, it

28:57starts at 1:30 p.m. And um if you park

29:03in and around Jamzy or Lucy Stern,

29:06you'll be able to see it. There will be

29:08quite a few dignitaries as well as

29:12council members of course. I believe um

29:15Josh Becker will also be there. Um and

29:20the I believe a proclamation will be

29:24read. So it I believe the run of show is

29:28is maybe about 30 minutes and then

29:31planting will start. So, um, canopies

29:34organizing the planting and, um, there

29:39will be, uh, I believe coffee as well as

29:43snacks. So, um, we hope you can make it

29:48>> 1:30.

29:49>> Okay. Okay. And, um, the bathrooms at

29:54Central Park, I was actually there

29:55today. Looks like everything is really

29:58coming together. So, good job on that.

30:01Um can you give us a status of I know we

30:05put in temporary um facilities in which

30:10park was that was that

30:12>> the so um thanks to the friends of uh

30:17PaloAlto parks we will we do have

30:19temporary restrooms and they have been

30:22there for quite some time. Those will be

30:25removed once the project is completed or

30:28at least we're intending to remove

30:31those. Um,

30:33so we're we're targeting early uh

30:37October for the opening.

30:39>> Okay, good job. Okay, I'll pass it on to

30:41any other other commissioners with any

30:43questions. Your lights, please.

30:46>> Commissioner D,

30:48>> I have a follow-up question on the

30:50bathroom. I heard after the metro park

30:52then we will have um new bathroom at

30:55aleno party right

30:57>> that's correct um so actually we will be

31:02involving the commission the full then

31:04as a next step once this is completed um

31:09the public works engineering staff um

31:12will be holding a community engagement

31:15um piece um and that will be you'll be

31:19invited we'll update you were targeting

31:22um this fall. So in the upcoming months,

31:27Eleanor Party

31:35Commission.

31:37Okay.

31:39>> Okay.

31:40>> Commissioner Prom.

31:47Yeah. to push.

31:52>> I I just wanted to comment the sounds

31:54like the uh Linton Plaza is going to be

31:56a real nice addition. And uh do you know

31:59if anyone's working on a a

32:03pingpong bringing back the ping pong

32:06tables?

32:07>> Um you know what? I I will have an

32:11update for you. Yes. But the answer is

32:15yes. And we can talk offline.

32:18>> That's right. And it was fun for the

32:20state of the city. The mayor had the

32:22pingpong and you were there. They had

32:25the pingpong and these people were they

32:28were from here to the the fence over

32:30there. So it was really fun to see.

32:32Thank you very much,

32:38>> Commissioner. Has

32:41always a lot of amazing events going on.

32:43So, congrats to staff on getting it all

32:46going. And a couple of questions. One is

32:48on the Linton uh Plaza fountain grading.

32:52So, I know Linton Plaza has a lot of

32:54events and a lot of them are kid-

32:55centric and I see a lot of kids playing

32:57around and walking over the rocks

32:59getting a little bit wet. So if that all

33:02disappears, have we thought about either

33:04community outreach to see or some other

33:06kid engagement stuff because the maybe

33:10I'm just not understanding the issue,

33:11but it seems like yeah, rocks can move

33:13around, but that's part of the fun and

33:15walking over them is probably a lot more

33:16fun than walking over metal grading for

33:18the little ones.

33:21>> Yeah, I think it all comes back really

33:23to a safety concern that um that has

33:26taken place. So that's why we're

33:28planning to um update with a slip

33:32resistant as well as removing rocks that

33:36can that are moved daily um by people

33:39who frequent uh Linton Plaza and also

33:43you know rocks can also be thrown. So

33:47there's there's for lots of reasons this

33:49is just best practice and we're planning

33:52to move forward with that. um we once we

33:56have a more specific timeline, we will

33:58be reaching out to all businesses

34:01um to do to complete the work and make

34:04sure that everybody's aware of it.

34:08>> I guess I would just encourage to also

34:10see if there's other little kid

34:12engagement opportunities that would also

34:14meet the safety requirements so that you

34:17know as they circulate around it's a

34:19great place to interact with it. So

34:21there may be other options out there.

34:24And uh the other question I had is about

34:26summer camp. So it's great to get the

34:28feedback on that. I remember we had some

34:29discussions about specialist providers

34:32versus generalist ones that do stuff.

34:35Well, have we collected some feedback on

34:38that for the providers? Uh are we

34:41leaning into the ones that have the best

34:43feedback on the courses to do more with

34:45them? I'm just wondering if there's any

34:47dynamics there or we think we're happy

34:49with the setup and are you just going to

34:50repeat it next summer?

34:53>> I think um staff always evaluates

34:57um how camps are being run and if

35:02feedback is collected. They always

35:05consider that about how to program for

35:09the following um year.

35:12But I can also check back in with them.

35:16I will on my list I have, you know, a

35:19benchmarking how we did um from this

35:23year to last year and see if there's any

35:26trends. So maybe I can ask any more

35:28specific questions to our recreation

35:30managers as well.

35:32>> Awesome. Thank you. Yeah, if there's any

35:34particular vendors that have amazing

35:36feedback, if we can try to see if we can

35:38work with them to have more offerings. I

35:41think

35:42>> kids of the city would love it.

35:44>> Thanks for the great work. That's it.

35:48>> Mr. Lar,

35:49>> thank you and thank you for the

35:51wonderful uh full report. Not to add to

35:55it, but um I do have a request is that

35:58based on um some comments that we'd

36:00heard regarding the signage in the

36:02parks. I was just wondering if it might

36:04be um appropriate and I'll leave it to

36:06the chair and staff to decide to include

36:09uh sort of a summary of the sign

36:12replacement program and then maybe an

36:14updates as signs are replaced in town in

36:17the department report moving forward.

36:19But just so just food for thought, you

36:21don't have to answer right now. You guys

36:22can decide.

36:25>> Yeah, I think that's an excellent idea.

36:26Right. Also, like you know, when you

36:29mentioned the rock replacement, um I

36:32think knowing why there's some

36:35background on why that's being replaced,

36:37have you had excuse me, any issues with

36:41rocks being thin or safety issues? Why

36:43would is that one of the reasons? And so

36:45I would the signage that you're going to

36:48be putting I guess after you meet with

36:51um some of the um folks around that area

36:55I would imagine you're going to put some

36:56signage to say why it's happening and

36:59then kind of what the replacement's

37:01going to be that the intent.

37:05Um, no. We're we're

37:08um sending out standard information and

37:11we're working with the city manager's

37:13office, with the economic development

37:15team um to engage with our uh business

37:20partners and make sure that they're

37:22aware and we can get ahead of um

37:26informing them um making sure that

37:28they're aware of the timeline and and

37:31any um impacts to their business so we

37:35could help mitigate that ahead of time.

37:41>> Commissioner House,

37:43>> I have a followup question on uh

37:45Commissioner Axelro's question. Has

37:49there been any accidents? Did people

37:52fall down and get seriously injured? Or

37:55is it a preventative measure to replace

37:58the fun with

38:00blood not functional from a play point

38:05of view? Surface.

38:10>> Um

38:12I there has been rocks thrown and uh and

38:17infrastructure damaged based because of

38:20the rocks. So that's why we're replacing

38:22them.

38:24>> Can you just stabilize them so people

38:27can't throw them?

38:32>> Um,

38:36no. We're planning to move forward with

38:38the design that has already taken place

38:41and the replacement of the custom grate.

38:44We've worked with the designer who

38:46designed Linton Plaza in addition to the

38:49Linton the Friends of Linton Plaza on

38:51this.

38:54>> Thank you.

38:57>> Okay. Um and then my last question on

38:59the uh I think the bathrooms in look for

39:03Linton I mean for Elena Part A Park

39:05there's a temporary bathroom there and

39:07you're saying that's going to have to be

39:09new and will be started towards the end

39:11of the year.

39:12>> Um

39:14Commissioner Deng um asks a similar

39:17question. So, we're going to start

39:18engagement with um on for Eleanor Party

39:23this fall. So, in the upcoming months,

39:25we'll make sure to bring that forward in

39:27the departmental report and you're

39:29you'll hear about any um community

39:32engagement as as the process starts.

39:36>> Okay. All right. Thank you. All right.

39:40Good report. We'll move on now to ad hoc

39:43committees and last on updates. Any

39:46commissioners with any updates from

39:50their ad hocs or last months?

39:56Uh

39:58looks like a no. Okay, we'll move on to

40:03the business item uh number five which

40:06is to review the proposed playground

40:08synthetic turf. I'm sorry

40:11>> there was one

40:12>> um that we met with um it JMZ

40:17um not staff u volunteers just about

40:22exploring

40:24the core of it is sort of food options

40:26near around Frankenatada and so looking

40:30at potential uh solutions there it's

40:34very early in the process but just that

40:36that came up as a need kind of jointly

40:38with JMZ Aquat products park users and

40:42so um staff and uh the JMZ board

40:48representatives uh will be evaluating

40:50that that issue further further.

40:54>> Okay, thank you. Anyone else?

40:58Okay, we'll move on to the business item

41:00number five which is the review of the

41:02proposed playground synthetic tur use

41:05guidelines.

41:09So that's the presentation.

41:11>> All right. Good evening, commissioners.

41:12I got the honor of presenting this item

41:14tonight. Ben Einstein, assistant

41:16director for open space, parks, and

41:18golf. Uh so tonight, we're bringing

41:21forward a work plan item uh to discuss

41:24the proposed playground synthetic turf

41:26use guidelines uh for your discussion

41:29and feedback. This is the first time

41:30this work plan item has been brought to

41:32the U commission. So we'll be seeking

41:34your feedback on our proposed approach.

41:38Uh but it's up for discussion. Um and we

41:41certainly want to hear your feedback and

41:42questions uh to to determine how we move

41:46forward. We're not asking the commission

41:48to take any action tonight. It'll come

41:50back at a future time. Uh next slide,

41:52please.

41:55So just some more background. Uh in

41:58February, the commission adopted its

42:00FY27 work plan uh which included

42:02priority work to advance the natural

42:04grasp pilot project. Uh then in April

42:07when the work plan went to council uh

42:10for approval uh uh commissioner rectal

42:13requested that the commission study

42:15whether the city should prohibit the use

42:17of artificial turf and playgrounds and

42:19other non-athletic city facilities.

42:22There was some deliberation on that and

42:24the uh matter was uh referred to the

42:27commission uh to discuss further and

42:29that's the purpose um tonight uh to do

42:33that. In response to that direction, um

42:35the city the commission revised goal

42:37four of the work plan to call for a

42:40playground synthetic turf policy as part

42:42of the natural grass pilot effort. And

42:45over the summer, staff and the ad hoc

42:48committee, Commissioners Brown and

42:50Commissioner Axelrod work through the

42:52scope um and intended outcome of that

42:54work. Uh so the question before us

42:56tonight is whether the proposed

42:58guidelines and the approach we've uh

43:01developed provide an appropriate way to

43:04carry this work forward. Uh next slide.

43:09So one of the important developments in

43:11this process has been a shift from a

43:14policy approach to guidelines. Uh the

43:16original work plan called for developing

43:18a policy regarding synthetic turf and

43:20playgrounds. uh as staff in the ad hoc

43:23committee worked through the scope and

43:24intended outcome uh to talk about it in

43:27detail, we found that a more uh project

43:31specific framework might be a better

43:33fit. Rather than establishing a

43:35city-wide rule that determines whether

43:37synthetic turf is permitted or

43:40prohibited in playgrounds, the proposed

43:42guidelines would establish consistent

43:44criteria for evaluating its uh use when

43:47a specific playground project is being

43:50developed. So, it's really a refinement

43:52of the work product. It gives us

43:54something that can be applied

43:55consistently from project to project

43:58while still allowing us to consider the

44:00specific needs, conditions, and intended

44:02use of each playground. Uh the goal is

44:05to ultimately to limit synthetic turf to

44:08applications where its characteristics

44:10provide, you know, a clear and

44:12appropriate benefit. Next slide.

44:17So, tonight staff is uh requesting

44:19feedback. Um, we're not trying to decide

44:22[clears throat]

44:23whether synthetic turf is inherently

44:25appropriate or inappropriate. We're

44:27trying to establish a consistent way to

44:29ask a more useful question. Um, is

44:32synthetic turf appropriate for this

44:34particular application? And if so, why?

44:37Uh, so tonight we're asking um really

44:39four things from the commission. Is the

44:41proposed scope and overall approach

44:43appropriate? Second, are the evaluations

44:46consider considerations we've identified

44:48in the guidelines? the right ones. Uh

44:51third, do the guidelines provide an

44:53appropriate framework for future

44:55projects? And finally, are additional

44:58considerations or stakeholder input um

45:01needed? Uh so again, tonight is a

45:04discussion item. No action is being

45:05taken. Um we're not asking the

45:07commission to approve a playground

45:09project or select a particular surfacing

45:11material. Um purpose is to get feedback

45:14on the framework and overall approach

45:16before we continue uh refining it. Next

45:19slide.

45:22So before getting into the guidelines, I

45:24think it's useful to establish what we

45:26currently have in Palo Alto and kind of

45:28dive into surfacing a little bit. The

45:30city has 28 playgrounds and play areas

45:33throughout its many parks. Some parks

45:35have multiple play areas within one

45:37park. Um we've already used a variety of

45:40surfacing materials including engineered

45:43wood fiber uh or wood mulch. Um it's

45:46designed for use in playgrounds. sand,

45:49poured in place rubber, bonded rubber

45:50mulch, rubber tiles, and synthetic turf.

45:53Uh synthetic turf in particular is used

45:56at three locations. Mitchell, uh Bware

45:59and Rinkata Park. Uh an important point

46:01is that each of those locations, in each

46:04of those locations, um synthetic turf is

46:06used in combination with other surfacing

46:09materials. Uh so the discussion we're

46:11having isn't necessarily about choosing

46:14m one material for an entire playground.

46:17In practice, playgrounds um as as you

46:21might suspect and already know um use

46:23different surfaces for different

46:25functions and different areas for a

46:27reason. Mitchell Park is a good

46:29illustration point. The uh picture

46:31displayed is the magical bridge

46:32playground in in Mitchell Park has a

46:35variety of surfacing materials. Uh next

46:37slide. Also at Mitchell Park, uh there's

46:40there's uh six playground areas total,

46:43including uh the Magical Bridge

46:45playground. uh which include a splash pl

46:48as well and incorporates all of them

46:50incorporate se several different

46:52surfacing materials. Uh there's sand,

46:54engineered wood fiber, poured in place,

46:56bonded rubber mulch, and synthetic turf.

46:59Uh pictured before you are like a few of

47:02the um other play areas throughout

47:04Mitchell Park. Uh so again, when we're

47:06talking about evaluating synthetic turf,

47:09we're not necessarily talking about an

47:11all or nothing decision. A future

47:13project could use uh different surfaces

47:16in different areas depending on the play

47:18function, accessibility needs, site

47:21conditions or other considerations. Uh

47:24so that is one reason staff believes a

47:26project specific framework can can be

47:28useful. Um next slide please.

47:32So the same concept applies to Ber and

47:36Ricinada which are the other two

47:37locations that have synthetic turf um in

47:40playgrounds. uh they used it's used in

47:43combination with other surfacing

47:44materials. Uh our existing playgrounds

47:48demonstrate that different surfacing

47:50materials can serve different purposes

47:52within the overall play environment. Um

47:55and the proposed guidelines are intended

47:57to build on the project specific

47:59approach rather than establish one

48:01universal surfacing standard or

48:03predetermine the surfacing used on a

48:05future project. Next slide.

48:10Uh this is just like a deep dive into

48:12surfacing in general. Um it's it's

48:15surfacing serves multiple functions. Um

48:18surfacing isn't just about what material

48:21is on the ground. It can affect a number

48:24of different aspects of a playground

48:27such as fall protection, accessibility.

48:29Uh it can influence the types of play

48:31that are possible and the overall user

48:33experience. The the kind of picture

48:35before you is a good example of a unique

48:37application of it. uh type of play uh

48:40for using port in place rubber not

48:43synthetic turf but that's PIP as

48:46sometimes we call it um it can affect

48:48the surfacing can affect drainage

48:51maintenance durability heat sanitation

48:54aesthetics life cycle costs as well um a

48:58surface that performs well for one

48:59purpose may create limitations in

49:01another area so the basic premise behind

49:04the proposed guidelines that we'll be

49:06going over in a little bit uh is that

49:08there isn't necess necessarily one

49:10surfacing material that is appropriate

49:13for every playground or every

49:15application. Um the material material

49:18considered excuse me in relation to what

49:22um should be considered in relation to

49:24what we're trying to accomplish in that

49:25particular area. Next slide.

49:30Uh so I also want to be clear that these

49:32guidelines aren't intended to replace

49:34existing safety requirements. There are

49:36a number of requirements and standards

49:38that apply to public playgrounds uh

49:40listed before you. Those include ASM

49:43standards, the consumer product safety

49:46commission's public playground safety

49:48handbook. It's quite a mouthful. Uh

49:50California health and safety code

49:51requirements and certified playground um

49:55uh inspections. And we have a couple uh

49:58certified playground inspectors on on

50:00staff in our maintenance team that

50:02perform those inspections in the city.

50:04Uh so those requirements establish the

50:06baseline for selecting a surfacing

50:08material. Um the proposed guidelines are

50:11intended to supplement those

50:13requirements by giving us an additional

50:15framework for evaluating um the broad

50:18the broader project considerations. So

50:21one example from the um consumer safety

50:24handbook is guidance that loose fill

50:27materials like engineered wood fiber

50:29should be avoided for playgrounds

50:31intended for toddlers or children. um

50:33who may frequently place objects in

50:35their mouse. So that illustrates that

50:38surfacing decisions can involve

50:39considerations beyond simply whether a

50:42material is technically meets a

50:43particular safety standard. Uh next

50:46slide.

50:49Uh then accessibility is um

50:53more more than minimum compliance. We we

50:57you in our our parks master plan and our

50:59city priorities accessibility and

51:01inclusivity is is a a priority goal. Um

51:07engineered wood fiber can meet

51:10applicable accessibility requirements.

51:12It's often considered um it is

51:14considered an accessible surface when

51:16when maintained properly. Uh but actual

51:19performance can be affected by things

51:20like compaction, displacement,

51:22unevenness, intensity of use and

51:24weather. um even if it is maintained

51:27perfectly, there is a distinction

51:29between uh when we're talking about

51:31engineered wood fiber in particular,

51:33there's a distinction between meeting

51:35minimum technical standard for

51:37accessibility and providing the same

51:39practical experience for every user. Um

51:42we've included a few examples from a dis

51:45disability and accessibility

51:47organizations to illustrate that

51:49distinction. Um the point is that a

51:52surface can be um technically accessible

51:55but still more difficult for some people

51:57using wheelchairs or other mobility

51:59devices to navigate. Uh so that's one

52:02reason inclusive playgrounds often

52:04incorporate substantial areas of unitary

52:06servicing and also the trend in the

52:09industry is is to um incorporate

52:12inclusive elements in every playground

52:14rather than having you know standalone

52:17inclusive playgrounds, destination

52:18playgrounds like we have at Magical

52:20Bridge. Um we want to provide that same

52:23inclusivity principle apply that towards

52:26all playground projects. That's the

52:28that's kind of the direction. um going

52:31on in the industry or in the world. So

52:35when we're evaluating surfacing, we want

52:37to look at accessibility not just as a

52:40compliance question uh but also as a

52:42question of actual usability and

52:44inclusive play. Uh next slide.

52:49Uh so getting into the guidelines. Um

52:53this brings us to this slide. The the

52:56core uh uh proposed core of the proposed

53:00guidelines. The the basic approach is to

53:03evaluate synthetic turf based on the

53:05needs and conditions of specific

53:07playground project. Uh so we've grouped

53:09the considerations into four broad

53:11categories. Uh the first is user and

53:13function. What the area is intended to

53:16do. uh who will use it and what

53:19accessibility and inclusive play needs

53:21exist. The second is site and

53:24performance uh things such as drainage,

53:26shade, environmental considerations,

53:28heat um are there trees in the area or

53:30not. So surface temperature, durability,

53:33intensity of use. The third is uh

53:36operations and life cycle um including

53:38maintenance and sanitation replacement

53:40costs. And uh finally there are design

53:43and community considerations of course

53:45um including aesthetics, alternative

53:48surfacing materials and and community

53:50and stakeholder input are also very

53:51important. Uh the intent is not to

53:53create a a mathematical formula where

53:56every factor gets a score. Um it's to

53:58make sure these questions are considered

54:00consistently when a project is being

54:02developed. Next slide.

54:06Um, this is one of the more important

54:08concepts in in the guidelines. We want

54:11to evaluate the application rather than

54:13simply deciding whether synthetic turf

54:15as a material is is good or bad. Uh, for

54:18example, a hight traffic area may have

54:20different needs than a nature oriented

54:22play area. An accessible route may have

54:25different requirements than a fall zone.

54:27um a particular play feature may require

54:29a certain type of ball protection and

54:32making a certain surfacing uh type u

54:35appropriate for that play feature.

54:38Another area may in the same playground

54:40may be better suited to a natural

54:41looking or or loose fill surface. Uh

54:45there's an example of a playground that

54:47incorporates multiple surfacing types

54:49depending on on the application. I don't

54:51know if you can see, but there's kind of

54:53like a a toddler area with board place

54:57on the left. And then the bigger kid

55:00area with taller structures has

55:02engineered wood fiber which is a great

55:04fall zone surface. Um, and there's

55:07concrete pathways also for for

55:09accessibility. So, the point is that the

55:11same playground can potentially have

55:12several different appropriate surfacing

55:14applications. Um, and this just kind of

55:17illustrates um some of the

55:19considerations and what what examples of

55:21what surfacing may be appropriate for

55:23those considerations.

55:25Next slide.

55:27Uh, so synthetic turf since that's the

55:30subject of of kind of this this work

55:32item. Um, so it has some characteristics

55:36that are particularly useful in certain

55:40situations. Um it can provide a

55:43consistent firm surface that can support

55:45accessible routes and inclusive play

55:48areas. Uh this picture is a u from

55:52magical bridge uh where uh they has a

55:55little grassy null and kids like to use

55:58the um synthetic turf to get like a

56:01piece of cardboard and and slide down

56:03it. Um so no other surfacing would

56:05really provide that same functionality.

56:08Uh and it also doubles as a suitable

56:12fall protective surface um if if the

56:15kids take a tumble. Uh so it has a

56:18unique functional applications. It can

56:20also it's also very durable in high use

56:22areas where other natural surfaces may

56:25become may wear or become uneven. Um but

56:29those benefits should be weighed against

56:32the site's condition uh the intended

56:34function uh the environmental

56:36considerations and available

56:37alternatives. Um certainly we don't want

56:41to see a mono culture of synthetic turf

56:43and in a in a playground. Uh so that's

56:46where the proposed statement comes from

56:49in the guidelines. We want to limit the

56:51use of synthetic turf to applications

56:53where its characteristics provide a a

56:56clear and appropriate benefit. Next

56:58slide.

57:01Uh so we engaged with the magical bridge

57:04foundation. Uh consider them key

57:06stakeholders in this. Uh they helped

57:08inform our project specific evaluation

57:10approach. Uh one of the things that was

57:13useful from that engagement was seeing

57:15how multiple surfaces can be

57:16incorporated into a a single playground.

57:20uh to serve different purposes. And this

57:21is a picture of the Magical Bridge um

57:24park uh playground under construction um

57:28right before it opened. Uh so that

57:31reinforced the idea to staff and the ad

57:34hoc committee that this

57:37um doesn't have to be a decision between

57:40one material or another for an entire

57:42site. Instead, it can be about

57:44understanding the needs of different

57:46areas and determining what surfacing

57:48best supports those needs. Uh, next

57:51slide.

57:53A few more. So, we've also heard a range

57:56of perspectives through public input and

58:00some commenters have expressed uh

58:02support for prohibiting synthetic turf

58:04altogether. Uh, others have expressed a

58:06preference for engineered wood fiber and

58:08other natural materials. Uh we've heard

58:11concerns about heat material composition

58:13and potential health impacts. Um

58:16environmental and life cycle

58:17considerations, maintenance and uh

58:19replacement considerations. Uh we've

58:22also heard questions about the

58:23accessibility of alternative materials

58:26and interest in broader stakeholder

58:28engagement. Uh so these comments are

58:30important because they raise a a larger

58:33policy question at the crux of what

58:36council referred us to do in this body

58:39and that is to um consider whether the

58:42city should continue to evaluate um

58:44synthetic turf on a project specific

58:46basis for a guideline approach like this

58:49is proposed or whether the city should

58:52establish a broader citywide policy um

58:54that prohibits its use. The proposed

58:57guidelines um are focused on the first

58:59question on that project specific

59:01framework. Um how do we establish the

59:04question in the guidelines is how do we

59:06establish a consistent transparent

59:09project specific evaluation process.

59:12Uh next slide please.

59:17So this slide lays out the distinction

59:19between those two approaches. Uh the

59:20proposed guidelines would establish uh

59:23project specific evaluation criteria.

59:26They would consider the site's

59:27conditions and intended use and retain

59:29flexibility for the actual product

59:31project product used in the project. Um,

59:35a city-wide policy by conspir by

59:37comparison would establish broader

59:39citywide direction and could establish

59:42uh permitted or prohibited materials.

59:46uh staff's recommendation is the

59:47guidelines approach uh because it allows

59:50us to establish consistency in how we

59:52evaluate these projects without

59:54predetermining the answer for every

59:57future playground um which would you

1:00:00know impact user experience and

1:00:01functionality um

1:00:04to name a few accessibility as well

1:00:08important this approach doesn't mean

1:00:09that synthetic turf would be selected

1:00:11whenever it provides some benefit um the

1:00:14intent is specifically to limit its use

1:00:16to applications where there its

1:00:18characteristics provide a clear and

1:00:20appropriate benefit while also

1:00:22considering alternatives. So we are

1:00:24asking commission tonight whether this

1:00:26refined scope appropriately fulfills the

1:00:29work plan um direction um and intent of

1:00:32the council referral. Next slide please.

1:00:36U how these how it might work in

1:00:38applying these guidelines to a future

1:00:40project. Uh the guidelines would inform

1:00:43the decision. they would not make the

1:00:44decision. If we have a feature

1:00:46playground project, we would first

1:00:47identify the play functions and user

1:00:49needs. We would evaluate the site

1:00:51conditions. We would identify the

1:00:52appropriate surfacing options for those

1:00:54particular applications. This is all

1:00:56kind of like landscape architect work.

1:00:58Um we would apply the guidelines then

1:01:01and evaluate the benefits, limitations

1:01:03and alternatives. Uh community and

1:01:05stakeholder engagement would be

1:01:07incorporated as appropriate. Uh

1:01:09ultimately the project team would

1:01:10develop a recommendation for the project

1:01:12that would go through the appropriate

1:01:14PRC and city review and approval

1:01:16processes that we typically do um for

1:01:19each each project. Uh so the guidelines

1:01:21are essentially a framework for that

1:01:23analysis um before a project

1:01:26recommendation can be made. Next slide.

1:01:31Uh so the guidelines what they do not do

1:01:34what they do. Uh so they do again this

1:01:36is maybe um just just to reiterate they

1:01:39do not require synthetic turf. They do

1:01:42not prohibit synthetic turf. They

1:01:44establish um they don't select a

1:01:46material for a future project. Um they

1:01:49don't establish a universal surfacing

1:01:51standard which is consistent with

1:01:53prevailing safety handbooks, regulations

1:01:56and best practices for designing

1:01:57playgrounds. They don't commit us to as

1:02:00a city to feature expenditures.

1:02:02Um what they do is establish consistent

1:02:05considerations for future projects. Uh

1:02:08they encourage al evaluation of

1:02:10alternatives and um emphasize project

1:02:14specific conditions. They they encourage

1:02:16the designer to limit the use of

1:02:19synthetic turf and explore you know

1:02:22alternative servicing considerations. Um

1:02:25so it supports a more transparent

1:02:26decision making process overall. um

1:02:29reinforces the principle that synthetic

1:02:31turfs should be limited to applications

1:02:34where it provides a clear appropriate

1:02:36benefit. Um so this is really intended

1:02:39to provide structure around future

1:02:41decisions without making those decisions

1:02:43in advance. Next slide.

1:02:47Uh so so this is the second to last

1:02:50slide and um staff is seeking it the PRC

1:02:55input tonight on on these questions to

1:02:58kind of guide the discussion. Um do do

1:03:01the prop pro do the proposed guidelines

1:03:03approach appropriately address the work

1:03:06plan direction? Uh second content um are

1:03:10there evaluation considerations we've

1:03:12identified um

1:03:14are they appropriate and complete? Uh

1:03:17third application does the framework

1:03:19appropriately balance project specific

1:03:21flexibility with the goal of limiting

1:03:24synthetic turf to applications where it

1:03:27provides a clear and appropriate

1:03:28benefit. Uh and fourth is stakeholder

1:03:31input. is additional stakeholder

1:03:33engagement appropriate before we

1:03:35finalize the guidelines. Uh and finally,

1:03:38there's the broader policy question. Uh

1:03:40does the commission want to further

1:03:42consider a city-wide policy regarding

1:03:45playground synthetic turf beyond the

1:03:47proposed guidelines framework? Um keep

1:03:50in mind that the answer to that question

1:03:51could impact the ability to um advance

1:03:54this item in one year. And if that's the

1:03:57kind of feedback from PRC, P the

1:04:00commission should confer on I recommend

1:04:02the commission confer on what that would

1:04:04take. Um if if it's a higher level of

1:04:07effort um that we're hearing is desired.

1:04:11Um so we're interested in hearing the

1:04:13commission's direction on each of those

1:04:15areas. Uh next slide.

1:04:18Uh and so following tonight's

1:04:20discussion, we'll evaluate the PRC

1:04:23feedback. Um,

1:04:25we'll revise the proposed guidelines and

1:04:28our overall approach as appropriate. Um,

1:04:31we'll conduct any additional stakeholder

1:04:33engagement. Um, we'll return to the PRC

1:04:38um with revised guidelines if if that's

1:04:41um a desire uh for further consideration

1:04:46like final recommendation.

1:04:48Um upon final recommendation of

1:04:50guidelines, we would inform city council

1:04:53and incorporate the guidelines into

1:04:55practice. Um if it changes into more of

1:04:58a policy level effort, that would um

1:05:00impact next steps.

1:05:04And with that, I will open it up for

1:05:07feedback.

1:05:10>> Okay. Thank you. And thanks to uh thanks

1:05:12to staff and the ad hoc for the report.

1:05:15Uh before we go to public comments and

1:05:18um commissioners for clarifying

1:05:21questions and see if the ad hoc uh has

1:05:24anything they'd like to add to the

1:05:26report

1:05:28to the presentation.

1:05:37Um, so I think in evaluating what we've

1:05:41been sent to do is to see can we um make

1:05:46some kind of recommendations on

1:05:48artificial turf and playgrounds. I think

1:05:50we've worked with staff and my take on

1:05:53it I don't know if you want to have a

1:05:56different it's not realistic looking

1:06:00forward at an item to outright ban any

1:06:03material because there are circumstances

1:06:05where it may be the best option. So I

1:06:07think what we're looking at is where do

1:06:10we want to fall in the scale from the

1:06:13complete it's one of the options and

1:06:15it's all a case by case basis to you

1:06:18know there's a slight preference to

1:06:20material of last resorts to outright

1:06:22ban. So, what we're trying to get in the

1:06:26conversation over here is how far on the

1:06:29spectrum we uh think that we should

1:06:32land.

1:06:37>> I think that was very well said by

1:06:39Commissioner Axel Rod and it's um

1:06:42similar to the concepts that were

1:06:44grappled with regarding turf with

1:06:47playing fields in terms of playability.

1:06:49This is usability, inclusiveness.

1:06:51there's some more factors to consider

1:06:53and um I think while the menu remains

1:06:56open this was a good starting point for

1:06:59the commission to provide feedback of uh

1:07:03there there's ways to make this more

1:07:06stringent there's ways to make it more

1:07:08flexible and what does the commission

1:07:10feel comfortable with recommending

1:07:12moving forward.

1:07:15>> Okay, thank you. Um before we um go to

1:07:21I'll open it up to the commission for um

1:07:23any clarifying questions. I but before

1:07:26we do that I have a couple well at least

1:07:28one one clarifying question I'd like to

1:07:30ask before we move to the rest of the

1:07:32commission. So, the April 28th staff

1:07:35report in the packet uh describes the

1:07:37council direct directed as the

1:07:41development of broader nonplaying field

1:07:44synthetic turf policy addressing

1:07:47applications such as playgrounds,

1:07:50landscaping, and the golf course driving

1:07:52range. However, the report um before

1:07:55limited is limited to uh synthetic and

1:08:00synthetic turf guidelines. So, could

1:08:02staff or the ad hoc explain whether this

1:08:05item is intended to satisfy the full

1:08:08council direction or only the playground

1:08:10portion? And if if it addresses only the

1:08:13playground portion, will separate

1:08:15guidelines or policies for landscaping

1:08:18and the golf course, driving range

1:08:21return to the commission at a later

1:08:22date? Those those are my kind of my

1:08:26clarifying questions on that. Yeah, I

1:08:28think it would similarly those those two

1:08:31those landscaping applications and the

1:08:34golf course driving range the project

1:08:38specific decision framework would apply

1:08:40to those projects too. Um this report is

1:08:45emphasizes playgrounds admittedly. Um so

1:08:48we could further refine um you know the

1:08:52work product to include those in more

1:08:54detail but it it would fall back to the

1:08:57same principle of um evaluating it on a

1:09:00project specific basis.

1:09:02>> Yeah. I'm just thinking that's I mean

1:09:03that's what the council had asked for

1:09:05and I think it's just a matter of

1:09:06integrating that in with the rest of

1:09:09your report. I mean, um, if we're going

1:09:12to go back to the council, uh, with the

1:09:14work plan because those those two may

1:09:17those two items are actually missing

1:09:19from the report. It's just report

1:09:21focused primarily on on playgrounds and

1:09:24not and not the other items that were

1:09:27defined in the um, council directive.

1:09:30Right. Need to flush that out a little

1:09:31more. Okay.

1:09:33>> Any other commissioners clarifying

1:09:35questions?

1:09:41Um okay. Um

1:09:46I I do have so

1:09:48uh you you mentioned in the report that

1:09:50you participated in the discussion with

1:09:52the chair.

1:09:53>> Yes. Actually, I I wanted to just go

1:09:56back to that for just one minute because

1:09:59I think this report is focusing also on

1:10:04uh advancing your work plan and

1:10:08specifically for project goal number

1:10:11four for the natural grass pilot and

1:10:14synthetic playground. synthetic turf uh

1:10:18use policy is specifically

1:10:22um language around playgrounds. So

1:10:26that's why um this report is is

1:10:29fulfilling that specifically on

1:10:33playgrounds and I think that's why um we

1:10:38focused on that and that's that was

1:10:40agreed to at an earlier PRC meeting. Um

1:10:45when once the referral came from the

1:10:50city council, there was another we held

1:10:53another meeting to discuss adding that

1:10:56to the work plan.

1:11:00>> So you're saying we I I don't remember.

1:11:03So you're saying the playgrounds where

1:11:04the landscaping and the golf coursing

1:11:07golf course driving range wasn't.

1:11:09>> I think it was limited because we

1:11:11realized that it was a lot to do

1:11:14>> and although perhaps that was something

1:11:18that the commission didn't feel at the

1:11:21time could take on for advancing it in a

1:11:25year. So I believe the scope was

1:11:27narrowed and be um on your work plan

1:11:32it's specifically only limited to

1:11:34playgrounds.

1:11:36>> Okay. I'm just saying when we go back to

1:11:38the council it's that was a question

1:11:40that came up from um I think council

1:11:43member Real and so we have to be able I

1:11:48think in some way be able to address

1:11:50that if we're going to go back to the

1:11:52council with that as a work plan item.

1:11:55It was um in the minutes um council

1:11:59member Rectal requested that PRC study

1:12:01whether the city should prohibit the use

1:12:03of artificial turf and playgrounds and

1:12:05other nonathletic city facilities and

1:12:08sound like in subsequent deliberations

1:12:10in this body. We um had discussions

1:12:13around that and uh limited the use

1:12:17limited the work plan um for to be more

1:12:21manageable in in one year. Now, if we

1:12:24went back to council and did we we could

1:12:27expand the scope, but that would

1:12:29actually um create a situation where it

1:12:32might take longer than a year and it

1:12:34might take more resources to um bite

1:12:37that off, so to speak.

1:12:40>> Through the chair, did the council

1:12:42approved that work plan?

1:12:44>> No, it was not approved and that was the

1:12:47one item that was added to the board

1:12:50plan. what which is one of the reasons

1:12:52that we added it to the work plan. So

1:12:55eventually we will have to go back to

1:12:57the council

1:12:58with that as an item and but I'm just

1:13:01saying it it it right now it's those

1:13:04those things are the missing elements

1:13:07and but you know I don't know if Council

1:13:10Rectal is going to remember but it that

1:13:13he was the one that brought it up and

1:13:15why we added it to the work plan. I

1:13:18>> so I don't I don't think your plan

1:13:19really has to be refined that much. It's

1:13:21just a matter of adding that it does

1:13:24support not only playgrounds but some of

1:13:27the other areas as well.

1:13:29>> I I would add that that Council Member

1:13:32Rectal kind of punched it to PRC to

1:13:35really determine what needs to be looked

1:13:38at um as well um whether it should be a

1:13:42policy decision or not um what it should

1:13:46include. And so that's kind of we we

1:13:49refine the work plan for it to be more

1:13:51manageable, but it's all up for

1:13:53discussion, too.

1:13:55And and I would just add that I think

1:13:58staff would want to do more research um

1:14:02specifically if the scopes expanded to

1:14:06other um locations cuz within this

1:14:11report we just focused on uh

1:14:14playgrounds.

1:14:16>> Yeah. Yes. That was my question. So, no,

1:14:19>> but we could approach all, you know, all

1:14:22non-athletic services through the um

1:14:25project specific framework.

1:14:29>> Okay. Um any other clarifying questions?

1:14:33If not, we'll go ahead and open it up to

1:14:36public comments.

1:14:39>> Uh yeah, we do have one public comment

1:14:41via Zoom.

1:14:43Um, so [clears throat]

1:14:46Dashel L's

1:14:49in here.

1:14:54Good evening. Uh, my name is Dashel

1:14:55Leeds. I'm the conservation coordinator

1:14:57for the Sierra Club Lum Prieta chapter.

1:14:59Uh, yesterday we sent in a letter urging

1:15:01this commission to rework the guidelines

1:15:03into actual standards as within the

1:15:05purview of the commission as discussed

1:15:07by council and listed in the work plan.

1:15:09Um, guidelines, as we know, they're not

1:15:11enforceable. They really cannot

1:15:13meaningfully limit the use of artificial

1:15:15turf, especially in situations where

1:15:17that use is harmful. We would like to

1:15:19see enforceable standards on plastic

1:15:21turf, which is a matter both of public

1:15:22health and environmental pollution. As

1:15:25weak as guidelines are to begin with as

1:15:27a category, uh the evaluation

1:15:29considerations listed in these current

1:15:31guidelines are minimal and ambiguous.

1:15:34For example, the term environmental

1:15:36considerations lacks specificity and

1:15:39public health is not even listed in the

1:15:41guidelines. Uh similarly on the slide in

1:15:44the presentation describing what

1:15:45playground surfacing can affect public

1:15:48health is not listed there either. Um so

1:15:50POS and other toxic and forever

1:15:52chemicals that can be found in plastic

1:15:54turf and rubber. These can pose serious

1:15:56threats to public health and the health

1:15:57of children. The topic is worthy of

1:15:59serious consideration that shapes

1:16:01meaningful standards. But as written you

1:16:03can get through the entire suite of

1:16:05guidelines without ever considering POS

1:16:07or public health. So, I really don't see

1:16:09how the guidelines would limit or even

1:16:11meaningfully inform decisions that are

1:16:13being made. Uh, more public stakeholder

1:16:15input is needed on this. Engaging just

1:16:18one single playground vendor is just not

1:16:20sufficient. There are plenty of

1:16:22residents, community- based

1:16:23organizations, environmental groups, and

1:16:25subject matter experts whose input would

1:16:27seriously benefit this process. So, in

1:16:30conclusion, matters of public health and

1:16:31environmental pollution, they really

1:16:33deserve standards, not guidelines. And

1:16:35the language of this policy should

1:16:37specifically address POS and other

1:16:38chemical pollutants. And the process of

1:16:41creating this policy should engage more

1:16:42stakeholders. And standards doesn't

1:16:45automatically mean a blanket ban, by the

1:16:47way. It just means you draw the line of

1:16:48enforcement somewhere. Uh but as

1:16:50written, the gates are completely open

1:16:52to artificial turf being used without

1:16:54any consideration of PAS or health.

1:16:56Thanks for your time and consideration.

1:17:00>> Thank you.

1:17:03Um, up next we do have Susan H.

1:17:11Hello, good evening. My name is Susan

1:17:13Hinton and I'm the conservation chair

1:17:15for the Sierra Club LMA Pria chapter.

1:17:19Um, in addition to what Dashel has just

1:17:22said, I would like to point out that

1:17:24there is no fully inclusive playground

1:17:27of any type. For example, I just spoke

1:17:30to a father whose daughter has a latex

1:17:33allergy. The daughter probably would not

1:17:36be able to play on a porn play surface

1:17:39or possibly on an artificial turf

1:17:42surface.

1:17:44Um, also other disabilities include

1:17:47things like a cocklear implant, which is

1:17:50a surgically placed device for people

1:17:52with significant hearing loss. They must

1:17:55avoid surfaces prone to elect

1:17:58electrostatic discharge and this

1:18:00includes playground equipment made from

1:18:02molded plastic and porn inplace rubber.

1:18:06Um, as for wheelchairs themselves, they

1:18:09can be safely pushed over many surfaces,

1:18:12including engineered wood fiber. Um, ADA

1:18:16fall protection is meant to address

1:18:18falling from a height, not rolling in a

1:18:20wheelchair. Otherwise, the sidewalks

1:18:22would all need to be reconstructed.

1:18:25It is possible engineered wood fiber has

1:18:28been used for quite a long time and

1:18:30nobody uh the the parks that have them

1:18:35don't say that they're out of

1:18:36compliance. Nobody has complained about

1:18:39the difficulty of taking care of them

1:18:43until J very just recently. Um

1:18:48there's also when it besides PAS just

1:18:51today a new research article was

1:18:54released um there's something called an

1:18:56aromatic amine which are industrial

1:19:00chemicals found in dyes pigments rubber

1:19:02plastics tobacco smoke and diesel

1:19:05exhaust. um they've been known to be

1:19:08probable or possible human carcinogens,

1:19:11but this particular study showed that um

1:19:15these particular means actually um harm

1:19:19infants.

1:19:20It shows that uh in in mother infant

1:19:24pairs that have been exposed to plastic

1:19:27that contains this um are uh they have

1:19:32um

1:19:34they were linked to infants taking

1:19:36longer to become familiar with a visual

1:19:39image, a sign of poor attention. Um and

1:19:42two particular chemicals in them were

1:19:45linked to poor attention spans. Um, one

1:19:48of them was linked to something called

1:19:51novelty preference, a sign of poorer

1:19:53memory.

1:19:54We are experimenting on our children by

1:19:58using these surfaces. We don't need to.

1:20:01We can use engineered wood fiber. We can

1:20:03use grass. We can use sand.

1:20:06Thank you very much.

1:20:12>> There are no more uh speakers at this

1:20:14time.

1:20:15>> Thank you. And thanks to everyone who

1:20:17spoke today. We appreciate you taking

1:20:19the time to uh share your comments. We

1:20:22now open it up for general questions

1:20:24from the commission. We'll start with

1:20:26Commissioner Brown and then work your

1:20:27way down here.

1:20:30>> If it's okay, you can start with others

1:20:32that weren't on the ad hoc to get their

1:20:34input before me.

1:20:36>> Okay. We'll start with Commissioner Den.

1:20:44Yeah, I do have a few questions.

1:20:48First of all, I want to mention that our

1:20:51California OE HA published their uh

1:20:55synthetic turf study.

1:20:58I think the result is the crown rubber

1:21:00infill uh has no obvious health risk.

1:21:04Did we include that? Because I don't

1:21:07given that they already have this health

1:21:09risk assessment of crump rubber infill.

1:21:13Should our guideline explicitly include

1:21:15public health um like the two comments

1:21:18suggested and human exposure and should

1:21:21we distinguish among different turf

1:21:23systems and infield materials rather

1:21:26than treating synthetic turf as one

1:21:28category?

1:21:37>> Yes, interesting question. the um the

1:21:40guidelines don't um attempt to you know

1:21:44study the public health um impacts of

1:21:48any any given material. Um they

1:21:53assume that the desire is to limit

1:21:55synthetic turf for

1:21:58for those concerns but we don't dissect

1:22:02it further than that. And I' I would

1:22:05point out that when a project comes um

1:22:08to the PRC, the PRC has the ability to

1:22:12um weigh in on does that design use too

1:22:15much synthetic turf. Um so the

1:22:18guidelines are meant to provide a

1:22:20framework for the designer. Um, but

1:22:22there's multiple like

1:22:26uh ways that a project can be then

1:22:29rejected and then refined based off of

1:22:32PRC's input if it's not meeting the

1:22:34guidelines. Um, so that's that's another

1:22:36like quality control step uh to ensure

1:22:39that the guidelines are being applied

1:22:41applied correctly.

1:22:47>> Yeah. Uh, also I think we do we did list

1:22:50some of the good um recommendations

1:22:53there including heat and child safety.

1:22:57But if we list that as a consideration,

1:22:59do we have a actual temperature standard

1:23:02or threshold that would tell us when

1:23:05synthetic turf is inappropriate or

1:23:08particularly in playground areas because

1:23:11you know children may sit or crawl or

1:23:13have direct skin contact with the

1:23:16surface.

1:23:18Yeah, I think that would be up to like

1:23:20the landscape architect to determine

1:23:22that. But just based off of um you know

1:23:25my limited knowledge, I would I would

1:23:28say that the the site the site

1:23:31constraints factor into what surface

1:23:33material is used. So if there are no

1:23:35trees in the area or no no trees being

1:23:39planted and it's a hot exposed area, um

1:23:42it probably wouldn't be a good idea to

1:23:43use synthetic turf. um where we have it

1:23:46in in Palo Alto for the most part um

1:23:49it's in shaded situations like magical

1:23:51bridge um there's big tall statured

1:23:53trees around um rinkinatada the same

1:23:56thing so that gets factored into the

1:24:00decision- making if if a material is

1:24:03appropriate or not

1:24:07>> I I mean I agree we have a list of

1:24:09considerations but there's no weighing

1:24:11or decision framework

1:24:14would it be helpful to identify some

1:24:16factors as minimum requirements

1:24:19particularly for safety, accessibility,

1:24:22heat and environmental standards rather

1:24:25than treating every factor equally.

1:24:29I think it's it's something that or

1:24:30discussion.

1:24:32>> Right. Right. I have one last point I

1:24:34want to make. Um

1:24:37well, as we develop those guidelines,

1:24:39have we looked at a best practices from

1:24:41neighboring cities or other comparable

1:24:44communities?

1:24:50>> We have not looked at other neighboring

1:24:52cities. We're um using just prevailing

1:24:55um safety guidelines uh that we uh

1:24:59showed in the slide um such as the

1:25:02safety handbook that goes into design

1:25:04considerations

1:25:05um as as the guiding documents for

1:25:09determining um playground servicing. And

1:25:11that's something that all cities would

1:25:14incorporate as well um because they're

1:25:16meant to regulate and provide guidance

1:25:18for how playgrounds are designed across

1:25:21the board.

1:25:23So that that provides some consistency

1:25:26um indirectly um comparability to other

1:25:29cities because they're all using the

1:25:30same standards,

1:25:32>> right? Also now we already have three

1:25:34playgrounds that's using synthetic turf.

1:25:38Have we learned any data from those

1:25:41examples?

1:25:46there there are some um lessons learned

1:25:49uh for sure like with with Magical

1:25:51Bridge. Um I know that some materials

1:25:54were changed since it opened just based

1:25:57off of um maybe installation issues or

1:26:00you know seams coming up. Um so actually

1:26:03I I know at the Magical Bridge

1:26:04playground there was um some areas of

1:26:07synthetic turf that seams were coming up

1:26:09and that was converted to port in place.

1:26:12uh but they still left some synthetic

1:26:14turf. So we also have lessons learned

1:26:18with like equipment that we put in and

1:26:21then later realized hey that's not the

1:26:23best equipment or it got damaged or the

1:26:27use of the site um overwhelmed with the

1:26:30equipment was designed to take because

1:26:32that sometimes we're a victim of our own

1:26:34popularity.

1:26:36Magical Bridge is a great example where

1:26:38the site is just so well loved and so

1:26:41used um that the issues we face uh in

1:26:46terms of wear and tear are because of

1:26:48the the amount of use it gets because

1:26:50it's such a well designed uh playground.

1:26:53So we're always learning about what's

1:26:55more durable, what um you know what

1:26:58would work better and that's just an

1:27:00ongoing kind of feedback loop and then

1:27:03we take that into consideration for the

1:27:04next project. Okay, let's not use that

1:27:07surfacing in that application or let's

1:27:09not use that piece of type of equipment

1:27:11because we've had issues with it in the

1:27:13past. Um, more so practical

1:27:15considerations.

1:27:18>> Yeah, thank you. And one last question.

1:27:20I I noticed the dock park at B Park was

1:27:25also turf, right?

1:27:28Yeah. Did we hear any feedback about

1:27:31that?

1:27:36Um, we've had mixed feedback. Oh, I

1:27:40don't know. We've had mixed feedback on

1:27:44uh that application. And

1:27:47I know actually

1:27:50we I it is something that we can uh I

1:27:56guess work with our partners in public

1:27:58works engineering to see if they've

1:28:00heard more. Um but I can say once it was

1:28:04installed, we did hear from the

1:28:05community um surrounding Bware that um

1:28:10they would have encouraged a lot more

1:28:13transparency which is something that as

1:28:17as Ben mentioned as we move into uh new

1:28:21park development and um changes that we

1:28:25plan to engage in more community

1:28:28engagement [snorts] um opportunities and

1:28:30make sure that surfacing becomes a part

1:28:33of um those those slides.

1:28:38>> Thank you, Sarah. Yeah, I think

1:28:40stakehold um stakeholder input are very

1:28:43important especially where dealing with

1:28:46children and parents and caregivers. If

1:28:48we can engage them, that would be great.

1:28:50Thank you,

1:28:52Mr. Clanhouse.

1:29:02Thank you. Thank you for a comprehensive

1:29:04explanation and report as to why um

1:29:08stuff in the ad hoc decided to go this

1:29:10way. I would go back to the council

1:29:14direction and then talk about a few of

1:29:16the things that I learned afterwards. So

1:29:18the council direction was indeed from uh

1:29:22council member Regal supported by

1:29:24council member Bert whose main concern

1:29:27was actually public health and the

1:29:29health of children and uh in part that

1:29:33was a response to very strong opinions

1:29:39from some of the Bware neighbors. Two of

1:29:42them wrote to us today who were so upset

1:29:46about the plastic turf that they um

1:29:48asked council to in to help them make

1:29:52sure that it doesn't happen again. So

1:29:54the direction was to propose language

1:30:01for playground

1:30:03synthetic turf policy. they wanted a

1:30:06policy

1:30:08and I'm sorry I'm I'm a little ahead of

1:30:11myself. So when the city council asked

1:30:16to uh provide a policy for can we stop

1:30:21using artificial turf and they didn't

1:30:24include all plastic surfaces. They

1:30:26specifically talked about artificial

1:30:28turf and partially that's because kids

1:30:31can pick up the blades and eat them.

1:30:33They said and and staff actually

1:30:36suggested a project by project approach

1:30:40saying we can go to the community every

1:30:43time we have a project see what surfaces

1:30:45they prefer and we can do it that way

1:30:48and the response by uh council member

1:30:51Regal was no we need a policy so I'm a

1:30:54little perplexed at the approach that

1:30:57was actually presented to council and

1:31:00said no thank you we prefer a policy

1:31:03Um so the purpose was to examine whether

1:31:06there's materials that should be

1:31:08prohibited especially in playgrounds

1:31:11because plastic impacts the health of

1:31:13children so pervasively and so that was

1:31:17the concern. So narrowing the scope they

1:31:21did ask to look at prayer guards and

1:31:22other non-athletic city facilities. I

1:31:26I'm not opposed to looking at those

1:31:27separately and looking at different

1:31:29things at different times. But I do

1:31:32think that what we were asked to do is

1:31:34very explicit

1:31:37to and in the work plan it's expressed

1:31:40to develop a policy and instead the

1:31:43staff report says we're not intending to

1:31:45establish a city-wide policy requiring

1:31:48or prohibiting synthetic turf and

1:31:50instead there is a framework of how we

1:31:53can do plastic turf in playgrounds.

1:31:56Exactly. Put it on its head. city

1:31:59council said let's see how we don't do

1:32:01it and this is oh yeah if we have all

1:32:03these considerations so this to me is a

1:32:07big problem um and then

1:32:10the guidelines themselves themselves are

1:32:13a list of things to think about there's

1:32:15no thresholds no hierarchy no health

1:32:19anywhere in that even though that was

1:32:21the main motivation for this whole

1:32:23exercise um there is no

1:32:27it just kind of like Okay, we'll take

1:32:29all of this into consideration and we'll

1:32:31ask the their neighbors or the play, you

1:32:34know, we'll do some some public outreach

1:32:36potentially case by case. But that's

1:32:38what city council didn't asked us not to

1:32:41do. So I think we need a policy. The

1:32:45policy should say don't use it because

1:32:49when you suggest where is my notes that

1:32:52you know that we may need different

1:32:53surfaces for different places and

1:32:55playgrounds that it's all not one

1:32:57uniform. I agree we don't need to use

1:32:59one uniform but with the one material

1:33:02that we should not use in a children

1:33:04playground where they crawl on the grass

1:33:06and pick the grass and they artificial

1:33:09turf is the one thing that we should

1:33:11never use in a playground ever. So this

1:33:14is very strange to me. Um plastic is is

1:33:19we know plastic is harmful to health. We

1:33:21know it's harmful throughout its life

1:33:23cycle from when they make it to when it

1:33:26disintegrates and sometimes recycle and

1:33:28sometimes just goes into the bay in

1:33:30little pieces. So what would I say? I

1:33:34think we need to have a policy and the

1:33:36policy should find how can we stop the

1:33:38use and there it's not that hard. It's

1:33:40just a city. It's not like a proposal

1:33:42that somebody from the outside comes to

1:33:44us and says we really want to put

1:33:46plastic turf. It's our choice. Don't do

1:33:49it. It's not the right material to use

1:33:51in playgrounds. It absolutely is not. So

1:33:55there are exceptions. You can exempt

1:33:58magical bridge or some specific examples

1:34:01if you have a policy, but the policy

1:34:03needs to be a policy, not a set of

1:34:06guidelines. The set of guidelines if you

1:34:08add health to it could be used in in

1:34:11addition when you go to a city and to a

1:34:14community meeting about a public project

1:34:17that we're proposing and you say okay

1:34:20here are all the materials that we might

1:34:22want to use. This is what we're

1:34:24thinking. People will respond to that.

1:34:26So those guidelines may be still okay as

1:34:29part of a public process but that's not

1:34:31a replacement for what we're asked to

1:34:33do. Um

1:34:39I'll stop here. I trying to find the

1:34:42things you asked us specifically to

1:34:44answer. So I took it out of scope. Do

1:34:47they propose guidelines approach and

1:34:50address the work plan direction? No. The

1:34:52work plan direction says measure a

1:34:55success develop a policy content. Are

1:34:58these evaluation considerations

1:35:00appropriate and complete? They don't

1:35:02include health. How can you? That was

1:35:04the motivation for the whole thing.

1:35:06Application. Does the work framework

1:35:08appropriately balance project specific

1:35:10flexibility with the goal of limiting

1:35:13synthetic turf to applications where it

1:35:16provides a clear and appropriate

1:35:17benefit. I don't see how we need that.

1:35:20You need to you not use it. And in very

1:35:23specific examples, you might come back

1:35:26with a way or some considerations where

1:35:30you could wave this prohibition. But it

1:35:34should be a don't use plastic turf

1:35:37stakeholder impact um engagement seems

1:35:41like the only stakeholder engagement was

1:35:44that was done was uh magical bridge and

1:35:47some letters that we got from the public

1:35:50and so broader policy question do we

1:35:53wish to further consider a citywide

1:35:55policy that's what we asked for and

1:35:57that's what we need to do that is what I

1:35:59have to say thank you

1:36:02>> thank Thank you, Commissioner

1:36:05Smith.

1:36:09>> I thought that was good work of you all

1:36:11and the uh ad hoc committee. I I think

1:36:15we covered it and uh I I'm of the belief

1:36:19being precise and flexibility, it makes

1:36:23a lot of sense. So, I compliment you on

1:36:26what your work you've done. Thank you.

1:36:30Okay, Commissioner Axer, anything?

1:36:35Great. So, um, thanks again for all the

1:36:38work and for the public comment and for

1:36:40the fellow commissioners on your

1:36:42commentary. Um, so one shortcoming that

1:36:45I think is uh on me and um the

1:36:51subcommittee is that we got feedback

1:36:53from Magical Bridge and rightly so. it

1:36:56was identified that we did not get

1:36:57enough feedback from other parties that

1:37:00have uh other charters. Um so maybe we

1:37:03can incorporate some more of that into

1:37:07our decision-m and I still think that

1:37:09it's probably worth it for us to come to

1:37:13uh a quorum of where we want to be on

1:37:17the spectrum.

1:37:18here. Uh

1:37:21all the commissioners have viewpoints

1:37:24and I I don't know what the right

1:37:26process is. It seems like policy may be

1:37:29going too far, but even with the policy,

1:37:32you still need a set of guidelines to

1:37:35implement the policy so we can

1:37:36incorporate those into one. And I'd love

1:37:40to get us to a place where we're aligned

1:37:44as to how far we want to go so that

1:37:46staff can take it back because we

1:37:47actually want a policy that's going to

1:37:49be brought back here for an actual vote

1:37:52later. So I think that's an important

1:37:54piece we should get to tonight.

1:37:56Yeah, just ching in on that is that we

1:37:59want to make sure that the whether it's

1:38:01a guideline or a policy that when we do

1:38:06when you do come back to the commission

1:38:08it's clear about what it is that we are

1:38:12you know voting on and that that should

1:38:16be clear to what the council is asking

1:38:19us what the direction is because if

1:38:22we're going back to the council we have

1:38:24to have kind of a clear message that of

1:38:27what we have been able to as a

1:38:29commission to come up with. So I do

1:38:31think that there's some things that are

1:38:33missing. One is that you know we you had

1:38:35your discussion with the magical bridge

1:38:37foundation that's only one stakeholder

1:38:40with a lot of other stakeholders. I

1:38:41think this is big enough where we have

1:38:43to get input from other stakeholders,

1:38:47the community,

1:38:49um, and to, you know, there's other

1:38:53cities that are faced with the same

1:38:54issue. I think one of the commissioners

1:38:56brought it up. Have we, have we spent

1:38:59some time talking with other cities and

1:39:01seeing what they're doing or what

1:39:04guidelines they already have? I mean, we

1:39:06might not even have to, you know, start

1:39:08from scratch if we can already get uh

1:39:10some input um on on what's happening

1:39:13there. Um, could could staff briefly

1:39:17compare have you compared I guess the

1:39:20the principal surfacing materials such

1:39:23as the EWF, the PIP, the bund

1:39:27mulch stand and others in terms of

1:39:29safety, accessibility, maintenance,

1:39:32heat, environmental impact and the

1:39:35expected lifespan. You mentioned that uh

1:39:39magic magical bridge had issues. bill.

1:39:42What were those issues and what were the

1:39:45le the lessons learned from that?

1:39:48Because if there were issues that were

1:39:52that we found with different types of

1:39:54material that was used in magical

1:39:57bridge, then that makes it easy when

1:39:58you're defining what should be going

1:40:01into the guidelines of the policy. But I

1:40:03think the missing components here are

1:40:05getting stakeholder feedback as well as

1:40:10clearly defining what is it that we're

1:40:13putting in the guidelines to address the

1:40:16different types of material surfacing

1:40:18materials that will be used in some of

1:40:21the different parks that we have.

1:40:24Um

1:40:28that's that's kind of what I think we've

1:40:30that's sort of the things that we've

1:40:31gone back and forth here. I think none

1:40:33of no one here is very clear about what

1:40:36has the the guidelines actually

1:40:39defined and does it in fact meet what

1:40:42the council has asked the commission uh

1:40:46to um to address

1:40:49I don't I don't feel comfortable if I'm

1:40:51if I'm the chair we go back to the to

1:40:54the council and address the issues that

1:40:57they asked us to address. So, in

1:41:00preparing for this meeting this this

1:41:03evening, um we staff went back watched

1:41:07watched those meetings um and

1:41:12to for during the work plan

1:41:14conversation, it was very explicit and

1:41:17uh city manager even mentioned this is

1:41:20not intended to be a second turf study.

1:41:23So this is an evaluation very specific

1:41:28not of um all surfacing. This is

1:41:32specific

1:41:33um and very limited and smaller scope.

1:41:37Um because it is such a heavy lift with

1:41:40your very robust work plan already. Um

1:41:44so it's really singularity focus. It was

1:41:48on synthetic turf in playgrounds. Um,

1:41:53so, so there's that component. And just

1:41:56to kind of reiterate this, this is a

1:41:59stakeholder engagement. This is a public

1:42:02meeting. This is why it's a discussion

1:42:05and not an action item this evening. So,

1:42:08all of this information is considered

1:42:11feedback and we will take that along

1:42:14with your feedback this evening and come

1:42:16back um with next steps based based on

1:42:21what we hear this evening.

1:42:24>> Thank you, Commissioner Klein.

1:42:26>> Um Milbury prohibited using uh plastic

1:42:29turf on their properties. So that can be

1:42:31an example to look at why they did it

1:42:33and look at their staff reports and see

1:42:36um and the main concern always is the

1:42:39health of the children and this is a big

1:42:42big missing piece here. So I don't know

1:42:45that you need to have a huge consultant

1:42:47to do that. You can just get you know

1:42:50there's so much already there to show

1:42:52that plastic turf is not healthy for

1:42:55children and should not be used in a

1:42:58playground. just it makes so little

1:43:00sense to even think about doing that. I

1:43:03don't understand. Anyway,

1:43:05>> Commissioner Brown, you have one.

1:43:08>> Yes. Thank you. Um just wanted to echo

1:43:10the comments just regarding the scope of

1:43:12the work plan and I think we tried to be

1:43:15transparent and what could what is

1:43:18realistic and what we could bite off. We

1:43:20could have said yes, we'll look at

1:43:21everything and then only delivered on

1:43:23part of it. But I think just trying to

1:43:26um set expectations on what could

1:43:28actually be done was the goal that was

1:43:30trying to be achieved. Um

1:43:33a couple questions for staff before I go

1:43:35into my comments for how this would be

1:43:37applied. Would staff sort of look at the

1:43:40criteria and make findings for each of

1:43:42them sort of internally as staff and

1:43:45applying those findings for when it may

1:43:47be appropriate in the event that there

1:43:50is almost a demand for the use of

1:43:54synthetic turf um based on community

1:43:58feedback based on the design and based

1:44:00on the sort of needs of the user groups.

1:44:02is that you would sort of look at each

1:44:04of those and make sort of internal

1:44:05findings on those.

1:44:08>> Yeah, I think the guidelines are

1:44:09intended to look at those all those

1:44:11different factors and and make a kind of

1:44:13a qualitative determination. Um, and

1:44:16that's based off of the physical site

1:44:19constraints. It's based off of user

1:44:21feedback as well as based off the

1:44:22intended function of the uh the

1:44:25playground. So, it it attempts to uh

1:44:29develop a framework to examine all those

1:44:31things. um not giving any particular

1:44:34waiting to um any one consideration. Um

1:44:39but we wanted to

1:44:41you know leave some flexibility for the

1:44:44designer um to also uh determine what is

1:44:49and isn't appropriate based off the

1:44:52technical constraints and then go to the

1:44:54community uh of course and which is what

1:44:57we always do. um but not necessarily ask

1:45:00the community what type of surfacing

1:45:03they want from the list of the 10

1:45:06options. Um but to go with with um with

1:45:10kind of an their own expert expertise

1:45:13applied um with the guidelines applied

1:45:16as well. What some of what I'm hearing

1:45:19from the commission is maybe getting

1:45:22more specific in determining like

1:45:25surface temperature and different

1:45:26thresholds, different technical um

1:45:29elements that can determine what's on

1:45:34the table for a surfacing option. And

1:45:36that to me is more in line with like a

1:45:39development standard than um it goes

1:45:42beyond the guidelines. Um and so that

1:45:44would be um a heavier lift to to work

1:45:49with like our you know partners in

1:45:50public works, work with landscape

1:45:52architects and engineers to to create a

1:45:55document like that. So that's that's an

1:45:57option to give more like granularity to

1:46:00these um different considerations

1:46:03uh and certainly on the table as well.

1:46:06um short of uh you know a policy to you

1:46:10know prohibit the use of a synthetic

1:46:12turf there could be development

1:46:14standards um for it as well. Um so

1:46:17there's different flavors and I think

1:46:19the guidelines would um assume that our

1:46:24our our staff can exercise proper um

1:46:29prudence in applying those guidelines

1:46:32which which would then come back to the

1:46:35commission. it will go to council for

1:46:37every project and within our PIO

1:46:40process. Um so there's certainly like

1:46:42checks and balances along the way as

1:46:44well.

1:46:45>> Absolutely. And the hypothetical of

1:46:50prohibiting synthetic turf but creating

1:46:52a carveout specifically for magical

1:46:55bridge and I imagine magical bridge like

1:46:57uses. How would you go about writing a

1:47:00policy like that with that specific

1:47:02carveout for is that something that we

1:47:04could defend with some sort of standard?

1:47:08>> We'd have to take that back and explore

1:47:10that because we're sort of

1:47:12predetermining a a specific entity

1:47:15um and that's may run a foul of certain

1:47:19other um like procurement standards

1:47:22to name a few. So that's something we'd

1:47:25have to explore how we would would do

1:47:27that. I I

1:47:30would would put out there that it's not

1:47:33just magical bridge installing excuse me

1:47:36um exclus inclusive playgrounds it's

1:47:39inclusivity is a principle um applied

1:47:43towards every playground nowadays uh and

1:47:46that's and that's if whether or not

1:47:48magical bridge is the designer or our

1:47:51in-house landscape architect is

1:47:52designing or if we hire another firm um

1:47:56so there may the opportunities with a

1:47:58future project that's not a magical

1:48:00bridge project um to have a lot of

1:48:03creative elements and and certainly we

1:48:06don't want to sort of give like

1:48:08differenceence to one like like vendor

1:48:11provider.

1:48:11>> Yeah. Thank you. Um, so just to echo

1:48:16what uh Sarah commented on the outreach,

1:48:18it was while Magical Bridge was included

1:48:21in the discussion, we did consider input

1:48:24from past park development outreach. So

1:48:27the comments that were heard dur during

1:48:29the development of Bullware Park, for

1:48:30example, and other park projects both in

1:48:34town and otherwise. I know I visited

1:48:36other pro other park and inclusive parks

1:48:39um in the area um and considered those

1:48:42um when sort of formulating the

1:48:44recommendation.

1:48:46Um this is also a venue for public

1:48:49feedback and opinion. So the intention

1:48:51is that this is a the appropriate place

1:48:54to voice your opinion and we've heard

1:48:56some tonight. Um, I think it's not about

1:48:59hearing from specific commenters that

1:49:02were invited by a particular person to

1:49:05have a particular opinion. I think it's

1:49:06more about hearing from the broader

1:49:08community um, and con sort of

1:49:10considering the operational impacts on

1:49:13the the city. Um, and also the safety

1:49:18guidelines. I I think that's a big

1:49:20component of this that was not part of

1:49:22the initial council charge to this

1:49:25commission. Um, but I appreciate the

1:49:27expertise that Ben and Sarah have

1:49:29brought to this discussion on how can we

1:49:32um be safe because really this the

1:49:34conversation started to go way back of

1:49:37this was the this was a charge from the

1:49:38council. What would it look like if we

1:49:40were to ban all non-natural materials?

1:49:43That's really where the the ad hoc sort

1:49:45of started with on the on one end of the

1:49:47spectrum and then we started looking at

1:49:49the operational and safety constraints

1:49:51and we sort of landed in this area where

1:49:54um it's strengthening it's bolstering

1:49:56our current process

1:49:58um and our current process does already

1:50:01have many of the checks and balances

1:50:02that Ben alluded to. So the staff does

1:50:06the community engagement. there's an

1:50:07opportunity for neighbors and park users

1:50:10to say whether or not they want to see

1:50:13synthetic turf in that project. It goes

1:50:16further. It's recommended to this body

1:50:18for the park improvement ordinance and

1:50:20usually we have multiple discussions on

1:50:21that specifically for Bullware Park. For

1:50:24example, council member Rectal sat on

1:50:26this commission and voted for Bullwware

1:50:28Park at the time and it it was passed.

1:50:31So then it went to council and was

1:50:34approved. So there are many venues for

1:50:36it. I also think the environment in

1:50:38which we operate and think about the use

1:50:40of synthetic turf has changed not just

1:50:42as a city but I think as an industry um

1:50:45in parks and in municipal operations and

1:50:48we're looking at it with a more fine

1:50:50tooth comb. If we want to ban it just to

1:50:52say that we're banning it. I think

1:50:55that's that that's certainly a statement

1:50:57that this commission and the city can

1:50:59make and that's within our purview um if

1:51:02we want to take that stance. This was

1:51:05crafted in a way to not completely shut

1:51:08the door to allow the application in the

1:51:11very sort of perfect alignment of all of

1:51:14the factors that Ben laid out and all of

1:51:17that community engagement. You have

1:51:19people calling for it, demanding it. I

1:51:22don't think at this day and age that

1:51:24staff is going to propose a synthetic

1:51:26turf and try to force it down people's

1:51:29throats or sneak it through or anything.

1:51:31that is not um the intention of this

1:51:33policy. However, the if the rest of the

1:51:36commission wants to see something

1:51:38firmer, that's certainly guidance that

1:51:40we can take and go back as an ad hoc and

1:51:42work with staff to to further refine

1:51:45that.

1:51:48>> Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Claus,

1:51:52>> one of our

1:51:53charges is to communicate and with the

1:51:56public and so I think letting the public

1:51:59know about this was part of our job. I

1:52:02want to say one other thing.

1:52:06The class the safety standards are

1:52:10looking at whether a kid might scrape

1:52:12their knee or something like that. What

1:52:14they're not looking at is their immune

1:52:16system. It's not looking at their

1:52:19attention span. It's not looking at

1:52:21their long light,

1:52:24the the impacts of exposure to plastic.

1:52:29And

1:52:31maybe it needs to be modified at a state

1:52:33level. There are studies that show that

1:52:35kids that play in dirt and mud and

1:52:38leaves and [clears throat] tur and and

1:52:40you know all kinds of mosses and things

1:52:43within a month developed much better

1:52:46immune system.

1:52:47more concentration at school, much

1:52:50better outcomes in their everyday life.

1:52:53And I'll tell you one little story about

1:52:55something I witnessed a couple of days

1:52:57ago. I was at Rama Park and I look asked

1:53:00a few mothers that were there about six

1:53:02mothers what they thought about plastic

1:53:04turf. They're all opposed. Um and then

1:53:08uh their kids went and climbed on a

1:53:10tree, not flowered over the playground.

1:53:12Like kids climb on a tree. One kid was

1:53:14up there, the other one pushed him. He

1:53:16fell. He scraped his knee. Big crying.

1:53:18Everybody's upset. The mothers used that

1:53:22as a learning opportunity. Taught the

1:53:24one kid to apologize to the other one.

1:53:26Put them both on the treat so they can

1:53:28make friends. And the scraping of the

1:53:31knee became a real experience for these

1:53:34kids and a really valuable experience

1:53:36for these kids where you can't get it

1:53:38where everything is cushioned to the

1:53:40level that if you fall nothing happens

1:53:43and also your immune system is harmed. I

1:53:46don't know that this is in those

1:53:48guidelines. I and I think that was the

1:53:50intent of trying to prohibit it. I don't

1:53:53expect stuff to start paving our parks

1:53:55and and playgrounds with plastic turf. I

1:53:59don't think that was ever the intent,

1:54:01but I think the idea of saying no, we're

1:54:06not using it is beyond just advertising.

1:54:08It's something to say about the health

1:54:10of the city, the health of it children,

1:54:12and their future. Thank you.

1:54:16>> Okay. So, overall, I believe the report

1:54:19provides a good um starting point for

1:54:21this commission to put the council

1:54:23directive work. Um, however, I do not

1:54:27believe it provides enough direction to

1:54:30ensure that decisions are made

1:54:31consistently and transparently from the

1:54:34playground project uh to another. So I

1:54:38would encourage staff and and ad hoc to

1:54:41consider adding clear uh evaluation

1:54:44criteria, process for documenting

1:54:46decisions and guidance on how competing

1:54:50factors such as accessibility, safety,

1:54:53environmental impact, maintenance and

1:54:55life cycle costs will be balanced.

1:54:58Overall, I think uh there was a lot of

1:55:00good work put into this and I think

1:55:02it's, you know, it's as close to

1:55:05um what the council was uh directing us

1:55:08to do and um it's definitely as clear as

1:55:12to what the um the work plan was uh

1:55:15defined as as you as you mentioned,

1:55:18Sarah. So, thank you for the good job on

1:55:20it. Thanks.

1:55:24Okay, we'll move to item six.

1:55:28There's no other action you expect from

1:55:30us, right, on this?

1:55:32>> Well, yeah. The the the point of this

1:55:35discussion was to um for the PRC to

1:55:37provide feedback, right?

1:55:38>> Um to allow the community to voice

1:55:41feedback as well. Um you know, in the

1:55:45minutes, Council Member Rectal, you

1:55:48know, had an opinion on, you know, the

1:55:50artificial turf. I think the

1:55:52administration should be a policy

1:55:54decision but referred it to the PRC for

1:55:56feedback. So that's really up to this

1:55:59body to determine what the next steps

1:56:02are. Um and then also consider if it's a

1:56:06higher level policy effort, consider

1:56:09what is a realistic um level of of time

1:56:15and effort and how to how we would go

1:56:17about that.

1:56:18um we can certainly go back with the ad

1:56:20hoc and strengthen um these guidelines

1:56:23and try to make more clear evaluation

1:56:25criteria. Um they would still be

1:56:29guidelines. Uh so if that's the kind of

1:56:34direction um we're not taking an action

1:56:37item so we're not going to take a vote

1:56:39but um

1:56:42we're I think just want to walk away

1:56:44with some clear guidance kind of what

1:56:46what is the commission looking for and

1:56:48so if it's to strengthen the guidelines

1:56:51um to add more clear evaluation criteria

1:56:53we can certainly do that. um if it's a

1:56:56desire to develop a policy to ban

1:56:58artificial turf and go to know develop a

1:57:00like an ordinance over that that's

1:57:02that's a much higher level of effort. So

1:57:06um I think

1:57:10we're all maybe not in perfect alignment

1:57:13on the direction but we can certainly

1:57:16discuss with the ad hoc um further and

1:57:19kind of refine our approach.

1:57:22>> Yeah. Yeah. I think that's appropriate.

1:57:25Okay, thank you.

1:57:28Okay, move to item six.

1:57:31>> I think ju just for clarity I think

1:57:34which it sounds after hearing from the

1:57:37commission it sounds like we will

1:57:40reconvene with the ad hoc but currently

1:57:44we will continue working on guidelines

1:57:47is what I've heard and we'll strengthen

1:57:50them and bring it back to

1:57:51>> Exactly. Okay.

1:57:52>> Yeah.

1:57:53>> Okay. Thank you.

1:57:54>> Thank you,

1:57:58>> Mr. CL.

1:58:22Okay, we uh we'll take a 10-minute break

1:58:25and come back and address item number

1:58:29Next.

2:10:41number six, which is a park improvement

2:10:44ordinance recommendation for Quith Hills

2:10:48Nature Preserve Improvement Project.

2:10:52>> Yes. Thank you, chair. Um, good evening.

2:10:55I'm going to introduce uh Mega Ben Still

2:10:58for with the public works department.

2:11:00She's our senior engineer who's going to

2:11:03be walking us through the park

2:11:04improvement ordinance for uh Foothills

2:11:07Nature Preserve improvement project.

2:11:13Good evening chair and commission. Uh my

2:11:16name is Mika Bansil. I'm senior engineer

2:11:19with public works department. Uh joining

2:11:22me today also couple of city staff who

2:11:25are attending this meeting via Zoom. Uh

2:11:28Mike Warers, supervising ranger at

2:11:30Forals Nature Preserve and Chelsea Lexa,

2:11:33project engineer with public works

2:11:35department. So, we are here tonight to

2:11:38present to you the proposed improvements

2:11:40at Filills Nature Preserve and to seek

2:11:43your recommendation to the city council

2:11:46for approval of a park improvement

2:11:49ordinance for this project. Next slide.

2:11:54So, our presentation overview tonight

2:11:56includes u a brief background about the

2:11:59project. We will be summarizing some

2:12:02outreach efforts that guided the

2:12:04improvement of the

2:12:07guided the development of the

2:12:09improvement plan. U also some

2:12:11refinements that staff has made since

2:12:14you have last heard about this item in

2:12:17April of this year. Um and then some

2:12:20timelines and next steps and finally

2:12:22staff recommendation.

2:12:24Next slide.

2:12:27So um as you all know the Filills Nature

2:12:30Preserve was open to the general public

2:12:33in December of 2020 uh which resulted in

2:12:37significant increase in the number of

2:12:39visitors into the preserve and uh this

2:12:43impacted

2:12:44a few things including visitors walking

2:12:48off trail into sensitive areas. There

2:12:50were some safety concerns due to

2:12:52pedestrians sharing the narrow preserve

2:12:55road with vehicular traffic. Also, there

2:12:58were confusions due to lack of signage

2:13:00and unmarked parking areas as well as

2:13:04our rangers have been observing some

2:13:06traffic violations. So, this required um

2:13:10a need for visitors access safety and

2:13:12parking improvement. And this the

2:13:16proposed plan that we have in front of

2:13:18you today aims to improve access and

2:13:21safety while enhancing visitors

2:13:23experience and maintaining preserves

2:13:27natural character. Next slide.

2:13:33So this slide outlines the outreach

2:13:38conducted for this project since 2021. I

2:13:42won't go through all these meetings. Uh

2:13:46however, I would like to highlight some

2:13:49of the recent meetings um that um uh

2:13:54including key high key feedback received

2:13:57from this commission during

2:13:59anformational update in April of this

2:14:02year as well as follow-up uh meetings

2:14:06that we had with open space liaison in

2:14:09June and August of this year and staff

2:14:12made some refinements to address your

2:14:15comments. s which we will be reviewing

2:14:17in the next slide.

2:14:20Next slide.

2:14:23So on this slide you will see the left

2:14:26column includes key feedback from this

2:14:29commission in April of 2026 as well as

2:14:32some uh comments from open space liaison

2:14:36in June 2026. So one of the comment from

2:14:40the commission was to maintain preserves

2:14:43visual character and this was in

2:14:46relation to the crosswalks and speed

2:14:49humps proposed in the April meeting. We

2:14:52originally proposed eight crosswalks and

2:14:56uh seven speed humps

2:14:58which now in response staff has replaced

2:15:02six of those crosswalks with trail or

2:15:05pedestrian crossing signs on wood post

2:15:08without any pavement marking for

2:15:10crosswalks. Um as well as we have

2:15:12removed one crosswalk and removed two

2:15:15speed humps. There was also a comment

2:15:18from the commission in April to review

2:15:21other local preserve guidelines while

2:15:23incorporating these traffic control

2:15:25features and um this and staff has

2:15:29looked at uh some local and regional

2:15:32preserve guidelines including balance uh

2:15:35design guidelines, yuseity guidelines

2:15:37which was specifically mentioned in the

2:15:40previous meeting and also Bear Creek

2:15:43preserve guidelines and the proposed

2:15:46plan that we have is consistent with

2:15:48those guidelines. For example, the we

2:15:53will have lower height signs on wood

2:15:55post. The guidelines recommend having a

2:16:00designated pedestrian pathway separate

2:16:02from vehicular traffic for uh safety

2:16:05which we have in our plan. Also, the

2:16:08parking a areas should not be

2:16:10obstructing natural views. So by

2:16:13removing some of the parallel um gravel

2:16:17parking spaces along Boronta lake we are

2:16:21supporting that um guideline as well as

2:16:24the guidelines support includes includes

2:16:27including traffic coming features. They

2:16:30also do not have any standard design or

2:16:34standard guidelines for those features

2:16:37and they refer to applicable state and

2:16:40federal regulations for traffic safety.

2:16:43One of the comment made by the liaison

2:16:46was to use logs or natural looking wheel

2:16:49stop. Um and staff is utilizing existing

2:16:53logs where feasible as well as some

2:16:56concrete wheel stops.

2:17:00Um the in the second row uh there was a

2:17:02comment made by the commission to keep

2:17:04the gravel parking lot across Boron

2:17:07Lake. So this has been incorporated in

2:17:09the plan. Um the liaison had a comment

2:17:12to remove a section of the pathway uh

2:17:15along the new gravel parking lot across

2:17:18Boronda Lake that has now been removed.

2:17:20Also the liaison

2:17:23uh wanted to to relocate the vehicle

2:17:27turnaround area from the existing

2:17:30Boronda Lake parking lot which has now

2:17:32been relocated as well as the leaison

2:17:36had a comment to implement construction

2:17:38during bird's non- nesting season. So

2:17:41staff is proposing construction during

2:17:43the bird's non- nesting season between

2:17:46September through January.

2:17:49Next slide.

2:17:51So this is the proposed improvement

2:17:53plan. Many of these components are still

2:17:56the same as what you have previously

2:17:59reviewed. However, I will be going over

2:18:02these plan elements. Um and this this

2:18:06draft improvement plan has also been

2:18:09included in the PIO um which is attached

2:18:13to your staff report. So uh the plan

2:18:17includes designated pedestrian pathways

2:18:20uh connecting entrance Boronda Lake and

2:18:23Vista Hill areas which are shown by the

2:18:27pink line. Uh the pathways will be 3 or

2:18:304 ft wide.

2:18:32Um parking improvements includes uh

2:18:36existing parking reconfiguration and

2:18:38striping because most of the existing

2:18:41parking lot are not striped. So clearly

2:18:44delineating parking. Um we will also be

2:18:47removing some parallel gravel parking u

2:18:51near entrance and along Borunda lake as

2:18:56that as called out on this plan.

2:18:59We we are adding new gravel parking lot

2:19:03across Borunda Lake and we previously

2:19:06had a section of designated pedestrian

2:19:10pathway from that Y uh connection at

2:19:14Boronda Lake to the existing Boronda

2:19:17Lake parking that has now been removed

2:19:19per liazison's feedback. Um,

2:19:23additionally we had one accessible

2:19:27parking which is shown by the blue um

2:19:31square at existing Bond Lake. We have

2:19:35also added two additional accessible

2:19:37parking at the lower Vista Hill which is

2:19:40shown by the blue um squares.

2:19:46Um we will be adding additional benches

2:19:49u on Vista Hill which are shown on this

2:19:54plan by

2:19:56by black rectangle.

2:19:59Um additionally we have we will be

2:20:03removing access asphalt on the western

2:20:07side of the Vista Hill as shown on this

2:20:10plan. Um and finally we will have some

2:20:14traffic control features

2:20:17such as one crosswalk instead of eight

2:20:20crosswalks previously proposed at Vista

2:20:23Hill near so I'm sorry at um Boronda

2:20:27Lake near the accessible parking to

2:20:30provide safer access. Um the

2:20:35the the yellow diamond

2:20:38replaced the previously proposed

2:20:41crosswalks and those are the trail or

2:20:44pedestrian crossing signs on the side of

2:20:47the road for u for pedestrian safety. Uh

2:20:53and we will have some directional and

2:20:56trail crossing signs, striping as well

2:20:58as um a dirt curved dirt island at the

2:21:04south of Vista Hill which is shown by

2:21:07this brown um trapezoid

2:21:10um which is basically to enforce oneway

2:21:14traffic at that uh intersection.

2:21:18Uh also we have removed we are keeping

2:21:22five speed humps but we removed two

2:21:24speed humps based on the commission and

2:21:27u's feedback.

2:21:30So we have discussed this plan with the

2:21:33liaison in our August meeting and the

2:21:36liaison were supportive of the proposed

2:21:39refinements and they also supported

2:21:41proceeding with a PIO uh for

2:21:44commission's review. Next slide.

2:21:48So this slide uh just lists the proposed

2:21:52elements um that we just reviewed in the

2:21:55previous slide. I'm not going to go over

2:21:57these but the same information is

2:22:00included in the PIO document u uh with

2:22:04the staff report. Uh so this slide

2:22:07primarily serves as a written

2:22:09description of the proposed plan

2:22:11elements. Next slide.

2:22:14So in the next few slide um I will be

2:22:17going over some um photos illustrating

2:22:21the proposed plan elements. Many of

2:22:24these elements were pre presented to the

2:22:27commission in previous meetings. Um so

2:22:30I'll quickly go over all of these. U so

2:22:33as previously noted the plan includes

2:22:38designated pedestrian pathway in three

2:22:40or four feet wide. Uh the pathway

2:22:43material will be query fines. Um we will

2:22:47be utilizing existing boulders um or

2:22:50asphalt curb as safety bar barrier where

2:22:53feasible. Um as well as there will be no

2:22:58tree removal. Uh wherever there is a

2:23:00conflict with a tree gaps will be

2:23:03provided in the pathway. And the photos

2:23:06to the side are the query fines pathways

2:23:10in the Arashador preserve. Um and the

2:23:14photo at the bottom right corner is

2:23:18showing the gapped curb at Balance

2:23:20Nature Preserve. Next slide.

2:23:24As I mentioned, we will be reconfiguring

2:23:27configuring existing parking um at Vista

2:23:30Hill and Boronda Lake areas. Also, we

2:23:33will be removing the excess asphalt as

2:23:35shown in the left uh photo

2:23:39at Vista Hill as well as we will be

2:23:41clearly delineating parking to improve

2:23:44traffic flow and efficiency

2:23:47as shown in the right two right photos.

2:23:50Next slide.

2:23:53So this photo shows some parallel

2:23:56parking at near the entrance that we

2:23:58will be removing to accommodate new

2:24:00pathways and to provide safer and

2:24:03efficient um access and space. Next

2:24:07slide.

2:24:09This slide shows the existing condition

2:24:12across Bunda Lake and we will be adding

2:24:17a new gravel parking lot that would

2:24:19improve access to the lake as well as

2:24:21compensate for removed parallel parking

2:24:24in the Boronda Lake area. And the photos

2:24:27to the right show a gravel parking lot

2:24:30at Rao Preserve. Next slide.

2:24:35As I mentioned, there will be one

2:24:37crosswalk at Boronda Lake to provide

2:24:40safer access uh from the existing

2:24:43parking to the lake and um we will be

2:24:47using standard city uh crosswalk design

2:24:51which is shown this photo is from

2:24:54Balance Nature Preserve.

2:24:56Next slide.

2:24:59Um so majority of the

2:25:02previously proposed crosswalks have now

2:25:05been replaced with some trail crossing

2:25:08or pedestrian crossing signs. This photo

2:25:12shows

2:25:14example from another location uh that

2:25:17shows the trail crossing sign. This

2:25:19would be on a 5-ft uh pie

2:25:23post wooden post and this is to improve

2:25:27safety. We will not have any pavement

2:25:30marking like previously proposed for the

2:25:32crosswalk.

2:25:34Next slide.

2:25:38So we will also have some speed humps.

2:25:40As I mentioned, we have reduced um the

2:25:44speed humps from 7 to five now. And the

2:25:47speed humps will look similar to the

2:25:51photo to the right is the city standard.

2:25:53This is what we will be using for speed

2:25:55humps in terms of speed hump design. The

2:25:58photo to the left is from another

2:26:01location. Uh the sign would look similar

2:26:05to the left side photo not on a standard

2:26:09metal post but the design will be from

2:26:13the right side photo which is the city

2:26:15standard. Next slide.

2:26:18As I mentioned, there will be a new dirt

2:26:20island with asphalt curb at the

2:26:23intersection south of Vista Hill to

2:26:25enforce one-way traffic and to guide

2:26:28vehicles to stay on designated route.

2:26:31So, the photo to the left shows the

2:26:32location. Also, the right uh with the

2:26:35with the red dot shows the location and

2:26:38the photo in the middle or the exhibit

2:26:40in the middle shows roughly how the um

2:26:44the curved island would look like. Next

2:26:47slide.

2:26:50Uh so this commission also had a comment

2:26:53in the in April 2026 meeting u and the

2:26:58commission asked staff to confirm the

2:27:00squa review for proposed improvements.

2:27:03And as noted on this slide, uh the SQUA

2:27:07exemption for the project to the side uh

2:27:09to the left side, the squa exemption for

2:27:12the project was approved in February of

2:27:152025

2:27:16uh based on the original larger scope

2:27:19for the project and the current plan has

2:27:22been reduced in scope as well as impacts

2:27:26compared to the original plan which is

2:27:28shown on the right side. So for example

2:27:32uh we originally had four to six six

2:27:34feet wide pedestrian pathways along all

2:27:37preserved main roads and now the pathway

2:27:40with have been reduced to 3 to 4 feet

2:27:43and connecting only three areas entrance

2:27:46Borontella lake and Vista Hill which are

2:27:49uh higher use areas as well as the

2:27:52previous plan included tiger teeth

2:27:54spikes on Vista Hill at that oneway

2:27:57intersection now that has been replaced

2:27:59with a dirt island with asphalt curb. Um

2:28:04the original plan included asphalt

2:28:07parking lot across Bond Lake which has

2:28:09now been changed with uh gravel parking

2:28:12lot across the lake. Also we had

2:28:15standard traffic control features eight

2:28:18crosswalks and seven speed humps. So the

2:28:20numbers of the crosswalks and speed

2:28:23humps have been reduced. Uh the original

2:28:26plan included five trees u for removal.

2:28:30We have no no trees will be removed as

2:28:33part of the current plan. Also we are

2:28:35removing extra asphalt um at at Vista

2:28:40Hill. So based on these changes, staff

2:28:42determined that there are no new or

2:28:45significant impacts that would warrant u

2:28:49additional SQA review and staff also

2:28:52reviewed the squa information with the

2:28:55open space liaison in June. Uh so as

2:28:59additional precaution in coordination

2:29:02with the liaison construction for this

2:29:05project will be planned during the

2:29:07bird's non- nesting season between

2:29:10September and January.

2:29:12So next slide. So now some timelines and

2:29:16next steps. Um once the commission

2:29:19recommend the park improvement ordinance

2:29:21to the city council tonight, uh staff is

2:29:24planning to take this PIO for adoption

2:29:28by the city council sometimes in

2:29:30November and the final design and bid

2:29:33document preparation will be completed

2:29:35around spring of 2027 and bidding and

2:29:38contract award would be by September

2:29:412027 and construction in fall of next

2:29:45year.

2:29:46Next slide. So here we have staff recom

2:29:51staff recommendation that the parks and

2:29:53recreation commission recommend adoption

2:29:56and approval of a park improvement

2:29:58ordinance to the city council for access

2:30:01and safety improvements at Foothills

2:30:03Nature Preserve. And next slide. I think

2:30:07that concludes staff presentation and

2:30:10I'll turn it over to you chair for

2:30:13questions and comments.

2:30:16very good report and very good job on

2:30:19the presentation. I especially enjoyed

2:30:22the having that I think it was slide

2:30:24number four number and there was another

2:30:26slide that had comments and refinements

2:30:29that sort of talked about what we

2:30:32recommended during the your visit with

2:30:34us previously and what areas have been

2:30:37addressed. So that made it very clear

2:30:39that also wiped out about 60% of the

2:30:42general question I was going to ask. Oh,

2:30:44that's okay. So, I'll now before we go

2:30:46to public comments, I would like to open

2:30:48it up to the rest of commissioners for

2:30:52any clarifying questions.

2:30:59Okay. Well, I'll start it off with one.

2:31:02Um so the 2023 report um anticipated

2:31:06that the that Vista Hill parking would

2:31:09decrease from 35 to 34 spaces. Veronda

2:31:13Lake uh would increase from

2:31:15approximately 21 25 to 31 spaces and

2:31:19total preserve parking would increase

2:31:21from approximately

2:31:23uh 355 to 360 spaces. Do those numbers

2:31:28still apply to the revised plan? And um

2:31:33could you provide the current and

2:31:36proposed counts at each affected

2:31:40location? But the numbers are pretty

2:31:42close. I maybe that's not necessary.

2:31:48I just want to see if there was a

2:31:49reduction in the number of parking

2:31:52spaces. Uh yeah, I can u u I can answer

2:31:58that question and probably Mike Warner

2:32:00can um also add to that. So the total

2:32:04existing parking um include 292

2:32:10unreserved and 83 reserved parking

2:32:13spaces. And with the proposed uh plan,

2:32:18we are

2:32:23uh I'm sorry, let me just Yeah, we are

2:32:26not changing the reserved parking. In

2:32:29fact, we are not

2:32:32we are Let me just pull that plan.

2:32:52Um, Eric, can you pull slide number 34

2:32:57in the extra slides?

2:33:06Yeah. So this was a plan proposed to the

2:33:10park and rec commission in October of

2:33:132025

2:33:14and at that time we were we removed the

2:33:18proposed

2:33:19new gravel parking lot. So in the

2:33:22Boronda Lake area after removal of the

2:33:26parallel gravel parking spaces we will

2:33:29have no net change in parking. However,

2:33:34in the entrance, we are removing nine

2:33:37gravel parking uh spaces. Those are the

2:33:40only that is the only change in parking.

2:33:43So, we have overall reduction of nine

2:33:45parallel parking spaces because

2:33:48everywhere else in the Boronda Lake and

2:33:52uh Vista Hill areas, we are only

2:33:54delineating existing parking.

2:33:58>> Okay. Thank you. That clears up. Uh and

2:34:01my last cl uh clarifying question, what

2:34:03happened to the um the fencing and re um

2:34:07resource protection measures? Um the

2:34:092023 report identified split rail

2:34:13fencing and um Ronda Lake pedestrian

2:34:16connection as an important measures to

2:34:19prevent visitors from creating hazardous

2:34:22shortcut trails to the sensitive

2:34:25habitat. And so I'm just saying these

2:34:28elements are not clearly maybe I missed

2:34:30them. They're not clearly included in

2:34:32the proposed ordinance.

2:34:34>> Yeah. So the split rail fencing was part

2:34:37of 2023 plan but staff has already our

2:34:41park rangers have taken care of. They

2:34:43have installed the uh split rail fencing

2:34:46and I'm not sure Mike if you are you

2:34:50want to add something to it.

2:34:52Yeah, I'll add um we went ahead with a

2:34:55smaller reduction about 200 feet of

2:34:59fencing down by the Y intersection.

2:35:02the proposed fencing running from the Y

2:35:04intersection all the way to Vista Hill

2:35:08uh was felt that it would be uh too

2:35:10excessive and we've have since put uh

2:35:13boulders along the road and about four

2:35:16or five signs uh asking people to stay

2:35:19out of the area and it's been pretty

2:35:20effective um and we haven't seen the

2:35:23creation of too many social trails.

2:35:26>> So they've been effective is what you're

2:35:28saying?

2:35:28>> Yes. We we we've taken minor corrective

2:35:32actions that are less uh impactful on

2:35:35the landscape.

2:35:37>> Okay. Thank you.

2:35:39>> Okay. That's any other commissioners for

2:35:42clarifying questions? If not, we'll go

2:35:44to public comments.

2:35:51We do have one public comment. Um it

2:35:54will be David M.

2:36:04Thank you, commissioners. Uh, I was on

2:36:06the parks and recck commission for six

2:36:08years ending 2021, just after this park

2:36:11was uh uh open to the public. And it's

2:36:15been six years since we recommended that

2:36:22these safety measures be adopted. And I

2:36:25strongly recommend that you adopt this

2:36:28PIO. It's about time. And I want a

2:36:34little bit of additional stuff put into

2:36:36this PIO so that we don't have to wait

2:36:39another seven years for these additional

2:36:42safety measures. The most important

2:36:45safety measures besides the uh the

2:36:48roadway is that purple line that uh goes

2:36:53uh goes along the pathways, the pathways

2:36:56along the road so that um families do

2:37:00not have to walk into the into the

2:37:02roadway to get from Vista Hill and and

2:37:06the entrance to Bar, but I want an an

2:37:10additional stretch from the bottom of

2:37:12the dam am to Orchard Glenn uh picnic

2:37:16area along the road. It's uh um it's an

2:37:21important additional stretch. In

2:37:24addition, um I want to make sure that we

2:37:27get one of those gravel fine um pathways

2:37:32to complete around the bar lake because

2:37:36many people try to walk across the grass

2:37:40lawn and it's rough and it's wet and

2:37:44it's there are ticks and um it's very

2:37:49difficult for families to get all the

2:37:51way around. and it's a very popular

2:37:53thing to do to mo move around move uh

2:37:56walk around the lake. So those additions

2:38:01um on top of the things that we talked

2:38:03about here are really important and I

2:38:06don't want to wait another seven years

2:38:08for that to happen. And I know some of

2:38:10this was because of u worries about oh

2:38:14we don't want to disturb nature and cut

2:38:17down trees and none of this does that

2:38:20which is wonderful. and the others uh

2:38:23cost and I think it's just another 20 or

2:38:26$30,000 to add that additional stretch.

2:38:30It's not a huge amount of money. So I

2:38:32think between now and the final design

2:38:35in spring, we should add those

2:38:37additional uh safety measures um to this

2:38:42proposal. Thank you.

2:38:47>> There are no more speakers at this time.

2:38:49>> Okay. Uh David, thanks for your comments

2:38:51and also thank you for your service on

2:38:53the uh commission a few years ago. So,

2:38:55thank you. Um I'll open it up now for

2:39:00general questions from the commission.

2:39:03Commissioner Smith,

2:39:06I think what David just mentioned really

2:39:08makes a lot of sense because uh that's

2:39:11one of my favorite things, especially

2:39:12when the kids were smaller to go right

2:39:15around. And you're right, it's it's all

2:39:18the things uh you mentioned, plus it can

2:39:20be slippery and uh so I I would think

2:39:24that would be a nice addition. I would

2:39:26be for that.

2:39:31Uh, Commissioner Klein House. Well,

2:39:34>> this project went through a lot of

2:39:36iterations and the liaison for this was

2:39:39Jeff Greenfield and I and when Jeff

2:39:42Greenfield

2:39:43um turned out then uh Commissioner Axent

2:39:47W and I continued working with staff

2:39:50during that time. Um the city council

2:39:55actually changed the project and staff

2:39:59over many many iterations of what would

2:40:02be the best um project made a lot of

2:40:07changes. Some of those we've seen but

2:40:09there was even one that had a little

2:40:11trail in a wetland like almost in a

2:40:15stream and they removed that. That was

2:40:16good and it didn't really change the

2:40:19time for people to or accessibility.

2:40:22[laughter]

2:40:22Um so

2:40:25given that this is a nature preserve and

2:40:28some of the public comment we heard was

2:40:31about the aesthetics of the place about

2:40:33keeping it natural about minimizing this

2:40:35project. So from six feet we moved to

2:40:39three feet to four to three to four I

2:40:41think and uh the extensive amount of

2:40:45asphalt in some areas was going is going

2:40:48to be removed as part of this project

2:40:50and that's fabulous. There is areas

2:40:53there that kids just go in with cars and

2:40:55just ride around in circles and stuff

2:40:57and that may be fun but maybe not

2:41:00appropriate for a nature preserve. So

2:41:03there are a lot of changes that were

2:41:05made through this process both from city

2:41:09council direction and some work between

2:41:13the liaison and stuff. Um so

2:41:19part of the requests

2:41:22that uh former commissioner Moser has

2:41:26made were actually considered and

2:41:28rejected

2:41:30either by staff or by the commission uh

2:41:34the leazison and um just making things

2:41:39easier for people does not actually give

2:41:42them a natural experience and that was

2:41:45one of the things that we considered but

2:41:48you know you can have staff also respond

2:41:50to the budget issues which was part of

2:41:54it and [clears throat]

2:41:56um to the actual need of where where the

2:41:59problems are. Most people don't drive

2:42:01beyond B on the lake. Most people that

2:42:04walk on the grass, so what? That's what

2:42:07it's there for. It's for them to play

2:42:08and walk. So I think and there is

2:42:12actually a way to go around the lake if

2:42:14you want to because it goes the path

2:42:16goes around the lake. It goes up to

2:42:19where the

2:42:21uh entrance is and then you can walk

2:42:22back on the new to be created path. So

2:42:27anyway, that's my comment on this. It it

2:42:30makes sense if you're not there all the

2:42:32time and I am and a lot really and so I

2:42:36see how people behave and talk to stuff

2:42:39about that and so did Jeff Greenfield.

2:42:42So that's my comment.

2:42:46>> Any other commissioners and general

2:42:47comments? Commissioner Axel right? Yeah,

2:42:51I got involved uh more recently, but I

2:42:53just wanted to uh really commend staff

2:42:56on being responsive to our desire to

2:43:00keep things much more natural uh and to

2:43:04amend the plans to go along with that.

2:43:07Uh I don't think I was privileged to the

2:43:10round the lake discussion but um maybe

2:43:15Mike if you're around because you're

2:43:17there all the time if you can just give

2:43:19a a word or two on your thoughts on

2:43:22people going around the lake.

2:43:25Um the traffic pattern around the lake

2:43:28is pretty popular and that's why we

2:43:30propose the um trail alignment going

2:43:33from the front entrance back along the

2:43:35road to the parking area.

2:43:39um because I think that was in alignment

2:43:42with what was felt by the commission at

2:43:44the time to minimize uh ecological

2:43:47impact and that was that's eventually

2:43:50the route that most people usually end

2:43:52up taking is they come off of the path

2:43:54from around behind the lake and then

2:43:56follow the road back to the parking

2:43:58area. So, we're just trying to get

2:44:00people off of the road in that that

2:44:02area. But either way, I think a a trail

2:44:05either through the turf back to the

2:44:08parking area or along the road will be

2:44:09popular with folks. Um because

2:44:13inevitably seems that humans like to

2:44:16make uh loop trails

2:44:28>> any others commission.

2:44:32Um, thank you for the presentation. I

2:44:34have a safety question. I appreciate our

2:44:37effort to preserve the natural character

2:44:39of foothills, but since we removed

2:44:42several crosswalks and speed humps from

2:44:45the earlier design, um, can you please

2:44:48explain how we determined that the

2:44:50remaining measures are sufficient from a

2:44:53safety perspective?

2:44:57>> Uh, yes. So we did review commission's

2:45:01feedback with office of transportation

2:45:04and for u uh for majority of these

2:45:08crosswalk location we since it is a

2:45:11nature preserve um and lately

2:45:16I know the visitation was significantly

2:45:18higher when we opened the preserve but

2:45:21not um at the same level. So uh with

2:45:25their input we came up with the trail

2:45:27crossing sign as warning signs. There

2:45:30will be some signs here which would um

2:45:33give warning pedestrian crossing ahead.

2:45:35So all of these things are going to

2:45:38provide that safety measures. Uh also

2:45:41the speed humps in two locations that we

2:45:44removed u were not necessarily needed at

2:45:49those locations because we again have

2:45:51some trail crossing signs and uh within

2:45:57a certain distance we have another speed

2:45:59hump. So we have evaluated all of these

2:46:03safety measures with the office of

2:46:05transportation as well.

2:46:08>> Great. Thank you.

2:46:14>> Any other Commissioner Brown?

2:46:18>> Just um thanks for the very wonderful

2:46:21presentation. I also like the format of

2:46:23what we what was heard last time and

2:46:25what was addressed. Um is there any

2:46:28other um comments from staff about the

2:46:31comments raised by former commissioner

2:46:33Moss and I was fortunate to serve with

2:46:35him. So thank you for your guidance then

2:46:37and now. Uh any other comments that

2:46:40staff would like to address on the item

2:46:42raised

2:46:44budget or other considerations?

2:46:47Anything?

2:46:50>> Yeah, I'll I'll just speak. It's also

2:46:52within your packet um because we did

2:46:55receive a public comment um through the

2:46:58commission email. Um and I addressed at

2:47:03length kind of some of some of these

2:47:05items, but um I think one of the key

2:47:08component a lot um Commissioner Klein

2:47:11House addressed um given city council

2:47:14direction to reduce the scope um staff

2:47:17is not recommending adding additional

2:47:19trail segments to the current project at

2:47:21this stage, the pedestrian connections

2:47:25um Mr. moss identified can be um

2:47:28retained and considered at as a part of

2:47:31a future project um and improvements to

2:47:35the preserve at at a later time.

2:47:39>> Thank you. Um no further questions.

2:47:43Thanks.

2:47:44>> Yeah. Yeah, just to tag in on that. I I

2:47:47did see the your comments uh to um David

2:47:51on that. Could you um so and I think you

2:47:55just mentioned that the improvements

2:47:57cannot be included now. Um but my

2:48:01question would be how does staff propose

2:48:03to preserve and evaluate that

2:48:05recommendation for a future phase?

2:48:08of it.

2:48:36Um thank you for bearing with us. I

2:48:39think what um

2:48:43we will con we'll see how uh successful

2:48:46this project is and then we will

2:48:48re-evaluate and um there is a standing

2:48:52line item for further uh foothills park

2:48:55improvements which is already captured

2:48:58in our CIP in a later uh within that

2:49:015-year plan and um could be added at a

2:49:05later time if um that's needed to be

2:49:08incorpor incorporated.

2:49:10>> And let me ask you, do you think is this

2:49:12is the obstacle primarily

2:49:14construction cost, staff time, design

2:49:17and engineering work, environmental

2:49:19review, or

2:49:21>> what's needed for I guess additional

2:49:22>> all of the above.

2:49:23>> All of the above. Yes.

2:49:24>> Okay. So, it's a little bit more

2:49:26involved than what we Okay. But the key

2:49:28here is that

2:49:30>> it's not going to it will be something

2:49:31that um could be resurfaced at some

2:49:35future point in time. Okay. And come

2:49:37back to the commission with that. Okay,

2:49:39great. Good.

2:49:41>> Any Okay, Commissioner CL,

2:49:43>> one comment and a question. The comment

2:49:46is that the extension, this is for our

2:49:50information. It's not really a question

2:49:51for stuff, but you may answer. Uh the

2:49:55area

2:49:57that is further down for the dam

2:50:00is kind of really difficult to to build

2:50:03in and it would cost a lot. It's really

2:50:06a a wet a little wet land along the

2:50:08road. So, it's not easy to fill a

2:50:10wetland and it's not just oh just pave

2:50:14it. There is a lot of um complications

2:50:16to that. But that was just a comment. My

2:50:20question is back to the um commitment

2:50:24to build the project outside of the bird

2:50:28nesting season. So the staff report say

2:50:32says that we're planning to construct

2:50:35construct the project during the

2:50:36September to January non-breeding

2:50:39season. That's great. But the ordinance

2:50:42does not require that timing and since

2:50:46the project was approved by SQUA, if I

2:50:49remember correctly, it was exempt. So it

2:50:52didn't actually require mitigation for

2:50:55the nesting season. So, um I would like

2:50:59to know how do we make sure that this

2:51:02actually is constructed outside of the

2:51:05birding nesting season.

2:51:12We can since the PIO included with the

2:51:16staff report is a draft PIO, we can add

2:51:20that language to the PIO when we go to

2:51:22council for adoption.

2:51:24>> Wonderful. Thank you.

2:51:27Okay, maybe I missed this, but if I did,

2:51:29sorry, it's late. Um, the the uh 2023

2:51:33plan included bicycle parking at the

2:51:36interpreted center, uh, Archery Clan and

2:51:39Vista Hill. Is the bicycle parking still

2:51:42part of the project?

2:51:45If not, was it removed?

2:51:47>> Bike parking is not part of the current

2:51:51plan. However, I believe Mike can speak

2:51:54for it, but uh park rangers have

2:51:57included some bike parking. Mike, would

2:52:01you like to add to that?

2:52:03Yeah, the bike parking. We've added some

2:52:06bike racks both at the interpretive

2:52:08center and a couple of the main parking

2:52:11lot areas within Foothills in um

2:52:15congruent to

2:52:17the I think it was the ad hoc uh

2:52:20committee's recommendations a few years

2:52:22ago um for adding bicycle parking at all

2:52:26of our facilities. Um, so there's

2:52:29there's a couple bike racks located at a

2:52:32few key points, but it wasn't a part of

2:52:35uh if it was, I think we pulled it out

2:52:37because of we're duplicating work um

2:52:40between the ad hoc committee's

2:52:42recommendations and the improvement

2:52:44plan.

2:52:46>> Yeah, thanks for the memory jogger on

2:52:47that one. I was I was only on that one.

2:52:50So yeah, thank you. Otherwise, you would

2:52:52like and I forgot it.

2:52:54So uh my last question would be um how

2:52:56much authority would the ordinance give

2:52:59staff to modify

2:53:01the plan later? You know the or the

2:53:04ordinance says the improvement would

2:53:06generally consist of the listed elements

2:53:09and the attached plan is marked not for

2:53:12construction. Which which elements and

2:53:14locations would be fixed by adoption and

2:53:17what changes be made during the design

2:53:20without returning to the commission or

2:53:22the council?

2:53:32I think um it's that's an interesting

2:53:34question. I think the ordinance is what

2:53:38the city staff will be executing on. Um

2:53:42and I I but however locations I think

2:53:47Mega you want to maybe speak to? Yeah,

2:53:51the locations might be you know those

2:53:55are approximate locations when we do

2:53:57final design the locations of signs and

2:54:01some of those things that's why it is

2:54:03generally included in the PIO so we

2:54:06might need to make some changes based on

2:54:10design constraints or site constraints

2:54:13>> so you do have a little bit some

2:54:14flexibility that you're saying

2:54:16>> I believe so yeah Okay. All right.

2:54:21That's it from me. Anyone else? I again,

2:54:24good job. It was uh Oh, Commissioner

2:54:27Den,

2:54:29>> one last question. Um, so did we

2:54:33establish a baseline safety or visit

2:54:37visitor data now? then maybe you know

2:54:41you can come back and report um after

2:54:44implementation so we can keep tracking

2:54:47if those investments actually worked.

2:54:55I think um I think our park rangers will

2:54:59definitely be evaluating and will be

2:55:02able to provide updates to the parks and

2:55:04recck commission on the plan and as we

2:55:08re-evaluate for our capital plan moving

2:55:12forward. So definitely

2:55:15>> yeah I I understand we're working on a

2:55:17very tight budget. So, I would encourage

2:55:19our staff to leverage maybe a

2:55:22cooperative purchasing policy and if we

2:55:26have any best practices from other

2:55:29neighboring regional

2:55:31areas.

2:55:34>> Thank you. I one other question.

2:55:38>> Sure. That was not obviously not in the

2:55:41scope of this. It's just sort of related

2:55:43to prior discussions and I think it was

2:55:46when David was still on the commission.

2:55:47We were talking about the bathrooms at

2:55:49the front entrance and they were looked

2:55:51into and it turned out to be a much

2:55:53larger endeavor than was anticipated.

2:55:58And I I think it was it was not going to

2:56:02be worth the amount of effort that it

2:56:04was going to take at that time. I just

2:56:06wondered if that was something that came

2:56:07up as part of this discussion with the

2:56:09ad hoc or staff or was being explored

2:56:12out in another avenue.

2:56:17So we do have a hotel uh nature preserve

2:56:21restroom replacement CIP in future

2:56:24years. I believe it is in fiscal year 28

2:56:29through 2030 or 31.

2:56:34>> So at that time we will be evaluating

2:56:37replacement or refurbishment of these

2:56:40bathrooms. All three bathrooms are

2:56:43included in that CIP.

2:56:46>> Great. Thank you. I know it's not

2:56:47directly safety related, but I remember

2:56:49it came up in these discussions um in

2:56:52the past and so I just wanted to check

2:56:54on the status. Thank you.

2:56:56>> Thank you. Thank you. Thanks again for

2:56:58very informative um presentation. So

2:57:01what's needed from us at this point?

2:57:03>> We we need a to call a vote and if you

2:57:06can um Yeah, perfect. And I think

2:57:11commissioner Yeah. So we need a motion.

2:57:15Um a second and then a roll call. And I

2:57:19think capturing it sounds like with um

2:57:24one amendment to the PIO that we heard

2:57:27is just including the outside of the

2:57:32bird nesting season. um adding that to

2:57:35the draft is

2:57:37>> do I have a motion?

2:57:41>> So I'll move to approve the PIC with the

2:57:46amendment about the bird language to be

2:57:50included.

2:57:52>> Do I have a second?

2:57:54>> A second.

2:57:55>> Okay. You want to speak to your motion

2:57:57or

2:58:00either one of you?

2:58:02>> I think we've said what needs to be

2:58:04said. Okay. Thank you.

2:58:06>> I want to say something. I want to

2:58:07really appreciate stuff's work on this.

2:58:10They've been open to so many revisions

2:58:12and so many comments from so many

2:58:14people. That was quite u an effort and I

2:58:18really appreciate how attentive and how

2:58:21they came up with the revisions and

2:58:23walked the area with us and invested a

2:58:26lot of time a lot of effort. Thank you.

2:58:29>> Yeah, I think there was two one ad on

2:58:33was was it one ad hoc that was here on

2:58:35this?

2:58:36>> It wasn't an ad. It's leazison. Oh,

2:58:38sorry. It was so long ago. I don't

2:58:39remember.

2:58:40>> It was um first it was I think only um

2:58:46Jeff Rfields and then it was me too and

2:58:48then it was only me and then it was a

2:58:52lot of

2:58:52>> All right, we got to we got

2:58:53>> a lot of iterations.

2:58:55>> Okay, we go to vote then.

2:58:57>> Yeah.

2:58:57>> Okay. Um Commissioner [clears throat]

2:58:59Brown,

2:59:01>> yes.

2:59:03>> Um

2:59:05Chair Freeman,

2:59:06>> yes. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Axelrod,

2:59:10>> yes.

2:59:12Uh, Commissioner Klein House,

2:59:13>> yes.

2:59:15>> And Commissioner D,

2:59:16>> yes.

2:59:18>> Okay, that is uh 52.

2:59:22So, motion carries.

2:59:25All right, thank you.

2:59:29Okay, we'll move to the next item on the

2:59:31agenda, which is uh commissioner

2:59:34questions, comments,

2:59:36announcements of future meetings and

2:59:38agendas. Anything from commissioners of

2:59:41any announcements that you want to make

2:59:43to the commission?

2:59:45There'll be a no. So, we'll go to Sarah

2:59:48as we talk about future meetings and

2:59:52agendas.

2:59:54>> Um, great. So for next month we have on

2:59:58the slate if we can turn it around the

3:00:01uh we'll revisit the guidelines for um

3:00:04the topic that we discussed this evening

3:00:07for playgrounds

3:00:09um with a Titan criteria in addition to

3:00:13um aformational

3:00:17uh presentation

3:00:19uh that will be joint with staff along

3:00:22with the friends of PaloAlto parks um to

3:00:26to discuss and daylight the foothills

3:00:29improvements

3:00:31um for the exhibits within the

3:00:36interpretive center there. Um so those

3:00:39are the two items that we have uh slated

3:00:43for next meeting. Um, in addition in I

3:00:48[clears throat] know November we have

3:00:49quite a few that um we're looking at

3:00:53which is including uh a turf uh pilot

3:00:57turf natural grass uh turf pilot update

3:01:01in addition to a gsi

3:01:04um discussion a green storm water

3:01:07infrastructure project um that will be

3:01:12um discussed at uh on Briona's Park. Um

3:01:17there's also going to be a um new

3:01:22grouping. So I think we'll need to vote

3:01:25also for chair and vice chair um at that

3:01:29time. So I I those are the items that

3:01:34are slated and upcoming. And then once

3:01:36the new um commissioners are seated,

3:01:40we'll also need to discuss um if

3:01:43December will be a special meeting and

3:01:46moved up and who will be around for

3:01:49that. So um

3:01:53that's what we have for now.

3:01:55>> Think that pretty much covers it. And

3:01:59that could change. I mean, some of the

3:02:00things in November could change, but

3:02:02>> we think that um

3:02:04>> October we're in pretty good shape on

3:02:06that one.

3:02:07>> Okay. Are there any um public comments

3:02:11or items not on the agenda?

3:02:14>> There are no additional comments at this

3:02:15time.

3:02:17>> Okay. Any commission? Oh, I'm sorry.

3:02:20>> Just a request for another update on the

3:02:23um Sleuth Gates and what's happening. So

3:02:26if you can give it I get a lot of

3:02:29requests for that. So please another

3:02:31update.

3:02:33>> Yeah, we can include in the departmental

3:02:36report. We can include that in the

3:02:38departmental report.

3:02:45Okay. Um we're joined.