HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-18 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
August 18, 2015 8
Downtown Library 9 270 Forest Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Ed Lauing, Pat 13
Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Abbie Knopper 15
Others Present: Council Liaison Filseth 16
Staff Present: Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 18
19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
21
None. 22
23
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 24
25 None. 26 27 IV. BUSINESS: 28 29
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the July 28, 2015 Meeting. 30 31
Approval of the draft July 28, 2015 Minutes was moved by Vice Chair Markevitch and 32
seconded by Commissioner Hetterly. Passed 4-0 Knopper absent, Reckdahl and Ashlund 33
abstaining 34
35
2. Review of the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master 36
Plan. 37
38 Chair Reckdahl: MIG is here. Ellie, are you going to present? 39
Approved Minutes 1
APPROVED
40
Ellie Fiore: Yeah. 41
42
Rob de Geus: Let me give an introduction. Good to see everyone. I'm on my own 43
tonight. Daren Anderson is on a well-deserved vacation, so is Peter. It's just me and 44
Ellie here tonight. We have only one item on the agenda, and it relates to our Parks 45 Master Plan project. There's two things we hope to do today. One is the focus areas for 46
the workshop and the survey that we're going to put out. You've seen that a few times. 47
Thank you to the ad hoc committee that's been working with staff and MIG to refine that. 48
It's much better because of that. To finalize those 12 focus areas. Then look at the online 49
survey that we hope to put out next week if possible, so we can gather some data for the 50
workshops and the stakeholder meetings that we're putting together for later in 51
September. Those are the two objectives for this evening. Ellie's going to walk us 52
through both of those two items. 53
54
Commissioner Ashlund: Who was the ad hoc? 55
56
Mr. de Geus: The ad hoc is Commissioners Hetterly and Lauing and Reckdahl. We've 57
met two or three times. Ellie. 58
59
Ms. Fiore: As Rob said, we're going to walk through the staff report and your packet. As 60
you can see, you have a redline version now of the areas of focus list, that you've seen a 61
few times. This was done in consultation with the ad hoc, based on some input we 62
received from you at previous meetings and also in consultation with staff. We wanted to 63
float this in front of you one more time and see if you had any additional questions or 64 comments or if we're comfortable using these 12 to move forward. Again, these are the 65 structure we'll use in the prioritization exercise. 66 67
Commissioner Lauing: It's stated here, but I want to note that we added Number 12 68
which was discussed at the end of the last meeting. "Proactive approach to adding more 69
parks and open space lands" came up at the last meeting with Council Member Filseth as 70
well. We changed the batting order in certain places to mix it up a little bit. I understand 71
it's going to be mixed up even more when it gets to the public, so there's not any official 72
rankings here, or presumed rankings because there aren't any official rankings. 73
74
Mr. de Geus: Jen or Keith, do you have anything to add? 75
76
Chair Reckdahl: I didn't take notes at our last meeting, but I thought there were a couple 77
that we were going to combine. Did I misremember that? 78
79
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't remember that. 80
81
Approved Minutes 2
APPROVED
Mr. de Geus: I don't think we agreed to combine any, did we? I don't think. 82
83
Commissioner Hetterly: I do have some new comments. I have had my say a couple of 84
times, so if anybody else wants to go first. Nope, okay. On number 1, "improving and 85
enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community." This is in the 86
areas of focus. What you're meaning is maintaining and upgrading what we have. My 87 comment is about the example of replacing key facilities at Cubberley. That could be 88
confusing, and people might think that we mean replacing them elsewhere. That's not 89
consistent with this title heading. If that's what we mean, then maybe it goes in the last 90
focus. I would say something like "updating" or "upgrading" instead of "replacing" for 91
that example. I wonder if you don't want another example that's not quite as massive as 92
that. Maybe "improve tech connections in community centers." I don't know if there's 93
another example that needs to go there or if that could stand alone. I leave that up to the 94
Commission. On page 5, in the ad hoc we talked about that example of signs illustrating 95
exercises that can be completed using existing features. It was not something that came 96
up during the public outreach. We preferred to have that later in that listing of things. 97
On trails, I'd make it "loop trails" as opposed to "trails to and from a park." What we 98
meant was loop trails within a park. 99
100
Commissioner Ashlund: Which item was that? Could you ... 101
102
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm sorry. On number 5, "increasing health and wellness 103
opportunities in parks." 104
105
Commissioner Lauing: That's old 5. 106 107 Vice Chair Markevitch: You said page 5. Could you go to the redline version? 108 109
Commissioner Lauing: That's number 6 now, Jennifer. That's the batting order change. 110
111
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm sorry. Yeah, number 6. 112
113
Vice Chair Markevitch: Page 4, number 6. 114
115
Commissioner Hetterly: Page 2, number 6. 116
117
Vice Chair Markevitch: Page 2, number 6? 118
119
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. Sorry. The next one is page 2, number 8, "integrating 120
nature into Palo Alto parks." This is one we kept struggling with, every time we talked 121
about it. The problem I keep coming back to is as it's written now it's about integrating 122
nature into our neighborhood parks. We don't have anything in the whole list about 123
Approved Minutes 3
APPROVED
nature and open spaces. I wonder if we can't combine that into this by calling it the same 124
thing but saying "preserving, enhancing and providing access to nature in parks and open 125
spaces" and then adding as the first example "protecting delicate ecosystems" followed 126
by "creating bird habitat islands." I don't know if native plantings count as integrating 127
nature or not. You all can debate that. 128
129 Commissioner Crommie: I had a comment on this. Maybe I can chime in? 130
131
Commissioner Hetterly: Let me make sure I don't have any more on that one. Yeah, you 132
can chime in. 133
134
Commissioner Crommie: I like your suggestion, Commissioner Hetterly. I like native 135
plantings, but I was wondering if in addition to bird habitat—I don't know if we should 136
say islands. I wanted to say "bird, bee and butterfly habitat," because that's what we hear 137
is missing. It's those three: birds, bees and butterflies. Creating habitat for birds, bees 138
and butterflies. I don't know if we need to say "islands." I'd rather include those other 139
insects in that. I just wanted to say that was language I wanted to add there. I like what 140
you suggested as well. 141
142
Mr. de Geus: Can you repeat the first part you said? Protecting ... 143
144
Commissioner Hetterly: It's "preserving, enhancing and providing access to nature in 145
parks and open space." For example, "protecting delicate ecosystems" would be the first 146
one followed by "creating bird, bee and butterfly habitat." I had swapped educational 147
signage, because that had come up for drought-tolerant plants, but I don't feel strongly 148 about that. Finally "creating access to creeks in or adjacent to parks." 149 150 Commissioner Crommie: It's important to have the native plantings. I don't care if it 151
says "drought resistant" or not, but the native plantings are very important. 152
153
Commissioner Hetterly: "Improving access to the full range of recreation opportunities," 154
number 9, same page. The last sentence, "for example adapting existing programming 155
for people with physical disabilities or investing in targeted programs." I struggled with 156
this area of focus when we got into the elements, because it seems to focus on 157
programming. I didn't know if you wanted to include facilities and programming or just 158
programming. Once you include facilities, then you have some overlap with other areas 159
of focus. I don't know if you want to do that or not. On number 12, page 3, rephrase it to 160
be more clear of what kind of future purchases we're talking about. I would delete "for 161
future purchase" and insert "to purchase land for future parks or recreation facilities." 162
163
Commissioner Ashlund: Can you repeat your replacement? 164
165
Approved Minutes 4
APPROVED
Commissioner Hetterly: "To purchase land for future parks or recreation facilities." 166
That, of course, limits it for purchases, a little broader. I don't know if anyone else has an 167
opinion about that. 168
169
Commissioner Crommie: I want to have the sense that this includes community gardens. 170
I don't know if that falls into future parks and recreation. 171 172
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that falls into "increasing variety of things to do" or no. 173
174
Commissioner Crommie: That one has to do with targeting an existing park. We don't 175
know. We might need more space for other things. I don't want to limit it, unless you 176
think ... 177
178
Commissioner Hetterly: Community gardens could fit under parks or recreation 179
facilities. 180
181
Chair Reckdahl: It could fit under either one. 182
183
Commissioner Crommie: Gardening is a recreation. As long as we think it can fit, I'm 184
fine with it. 185
186
Chair Reckdahl: It's under our purview, and we're the Parks and Rec. This "parks and 187
recreation facilities" would be interpreted in the broadest sense. 188
189
Commissioner Crommie: Exactly. As long as we think that's the case, I'm happy with it. 190 I like that change. 191 192 Commissioner Hetterly: Those are—go ahead, Rob. 193
194
Mr. de Geus: Jen, you were working off the document that was in the packet. That's our 195
fault by the way. I should have had the redline in the packet. Sorry about that confusion. 196
I didn't catch your first one, because I was looking at the redline and you were working 197
off the other one. I want to be sure I got it. 198
199
Commissioner Hetterly: You mean on number 1? 200
201
Mr. de Geus: It was 1 or 2. 202
203
Commissioner Hetterly: It was number 1, wait, which is now number 2. 204
205
Mr. de Geus: On the redline? 206
207
Approved Minutes 5
APPROVED
Commissioner Hetterly: It was number 2. I was suggesting that we swap "updating" for 208
"replacing." Instead of "replacing key facilities at Cubberley," we're "updating" them. 209
To avoid confusion that you might be ... 210
211
Ms. Fiore: Replacing them also. 212
213 Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 214
215
Chair Reckdahl: I had a question, Commissioner Crommie. You were talking about the 216
native plantings. Is this native plantings for the plant purposes or to support native 217
creatures? 218
219
Commissioner Crommie: It's to support native creatures. They tend to have adapted to 220
native plants. 221
222
Chair Reckdahl: We should make sure that the wording includes the native creature 223
support if that's what you're driving at. 224
225
Commissioner Crommie: Do we need to specify that? It's already a very long sentence. 226
227
Commissioner Hetterly: Where are we? 228
229
Commissioner Crommie: It's on the nature (inaudible). 230
231
Chair Reckdahl: If the purpose is that you're worried about the native creatures, then we 232 should make sure that that's in there. 233 234 Commissioner Crommie: Okay. "Increasing native plantings for habitat." You can put 235
in "habitat." 236
237
Chair Reckdahl: Go ahead. 238
239
Commissioner Crommie: Commissioner Hetterly addressed all of mine except on 240
number 6. 241
242
Vice Chair Markevitch: Could you give the page number, please? 243
244
Commissioner Crommie: I'm talking about number 6. It's on page 2 on the redline 245
version. It's areas of focus, number 6, page 2. I hope I got the right one. Yes, I did. I 246
don't like the use of loop trails. I like trails, because it's more general. Loop trails are a 247
subset of trails. Some of our stakeholders that are concerned about animal habitat having 248
a sensitivity toward loop trails, because they tend to have a greater impact. I have learned 249
Approved Minutes 6
APPROVED
from that viewpoint that dead-end trails, going into a place and stopping and looking at 250
something, also serve a purpose. I wanted to have it general. I don't know if we should 251
debate it as a Commission. 252
253
Commissioner Hetterly: That's fine with me. I'm not going to fall on my sword over 254
loop trails. That's good. 255 256
Commissioner Crommie: Great. In other words, I like it the way it is. 257
258
Chair Reckdahl: The genesis of that was on the survey people did say that they wanted 259
loop trails. 260
261
Ms. Fiore: Loop trails came out very high. 262
263
Chair Reckdahl: That was something that people triggered on. 264
265
Commissioner Crommie: Isn't that a subset of trails? Do you think we're going to ignore 266
those? I don't think so. 267
268
Chair Reckdahl: I'm happy leaving it trails. Down the road, between the park staff and 269
us we'll determine whether we want loop trails or whether we want dead-ends. 270
271
Commissioner Crommie: Right. We put a lot of them in Byxbee Park. Then we had to 272
step back. That's also my perspective, that we went overboard in the last park we did this 273
with. 274 275 Commissioner Ashlund: We've looked a lot on number 8 on the redline. We increased 276 "bird" to say "birds, bees and butterflies." If we're talking about wildlife, it seems more 277
inclusive to say "habitat and native plantings for wildlife" or "native wildlife." I'm not an 278
expert in that area, but it seems more general to use that word. Possibly in the tail-end of 279
that sentence, "creating access to creeks," I wondered if creeks was one example. If we 280
wanted to be broader, just say "natural elements such as creeks." It's not necessary to say 281
"in or adjacent to parks," because the whole report is about parks. Creeks are just one 282
example of natural elements. 283
284
Chair Reckdahl: Other elements would be rock formations or something like that? 285
286
Commissioner Ashlund: It could be ... 287
288
Ms. Fiore: The Bay or other kinds of water. 289
290
Approved Minutes 7
APPROVED
Commissioner Ashlund: There would be other types, and I didn't want to just say creeks. 291
That is obviously a big, important one. On the following one on number 9 ... 292
293
Chair Reckdahl: I want to go back to that one. You're requesting that we get rid of 294
"creeks" or just say "natural features such as creeks"? 295
296 Commissioner Ashlund: "Natural elements such as creeks" or "including creeks" would 297
be a more inclusive statement. On number 9, the following one, right now it reads 298
"improving access to the whole range of recreation opportunities." It might be more 299
inclusive to say "improving access to nature and recreation activities" or "full range." 300
Right now it's "recreation opportunities," and it doesn't include access to nature. 301
302
Commissioner Hetterly: Can you elaborate on that more? Is it the headline that you're 303
having trouble with? 304
305
Commissioner Lauing: Is it the headline or the copy? 306
307
Commissioner Ashlund: It's the title. It feels limited. 308
309
Commissioner Hetterly: Outdoor activities in nature aren't recreational activities? 310
311
Commissioner Ashlund: In the description? 312
313
Commissioner Hetterly: In the title. 314
315 Commissioner Ashlund: I'm reading the redline. It says "number 9, improving access to 316 the full range of recreation opportunities." 317 318
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. Outdoor nature experiences are included in recreation 319
opportunities, in the full range of recreation opportunities. 320
321
Commissioner Ashlund: When I read "recreation opportunities," I think inside a facility. 322
It doesn't sound to me like it implies nature, outdoors. It doesn't seem like it implies 323
outdoors. It seems like access to recreation is a ramp or an elevator but not necessarily 324
outdoor activities as well. That's what it implies. I'm open to that if you disagree. My 325
perception of it makes me think a rec facility, an indoor rec facility. 326
327
Commissioner Crommie: When you read the description, it does say you can enjoy 328
parks. I wonder if we can put "open space" into that description. 329
330
Commissioner Ashlund: Maybe "access to nature and recreation opportunities" in the 331
title would make more sense. The way people typically go through the survey is they 332
Approved Minutes 8
APPROVED
scan quickly over the descriptions, but they're making their priority decisions based on 333
the title. 334
335
Commissioner Hetterly: The "full range of recreation opportunities" is fully inclusive of 336
everything. 337
338 Mr. de Geus: What if we say "parks and recreation opportunities"? Is that too much 339
there? 340
341
Commissioner Hetterly: That's fine. 342
343
Commissioner Ashlund: That's good. Then I don't have the sense that it's indoors. 344
That's what comes to mind when I see "rec." In the example, I would remove the word 345
"physical" in front of "disabilities." It says "adapting existing programming for people 346
with ... ." Things like ramps are the most common accommodation that's already 347
available. If we're improving our access, then I would say "disabilities" blanket 348
statement, because there's lots of other accommodations that aren't physical. 90 percent 349
of disabilities are not physical. That would be a better example if it were without that 350
word. That's it. 351
352
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Markevitch. 353
354
Vice Chair Markevitch: On page 1, number 2, I'd like to add something. "Maintaining a 355
mix of programmable space for indoor sports including gyms and fitness as well as 356
gatherings, classes, theater and community programs." We have two theaters in this town 357 that we use for classes and for live performances that are not being spelled out in here. 358 While they don't fall under our purview, they do fall under recreation. I want to make 359 sure that theater is in there, so it doesn't get lost. 360
361
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Lauing, do you have any comments? 362
363
Commissioner Lauing: I'm good. 364
365
Chair Reckdahl: I'm good. Do you have any questions for us on this or do you want to 366
move on to the next topic? 367
368
Ms. Fiore: We can move on. That was very helpful. Thank you. 369
370
Mr. de Geus: To go back to Commissioner Markevitch's point. If we put "theater," we 371
probably should put "arts" or "arts and theatre." 372
373
Ms. Fiore: What about "performing arts?" 374
Approved Minutes 9
APPROVED
375
Commissioner Crommie: "Arts" is good. 376
377
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. "Performing and visual arts." That's inclusive of both. 378
379
Chair Reckdahl: Are you happy with "arts" by itself or do you want "theater and arts"? 380 381
Mr. de Geus: It's true we do have theater ... 382
383
Vice Chair Markevitch: "Theater and arts." 384
385
Mr. de Geus: ... but we also have arts in our recreation facility. 386
387
Vice Chair Markevitch: "Theater and arts," because they are not one and the same. You 388
can have art; you can have theater; they can combine but not always. 389
390
Ms. Fiore: Moving on to the online prioritization challenge. I believe this link all went 391
out to you this week. We did want a quick run through of how it looks and how it works 392
and get your feedback on the exercise itself, again with the hope that we can get it online 393
and start promoting it next week. It would be up for about a month, going a little bit past 394
our proposed community workshop date in September. Briefly, there's an introduction. 395
396
Commissioner Ashlund: Ellie, on the prior pages. Are the comments that we sent to 397
Peter going to be received in time, before launch? 398
399 Ms. Fiore: Sure, yes. Is there something you commented on that you didn't see 400 reflected? 401 402
Commissioner Ashlund: "Prioritiziation." 403
404
Ms. Fiore: That would be a good one. 405
406
Commissioner Ashlund: I sent him a couple of suggestions. As long as they will be 407
received (crosstalk). 408
409
Ms. Fiore: There's plenty of time to code all of them. Thank you for pointing that out. 410
411
Commissioner Hetterly: Ellie, I have some comments on the areas of focus that fall 412
under each element. Do you want to go through this first and then ... 413
414
Ms. Fiore: Let me do a run through so we have the big picture. The power on this laptop 415
might run out at some point. This is the introduction. The idea is that every person is 416
Approved Minutes 10
APPROVED
given 25 virtual dollars. We're forcing them to make some decisions about how they 417
would spend them. We structured the areas of focus by the three elements that we've 418
been working with: parks, trails and open spaces; recreation facilities; and recreation 419
programs. For each of those three, the first exercise is people are given $5. I believe 420
there's six areas of focus within each. That was intentional, that you would get fewer 421
dollars than there are options. We want to force some decisions. We want to force 422 people to prioritize and give something a zero; otherwise, we could end up with equal 423
votes on every single option. Some of them are repeated where we thought they were 424
applicable across the three elements. We can discuss that further. Essentially you're 425
repeating this exercise three times with $5. The final is the second layer. The 426
prioritization exercise is the whole list of 12, and you get $10. On this last page, we 427
didn't want to overwhelm people with text, so we hid the descriptions. If you want to 428
read them again, you click on "hide" and here's that full list of 12. Then here they are 429
again. You can do any combination of dollars. Right now it's set up to do whole dollars. 430
We can break that into cents if we want to go there. The system will not allow you to 431
spend more than $5, $5, $5 and $10, for the total of $25. The last screen is simply an 432
open-ended comment field and then sign-up for our email list. That's the big picture. I 433
don't know if you have comments either on the content or the usability as you went 434
through it or anything else. 435
436
Chair Reckdahl: When I came through, I had $3 left and I wanted to split it equally 437
between two. It wasn't bad. It forced me to go back and look and say, "If I have to give 438
an extra $1 to one of these, which one do I have to give it to?" It worked out for me, but 439
my gut instinct when I ranked them was that the $5 didn't give me enough resolution. I'm 440
not sure if I want to advocate changing that $5 to $10 to get more resolution or whether 441 we like it. One of the things that's nice about the $5 is it forces you to have some zeroes. 442 443 Commissioner Hetterly: I did dollars and cents and it took it just fine. 444
445
Commissioner Lauing: You broke the system. 446
447
Chair Reckdahl: I tried to do dollars and cents, and it wouldn't let me. 448
449
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's because she did it first and broke it. 450
451
Chair Reckdahl: I'm curious what other people's thoughts are. Do you like the 452
coarseness of having $5 for six items and force some zeroes? 453
454
Vice Chair Markevitch: Yes. 455
456
Commissioner Lauing: I have a broader question than that. I had quite a negative 457
reaction to the idea of this being dollars, particularly $5. Folks are going to take it 458
Approved Minutes 11
APPROVED
literally and think about this as the parks and recreation budget. Not that it's $5. They're 459
going to be thinking more on "What can I get for a small amount of money and get a lot 460
of stuff accomplished." As we've said many times before in this setting, if we need a $20 461
million something 20 years from now, we have to start planning for it now. If there isn't 462
money for that, it doesn't matter. We have to figure out a way to make it happen. I'm 463
concerned that there's going to be—I don't want to say confusion, but it's going to get so 464 focused on the amount you have to spend, that it's not going to get as much "What do we 465
really need over the next 20 years, not the next 2 years." I'd welcome my colleagues' 466
comments on that. 467
468
Chair Reckdahl: You'd prefer points instead of dollars? 469
470
Commissioner Lauing: A weighting system that isn't specifically monetary. 471
472
Commissioner Hetterly: I liked pennies better than dollars for that reason. It gave me a 473
different feeling when I was doing it. Dollars made it feel more like ... 474
475
Commissioner Crommie: How about points? 476
477
Commissioner Ashlund: I liked the dollar analogy. It was fun and simple. The only 478
thing is it doesn't say the word "virtual." At first glance, I thought, "This is like an 479
incentive for (inaudible) an actual $25." That was a fun and approachable way of 480
prioritizing. 481
482
Vice Chair Markevitch: I liked the $5. 483 484 Commissioner Hetterly: Ed's point about the next 20 years is important. There should be 485 something upfront about as we're planning for the next 20 years, this isn't what should we 486
do first or in the next year or if you had $5 to spend today, would you spend it on this. 487
488
Ms. Fiore: That's a good point. I appreciate the idea that it should be more abstract. 489
We'd been talking about the pennies in a jar exercise for a while now, and that's where it 490
started. Then we rounded up to dollars. We could also name them something like "Palo 491
Alto bucks" or something to make it sound more like a game piece or a point system than 492
a monetary amount. 493
494
Mr. de Geus: I brought this one up. I remember an award that an East Bay city had 495
received when they were going through budget cuts, and they had pennies. It was a 496
penny for your thought, and they had this whole theme around it. It was specifically 497
because there are limited resources. That's why they used money, but it was pennies. It 498
wasn't quite as real in some way. I'd prefer pennies too by the way. It's a little easier, a 499
little more fun even. 500
Approved Minutes 12
APPROVED
501
Commissioner Hetterly: Then nobody can try to do cents, partial payments. 502
503
Commissioner Lauing: I'm concerned that people are going to think about what's this 504
really going to cost if we do X versus Y. That could distort it. Obviously we're trying to 505
take out any possible distortion to get true votes of feelings from the community. 506 507
Mr. de Geus: Should we be thinking about costs to some extent? 508
509
Commissioner Lauing: I don't know that the public should be, because they don't know 510
what some of these things cost. That's because they're not involved in it. What we saw at 511
the dog parks last public outreach, there wasn't an awareness of how much fencing would 512
cost to put up multiple parks and so on. I'm not sure there's enough knowledge there to 513
be voting real dollars like you have to do with the budget. 514
515
Commissioner Ashlund: It's not real dollars. It is prioritization. The dollar is just a 516
metaphor in this case. 517
518
Mr. de Geus: If they thought this was important, this was the biggest need, then they 519
would put all five pennies or all $5 in that. It's not real dollars; it could be $20 million 520
what that's going to cost. 521
522
Commissioner Lauing: What Commissioner Hetterly suggested would be helpful; 523
upfront say "You can weight important things that way, because this is a plan for 20 years 524
from now." I don't know that you'd have to go into details about we can raise an extra 525 bond measure or something like that. I don't think so. 526 527 Ms. Fiore: We can add a couple of sentences that accomplish both; emphasizing that it's 528
hypothetical dollars and, as you said, talking about the planning horizon, not that this is a 529
fiscal exercise. 530
531
Commissioner Lauing: Just say it's a weighting exercise, not purely a budget exercise. 532
That's the way to couch it. I still vote for pennies instead of dollars. 533
534
Chair Reckdahl: The thing that's nice is that people do have that experience of going into 535
a store with a limited amount of cash and saying, "What should I buy?" Having either 536
pennies or dollars does relate to that's the issue. If we had an infinite budget, half these 537
problems would not be there. Part of this is due to our limited budget. 538
539
Commissioner Ashlund: I don't think they're going to think $5 is real budgetary dollars, 540
because it's so small. That seems clear that it's a metaphor for prioritization. 541
542
Approved Minutes 13
APPROVED
Commissioner Crommie: I agree. I get turned off by pennies. It seems silly. I agree 543
with Commissioner Ashlund that no one really thinks that that buys anything that was on 544
this list. 545
546
Commissioner Lauing: What does it do to the survey if you do a "5, 4, 3, 2, 1?" 547
548 Mr. de Geus: It makes it less interesting to fill out. It adds a little bit of a fun component 549
too. As Commissioner Reckdahl said, people are used to evaluating how they spend their 550
resources, their money, and thinking about it a little bit. That way adds value to the 551
experience of filling out the survey, recognizing that we can't fund everything that we 552
want. 553
554
Chair Reckdahl: The thing I don't like about "5, 4, 3, 2, 1" is that if there's one thing 555
that's head and shoulders above everything, you want to be able to put it all on one and 556
say, "This is really important to me." Conversely, if something's not important to me, I 557
can zero it out. I don't have to give it a "1." I can give it a hard zero or give two of them 558
a hard zero. 559
560
Commissioner Hetterly: That's a good point. I have a whole pile of comments on this. 561
(crosstalk). 562
563
Ms. Fiore: On this page? 564
565
Mr. de Geus: I don't think we have any consensus on this. It doesn't seem like it. 566
Pennies, dollars, points. 567 568 Commissioner Crommie: Is anyone here in favor of points? 569 570
Commissioner Lauing: I could be. 571
572
Commissioner Crommie: If it was versus dollars is what you're saying? 573
574
Commissioner Lauing: Probably. I don't think it's a major point. We want to make sure 575
we get the right results. I'm not arguing about whether they're drachma or shekels. We're 576
trying to get ... 577
578
Commissioner Crommie: Chips? 579
580
Commissioner Lauing: Chips, yeah. 581
582
Chair Reckdahl: As long as we say virtual or hypothetical dollars, people will get the 583
drift that this is a point system. I do like the concept, because a lot of these things are 584
Approved Minutes 14
APPROVED
budgetary. If you are applying priorities, you're applying priorities on a budget level. 585
Dollars are not misleading. 586
587
Commissioner Lauing: That's exactly why I brought it up. If we really need something 588
that costs $10 million, then we need to figure out a way to get that. If that's something 589
that, say, senior citizens need 15 years from now, I don't want to say it doesn't matter. It's 590 a big deal, but we have to make sure we solve for that need even though it's the most 591
expensive thing on the list. I'm making this up; this is hypothetical. I wouldn't want 592
folks to say, "Let's pick a few cheap things, because I know we can afford that." That's 593
the distortion I'm concerned about in the survey. 594
595
Commissioner Ashlund: The money's left out of it. The five random dollars or points 596
that they're distributing, there is no mention of budget. Are you concerned that they 597
should know budgets to make decisions? 598
599
Commissioner Lauing: No. I'm saying they should do a weighting system with regards 600
to budget. That's basically what I'm saying. 601
602
Commissioner Ashlund: The budget's irrelevant. When I have $5 to play with and I put 603
$2 or $3 here, I am weighting it. I said this is more important so I'm putting more of my 604
money here. This is less important, so I'm putting less or zero here. 605
606
Commissioner Lauing: I don't think we need to go to the mat on this one. I was just 607
raising a concern for discussion. 608
609 Vice Chair Markevitch: Are we sticking with the $5? A show of hands. 610 611 Commissioner Lauing: With upfront copy to describe the weighting? 612
613
Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah. 614
615
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. Hypothetical dollars, weighted exercise. 616
617
Chair Reckdahl: I don't have strong feelings of pennies versus dollars, but some type of 618
currency unit would probably be a good thing. 619
620
Mr. de Geus: The thing about dollars is you can do the $1.50. If you get stuck on the 621
end, you can split it up. It's hard to do that with pennies. People won't naturally ... 622
623
Commissioner Crommie: What's the problem splitting it up? I don't see. 624
625
Mr. de Geus: If it's pennies, it's hard to do it. 626
Approved Minutes 15
APPROVED
627
Commissioner Crommie: I'm saying why can't you say $1.50? 628
629
Mr. de Geus: You can. 630
631
Commissioner Hetterly: That's what he's saying. He's saying that's the benefit of the 632 dollars. 633
634
Commissioner Crommie: Oh, okay. I agree with that. I like that. I didn't get to do it. 635
We should be able to use dollars and cents. It should be designed to accept that. 636
637
Mr. de Geus: We'll have to check it. When Keith tried it, it didn't work. When Jen tried 638
it ... 639
640
Commissioner Ashlund: You tried it and it wouldn't take it? 641
642
Chair Reckdahl: It wouldn't take it. Maybe it was limited to three characters. I tried to 643
do "1.50," and it wouldn't get that zero in. 644
645
Commissioner Hetterly: That's what I did to, but I didn't submit it. 646
647
Chair Reckdahl: I didn't either. 648
649
Commissioner Hetterly: I went to the next page. It let me go to the next page. 650
651 Chair Reckdahl: It wouldn't get all my characters in there. 652 653 Ms. Fiore: We'll double check. It should be coded either way. 654
655
Chair Reckdahl: This was using IE, so maybe there were some issues. Did you have any 656
more to talk about here or do we want to move on to the questions? 657
658
Ms. Fiore: No. I think we can move on to other comments. 659
660
Commissioner Hetterly: I have (crosstalk). 661
662
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly gets first crack at this. 663
664
Commissioner Hetterly: On this page, I would add at the end of that first paragraph "for 665
more information about the Master Plan process and what we've learned so far, click here 666
to go to the website." 667
668
Approved Minutes 16
APPROVED
Chair Reckdahl: That's good. You're saying on this page that's up on the screen right 669
now? 670
671
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. At the end of the first paragraph. On the end of the second 672
paragraph, where will you spend your money, I'd say "where will you invest your 673
money." That's a word choice. The introduction page, I had a lot of comments. Starting 674 with the third paragraph, I thought this was a little—I don't know what I thought it was. I 675
didn't like it. Some alternatives for this third paragraph in each of these elements. 676
Instead of saying "we're going to make recommendations in a variety of areas and these 677
are the areas," I'd say "for each of these elements, we've identified areas of focus that 678
generally describe types of goals, investments for that element" and then go on to say 679
"these areas of focus are drawn from earlier input ... ." I can give you (crosstalk) or two. 680
681
Ms. Fiore: Great. I like that. 682
683
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm just saying them so if other folks don't like them, we cannot 684
do it. The last sentence, I would replace entirely with "your input will help us evaluate 685
how much emphasis to give each area of focus as we begin to prioritize recommendations 686
for future projects, programs and investments." I was worried as I read this that it was 687
going to create confusion about what's an area, what's a focus, what's an element. I 688
wanted to be a little more clear about what each was. For the next paragraph, for this 689
challenge and before you go to each element, I'd insert "you will be asked to allocate 690
limited resources among the various areas of focus." Then a new sentence, "each element 691
will be explored ... ." That was all I have on that page. My next issues were about the 692
areas of focus under each element. Keith, should I go on to that? 693 694 Chair Reckdahl: Yep, please do. 695 696
Commissioner Hetterly: Under "parks, trails and open space," it's important to include 697
area number 5, "increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks for all ages and 698
abilities." That ... 699
700
Commissioner Crommie: What page on this one? 701
702
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm on page 4, where it's prioritization by element. Page 4 of 703
the redline, under that first element, parks, trails and open space, I want to talk about 704
which ... 705
706
Commissioner Crommie: You're back to that. 707
708
Commissioner Hetterly: ... six or seven areas of focus should be included. 709
710
Approved Minutes 17
APPROVED
Commissioner Crommie: You're on this redline. 711
712
Ms. Fiore: You'd like to add back number 5. 713
714
Vice Chair Markevitch: You're on page what? 715
716 Commissioner Hetterly: I thought this was the only document. I'm on page 4. 717
"Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks for all ages and abilities" that's 718
crossed out but should stay. Maybe remove "improving access to the full range of 719
recreation opportunities." There's overlap between those two. I was torn about where to 720
put them, because I wanted to add in ... 721
722
Commissioner Crommie: Age? 723
724
Commissioner Hetterly: Oh, no, no. I wanted to re-add number 5 which puts us to seven 725
instead of six. In that context, I thought we could eliminate "improving access to the full 726
range of recreation opportunities," because we have "all ages and abilities" in the 727
"increased variety of things" topic. Under "recreation facilities," we have to add in area 728
of focus number 4, "distributing park activities and experiences across the city." That's 729
where we get into community gardens, pools and that kind of thing. 730
731
Chair Reckdahl: You're inserting this into number 2? 732
733
Commissioner Hetterly: I wanted to add it to "recreation facilities" as a seventh item. 734
Again, with the same question of can we eliminate nine since we have five in that section. 735 Is everybody with me? 736 737 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. Makes sense so far. 738
739
Commissioner Crommie: Will you restate number 4 that you want to put in? 740
741
Commissioner Hetterly: The one I want to add to "recreation facilities" is "distributing 742
park activities and experiences across the city." That's about distribution; it's not just 743
about parks. It's distribution of everything. That needs to appear in both of those. The 744
same comment under "recreation programs." That number 4, "distributing activities and 745
experiences across the city," should appear in all three elements. For the "recreation 746
programs," number 5 and number 11 have a lot of overlap. I would get rid of number 5, 747
and maybe change number 11 to "trying out new types of programs, classes, events and 748
activities for all ages and abilities." 749
750
Ms. Fiore: Can you say that one more time? 751
752
Approved Minutes 18
APPROVED
Commissioner Hetterly: I would add "for all ages and abilities" at the end of number 11, 753
if we were to take out number 5. 754
755
Mr. de Geus: We should change that as the title of the area of focus for number 11? 756
757
Commissioner Hetterly: Mm-hmm. 758 759
Mr. de Geus: Ages and ability. 760
761
Chair Reckdahl: I have an issue with number 5. The difference between number 5 and 762
number 9, there is some overlap there. I don't like that the title, at least to me, "for all 763
ages and abilities" echoes what number 9 is. If we deleted that phrase, "for all ages and 764
abilities," in the title, would that make it more representative? You're saying "increasing 765
the variety of things to do in existing parks." 766
767
Commissioner Crommie: We had that added if we're taking out "improving access." 768
What Commissioner Hetterly recommended was under "parks, trails and open space" if 769
we take out number 9. If we're taking out that, we have to comment on abilities 770
probably. 771
772
Commissioner Hetterly: I think so too. 773
774
Commissioner Crommie: Access implies that. Commissioner Reckdahl, are you saying 775
you also want to leave number 9 or do you agree that we can remove number 9 and edit 776
number 5? They were linked. 777 778 Chair Reckdahl: If we go back to the list of the 12, do we need 5 and 9? Can we 779 combine them into a single one? 780
781
Commissioner Crommie: That's what Commissioner Hetterly recommended. 782
783
Commissioner Hetterly: No, that's not what I recommended. 784
785
Chair Reckdahl: She's talking about the sub-listing. 786
787
Commissioner Crommie: I'm sorry. I'm now confused. I thought I was tracking with 788
you. Under "parks, trails and open space," Commissioner Hetterly wanted to remove 789
number 9 and leave number 5. 790
791
Commissioner Hetterly: I do, but I don't want to eliminate number 9 altogether from the 792
whole list of 12. 793
794
Approved Minutes 19
APPROVED
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, okay. That's what I assumed. Can you present your 795
idea again? 796
797
Chair Reckdahl: If we go back to the list of 12, in an ideal world 12 would not be the 798
number I would pick. What would be an important number of areas of focus? I would 799
not pick 12. When you're looking at this, are there any combined? Again, 5 and 9 do 800 have some overlap. Five is parks; 9 is recreation. We're trying to support things for 801
everybody. We want to remove access. We want to do a variety of things, not just the 802
same old, same old. 803
804
Commissioner Hetterly: Five is parks and facilities, having the spaces that can 805
accommodate a variety of things. Whereas, 9 is much more about programming, so that 806
we have programming that accommodates people with different physical programmatic 807
language and financial situations. That's the way I was looking at it. 808
809
Commissioner Lauing: Even if it got down from 12 to 11, that's not material. I'm not 810
sure it's worth fighting for. 811
812
Chair Reckdahl: No. 813
814
Commissioner Crommie: Eleven isn't as nice a number in a way. You'd have to get it 815
down to ten, then we'd be struggling. 816
817
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's that odd number thing. 818
819 Commissioner Crommie: Most lists aren't 11 things. I don't know. It's not that big of a 820 deal. I agree that by eliminating it from 12 to 11, does that help you, Commissioner 821 Reckdahl? 822
823
Chair Reckdahl: It's not a silver bullet. To me this list is long. I'm trying to say is there 824
a way of simplifying it, so people who are doing this don't get overwhelmed. I agree 825
there's not 100 percent overlap between the two. In the Venn diagram, there is a little 826
overlap there. 827
828
Mr. de Geus: It's more manageable in the survey when it's split up. You don't see all 12 829
all the time. You just see six when you're thinking about "parks, trails and open space," 830
and then six for "recreation facilities." You see them all at the end. 831
832
Commissioner Hetterly: That is the benefit of having it split up first, so you don't ever 833
see the full list until you've already mastered what they are. 834
835
Mr. de Geus: That helps a lot. 836
Approved Minutes 20
APPROVED
837
Chair Reckdahl: That's true. I agree with that. If you take little nibbles, then ... . 838
Commissioner Hetterly, can you go through and list the numbers that you want in each of 839
the three? 840
841
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. I'll have to compare because I have different lists. For 842 "parks, trails and open space," I want to have number ... 843
844
Chair Reckdahl: You're using the redline numbers? 845
846
Commissioner Crommie: Here. I wrote notes. 847
848
Commissioner Hetterly: I got it. Number 3, number 4, number 5, number 7, number 8 849
and number 12 are what I want to have in the first element. 850
851
Chair Reckdahl: You are eliminating 9 and adding in 5. 852
853
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 854
855
Chair Reckdahl: Then "recreation facilities." 856
857
Commissioner Hetterly: "Recreation facilities," I'd like to see number 1, number 2, 858
number 5, number 6, number 7 and number 4. 859
860
Chair Reckdahl: We're getting rid of 9 and adding 4. 861 862 Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 863 864
Commissioner Crommie: And with the edit. Oh, I see. 865
866
Commissioner Hetterly: The edit is later. Under "recreation programs," I would do 867
number 2, number 5 ... 868
869
Commissioner Crommie: You said before you want to get rid of that one. No? 870
871
Commissioner Hetterly: Hang on. 872
873
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, you eliminated number 5. 874
875
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah, I want to get rid of that one. Yes, thank you. Number 2, 876
number 6. 877
878
Approved Minutes 21
APPROVED
Commissioner Crommie: Add 4. 879
880
Commissioner Hetterly: Add 4. Number 9, number 10 and number 11, adding "for all 881
ages and abilities" at the end of 11. 882
883
Chair Reckdahl: The last one, we are getting rid of 5 and adding 4. 884 885
Commissioner Crommie: And then there's an edit on 11. 886
887
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. Wherever 11 shows up, we need to add that additional language. 888
889
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 890
891
Chair Reckdahl; Including the whole list? 892
893
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. I had some final words, snippy stuff. Should I go ahead 894
with that? 895
896
Chair Reckdahl: Yes, please. 897
898
Commissioner Reckdahl: On every element, when you say you have $5 to allocate 899
across the six areas, you want to make sure it's the right number of areas and that they're 900
in the same order as they are presented in the descriptions. 901
902
Ms. Fiore: Above, yeah. 903 904 Commissioner Hetterly: I would call it "areas of focus." Always say "areas of focus;" 905 otherwise, people may do the same thing we did and say "What's an area and what's an 906
area of focus?" After that first sentence, I would move up the first sentence in the bottom 907
part, but change it a little. It would be "you have $5 to allocate across the following six 908
areas of focus. The dollars and cents you allocate," assuming we're going to allow them 909
to do cents, "to an area of focus, represent the portion of the available resources you 910
would like directed to that particular area." The second paragraph would start with "you 911
can distribute money in any way you'd like, but the sum of your responses cannot exceed 912
the available budget." Does that make sense? 913
914
Ms. Fiore: It does. 915
916
Commissioner Hetterly: My last thing is on the back under "final thoughts." Two 917
questions here. First is the easier one. You ask if you'd like to be added to the 918
notification list for the in-person prioritization workshop, why would we want people 919
Approved Minutes 22
APPROVED
who took the survey online to be invited to join the workshop? It seems like we're 920
inviting duplicative input. 921
922
Ms. Fiore: We can't exclude them. 923
924
Commissioner Hetterly: We can't exclude them, but why would we actively recruit them 925 if we already have their input? That's my question. 926
927
Ms. Fiore: We can make it more general. "If you'd like to be added to the notification 928
list for workshops and updates." 929
930
Chair Reckdahl: Can you talk about what's going to happen at the workshops? Do you 931
have that planned out yet? 932
933
Ms. Fiore: It's essentially a parallel exercise, but using worksheets instead of what's in 934
front of you now. 935
936
Chair Reckdahl: It'll be mimicking what was online? 937
938
Ms. Fiore: Exactly. 939
940
Vice Chair Markevitch: I would leave that off. I wouldn't invite it. They're going to 941
hear about the meetings. 942
943
Mr. de Geus: Maybe "if you want updates on the Parks, Recreation ... 944 945 Vice Chair Markevitch: Leave it at "updates." 946 947
Commissioner Hetterly: If you want to be on the list for future updates on the Plan. The 948
final thing I was struggling with. As you guys, Ellie, have been telling us all along, as 949
soon as you give examples, then you raise issues of "I don't like that example, but I like 950
this example. What I want isn't listed in the examples. What does that mean? I'm not 951
going to get what I want." I wonder if we can add something in this final thought section 952
that says it's tricky offering survey questions with hypothetical examples. If a particular 953
example gave you pause though you would otherwise strongly support that area of a 954
focus, feel free to elaborate in the space below. I know you hate that. 955
956
Commissioner Crommie: It's the lawyer in you, in a way. It's good thinking, but it will 957
confuse people potentially. 958
959
Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah, I agree. 960
961
Approved Minutes 23
APPROVED
Commissioner Hetterly: Alternatively, I would suggest ... 962
963
Chair Reckdahl: Can you (inaudible) what we're talking about right now, so we can see 964
what the exact language is right now? 965
966
Commissioner Crommie: It's also on the last page of our handout. 967 968
Commissioner Lauing: Don't worry. We don't have to tabulate that; they have to 969
tabulate that. 970
971
Commissioner Hetterly: My alternative suggestion would be to throw it up at the 972
beginning somewhere, when you talk about how we're going to ask them to allocate 973
limited resources among various models, we've provided hypothetical examples. 974
975
Vice Chair Markevitch: You're lawyering again. 976
977
Commissioner Hetterly: I am. 978
979
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's adding a layer of complexity that some people might just 980
give up. 981
982
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah? 983
984
Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah. Keep it simple. 985
986 Commissioner Hetterly: You don't want to hold their hand and say, "Don't worry if all 987 your stuff is not on here. This is just hypothetical"? 988 989
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's what the last sentence is. If you have any other—I can't 990
read it. 991
992
Commissioner Crommie: Use the space below for other ideas, comments or questions 993
about the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. 994
995
Vice Chair Markevitch: I like it. 996
997
Ms. Fiore: In my experience, whenever you give an open-ended opportunity, people are 998
going to put in whatever their pet project is or whatever their number 1 idea is regardless 999
of how you phrase it. We will get that out of this. 1000
1001
Commissioner Hetterly: If they read their first area of focus and they think bathrooms 1002
are the worst investment the city could possibly make, but they would love to have 1003
Approved Minutes 24
APPROVED
drinking water in every park, are they going to say, "Forget it. This is a stupid survey. 1004
I'm not going to answer this, because their options force me to vote for something that I 1005
don't want to vote for." If you give them a little blurb at the beginning that says the 1006
examples are ... 1007
1008
Ms. Fiore: Illustrative. 1009 1010
Commissioner Hetterly: ... examples. 1011
1012
Chair Reckdahl: You will have space at the end ... 1013
1014
Commissioner Hetterly: To comment. 1015
1016
Ms. Fiore: Previewing the open-ended. 1017
1018
Commissioner Hetterly: Then maybe they will do the survey, instead of saying "Stupid 1019
city people." 1020
1021
Vice Chair Markevitch: That makes sense, what Commissioner Reckdahl said. 1022
1023
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm good with that. 1024
1025
Commissioner Crommie: We'll also leave a comment space. You want a qualifier, an 1026
explanation. 1027
1028 Commissioner Lauing: A hand holder. 1029 1030 Commissioner Hetterly: Up front is better. A hand holder, yeah. That's it. Thank you 1031
for indulging me. 1032
1033
Chair Reckdahl: Other comments? 1034
1035
Commissioner Ashlund: If I captured this all correctly, I'm a little bit worried. I don't 1036
want to lose the accessibility for some of these areas. I like the deletions and the 1037
additions that you did in the groupings, Commissioner Hetterly. On the "parks, trails and 1038
open space" grouping, we've eliminated accessibility altogether from that grouping by 1039
removing number 9. 1040
1041
Commissioner Hetterly: We still have number 5. We've added back in number 5. 1042
1043
Commissioner Ashlund: We cut off the tail-end of number 5. 1044
1045
Approved Minutes 25
APPROVED
Commissioner Hetterly: No, no. We left it on. 1046
1047
Chair Reckdahl: No. They scoffed at that suggestion. 1048
1049
Commissioner Ashlund: You kept it there? 1050
1051 Commissioner Hetterly: Right. What's redlined in that first section, number 5, will be 1052
reinstated as written. 1053
1054
Ms. Fiore: If I understood correctly, the changes that Commissioner Hetterly suggested, 1055
the phrase "all ages and abilities" appears in each element, but the word "access" does 1056
not. 1057
1058
Commissioner Ashlund: I've lost track a little bit. If we remove number 9 from that first 1059
grouping, "improving access to the full range of recreation opportunities," it seems like it 1060
would fit well in number 3, "enhancing comfort and making parks more," instead of 1061
"more welcoming" "more accessible and welcoming." That seems like it would fit well 1062
in there. 1063
1064
Commissioner Hetterly: That's an order of magnitude different from what it currently is. 1065
1066
Commissioner Ashlund: Than the description? 1067
1068
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 1069
1070 Chair Reckdahl: The description is talking about bathrooms and stuff like that. 1071 1072 Commissioner Hetterly: Bathrooms and water fountains. 1073
1074
Chair Reckdahl: And shade. 1075
1076
Commissioner Crommie: If someone's coming to the survey and they want more access 1077
for people with disabilities, do you think they would—these are votes. It comes down to 1078
voting. Do you think they would vote for number 5 as written or not? Do you think it 1079
has to be rewritten? 1080
1081
Commissioner Ashlund: The word "accessibility" was key. All the shade and water and 1082
bathrooms that you have, if it's not accessible, it's not accessible, it's not welcoming to a 1083
large percentage of the community. That's a disservice to lose that word in the grouping. 1084
I wouldn't feel comfortable saying, "These are our six proposals for each of these three 1085
areas," and we've eliminated the word "access" from the first grouping, from the second 1086
Approved Minutes 26
APPROVED
grouping. We've left it in the third grouping; that's the only place. That feels limiting to 1087
me, unwelcoming as a city. 1088
1089
Commissioner Hetterly: What does "access" mean to you? 1090
1091
Commissioner Ashlund: If it's facilities, if it's outdoor or indoor facilities, it's physical 1092 access. It's stairways, it's ramps, it's hearing. If it's programming, a lot of times it's 1093
staffing and training. Is the staff not willing to make accommodations based on 1094
disability? It's a clear word. It's part of the law. That's why it would feel bad to me to 1095
lose it from these other two groupings and saying we're ... 1096
1097
Chair Reckdahl: The thing that concerns me is that you add "accessibility" and people 1098
vote for it, are they voting for bathrooms or are they voting for accessibility? 1099
1100
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. 1101
1102
Chair Reckdahl: Maybe they're voting for accessibility, and we interpret that as they 1103
want bathrooms. 1104
1105
Commissioner Ashlund: No, no. I see what you're saying about maybe it doesn't fit into 1106
number 3, but it worries me to omit number 9 without making sure that we're saying that 1107
word somewhere in the front part of the groupings. Unless it needs to go back into the 1108
description of number 3, and say it's a given that we're including that. 1109
1110
Commissioner Crommie: Can we add the word "access" to number 5? Can we put it in 1111 there somehow? 1112 1113 Commissioner Ashlund: The problem with number 5 is that's increasing the variety of 1114
things to do. That says maybe our parks and facilities aren't accessible, but we're not 1115
going to worry about that. If we increase the variety, then we're going to worry about it 1116
from that point forward. That doesn't feel like it fits in with number 5. 1117
1118
Commissioner Crommie: We now have that beautiful Magical Bridge park, for instance. 1119
I would like to see the most popular, successful elements of that park replicated in all 1120
parks across the city. That would go under number 5. Correct? Am I thinking correctly? 1121
1122
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, yeah, for playgrounds. 1123
1124
Commissioner Crommie: For playgrounds, making things accessible. 1125
1126
Commissioner Ashlund: Since we're talking parks, rec, open space, trails, we're talking 1127
more than just playgrounds. 1128
Approved Minutes 27
APPROVED
1129
Commissioner Crommie: We're missing the programmatic piece is what you're saying? 1130
1131
Commissioner Ashlund: The key word is "accessibility." 1132
1133
Commissioner Crommie: We don't need the programmatic piece of access as much in 1134 parks, trails and open space, do we? Is that more relevant toward classes and gyms? 1135
1136
Commissioner Ashlund: It applies to both. It applies to programs as well as facilities, 1137
indoor facilities and outdoor facilities. It definitely applies to parks, trails and open 1138
space. For example, if we're distributing park activities, we're enhancing comfort with 1139
the shade and bathrooms or the water fountains, we're allowing dog access, we're 1140
integrating nature, but have removed improving access to the full range of opportunities, 1141
then we're ... 1142
1143
Commissioner Crommie: Maybe we need to stop. Maybe we need seven choices. 1144
1145
Commissioner Ashlund: I don't know. I could go back to the description of number 3. 1146
We're talking about comfort and welcoming, it seems that that is where it needs to be in 1147
the description. It's not a separate thing. It's part of comfort and welcoming. 1148
1149
Vice Chair Markevitch: Would you be happy with "improvements may include access, 1150
creating a sense of arrival"? Put "access" before "creating a sense of arrival." 1151
1152
Commissioner Ashlund: I want it in the title is what I'm saying. When I was pretending 1153 to be a normal person going through the survey, I wasn't going to study each paragraph, 1154 memorize each paragraph. When I'm ranking and putting my dollars into the buckets, at 1155 that point I'm looking at the title. The dog people look for the dog word. The 1156
accessibility people look for the access word. 1157
1158
Commissioner Crommie: I hear you. We don't have gardening wrapped in this, but we 1159
have to know it's under activities. I was questioning that in the survey. I see your point. 1160
1161
Commissioner Hetterly: "Access to the full range of recreation opportunities" isn't 1162
inclusive of that? That's what I keep coming back to. 1163
1164
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm sorry. What number? 1165
1166
Commissioner Hetterly: Number 9. 1167
1168
Commissioner Ashlund: We eliminated number 9 from group 1. That's what I'm saying. 1169
The word was there, and then we eliminated it. It would fit nicely with the description of 1170
Approved Minutes 28
APPROVED
number 3. If comfort and welcoming doesn't mean accessible, I don't know what does. 1171
It's a given at this point. We shouldn't shy away from saying it, because it's going to 1172
harm anybody. If anything, it makes things more comfortable and welcoming. 1173
1174
Commissioner Crommie: I don't want to sell access short, because those things are 1175
automatically going to be accessible. That's not an issue. When you put in a bathroom 1176 and a drinking foundation, it by definition is accessible. It's a very narrow universe. 1177
When you put in the word "access" to number 3, are you talking about only the bathroom 1178
and the drinking foundation and the benches? 1179
1180
Vice Chair Markevitch: No. 1181
1182
Commissioner Ashlund: It applies to the park space. You say, "Is this park space 1183
accessible?" 1184
1185
Mr. de Geus: I don't know if it works or not, but if "access" is added to number 5, 1186
"increasing variety and access of things to do in existing parks." 1187
1188
Commissioner Ashlund: That's not bad. That's not bad. I didn't think of adding it to 1189
number 5. Yeah, that could work. 1190
1191
Commissioner Lauing: You've already got in there "ages and abilities" at the end. 1192
1193
Commissioner Ashlund: Like I said, it's a key word. Dog people look for "dogs." Sports 1194
fields look for "sports fields." Theater look for "theater." That's another way of saying it. 1195 I don't want it left off of these groupings as if it's not important in parks and open space, 1196 but we're going to handle it in programming. 1197 1198
Commissioner Crommie: It's stronger if it goes into number 5 than number 3. 1199
1200
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. 1201
1202
Commissioner Crommie: You get more bang for the word, because it relates to more 1203
things, if we can get it into number 5. 1204
1205
Ms. Fiore: I would caution that the intent of 9 also includes things like language and 1206
financial barriers. Nine was intended as its own item to be removing barriers and 1207
increasing all types of access, not just about recreation or programming. Merging it you 1208
will lose a little bit of that. I would ask you if you are open to having seven items under 1209
some of these. 1210
1211
Approved Minutes 29
APPROVED
Commissioner Ashlund: I haven't done the table. Are you putting each of the areas in 1212
two out of the three? 1213
1214
Ms. Fiore: Good question. 1215
1216
Commissioner Ashlund: Is that how it's working out? 1217 1218
Commissioner Hetterly: No. I don't think so. 1219
1220
Mr. de Geus: No, it doesn't work out that way. 1221
1222
Commissioner Hetterly: It certainly is not calculated to be that way. 1223
1224
Commissioner Crommie: Do we like number 5? It's all encompassing. 1225
1226
Commissioner Ashlund: Rob, how did you have it added to number 5 again? 1227
1228
Mr. de Geus: "Increasing the variety and access of things to do in existing parks for all 1229
ages and abilities." It's just adding the word "accessibility" or "access." 1230
1231
Commissioner Ashlund: That works. 1232
1233
Ms. Fiore: Are we taking number 9 off the list of 12? 1234
1235
Commissioner Ashlund: No, no. 1236 1237 Ms. Fiore: We're adding "access" to number 5. 1238 1239
Commissioner Ashlund: We're adding the "access" to number 5, yeah. 1240
1241
Commissioner Hetterly: We're taking 9 off of the first element. 1242
1243
Commissioner Ashlund: No, no, no. Oh, we already have it. 1244
1245
Mr. de Geus: Out of the first two. 1246
1247
Commissioner Hetterly: First two, right. 1248
1249
Ms. Fiore: And adding the word "access" back. 1250
1251
Commissioner Ashlund: That works really well. 1252
1253
Approved Minutes 30
APPROVED
Mr. de Geus: Adding it back. Was it in there originally? 1254
1255
Ms. Fiore: Oh, no, it was not adding it back. Adding it, yes. That makes sense. I 1256
thought you were proposing eliminating number 9. 1257
1258
Chair Reckdahl: We're changing the title of number 5? 1259 1260
Ms. Fiore: Yes. (crosstalk) access. 1261
1262
Chair Reckdahl: What's the new title going to be? 1263
1264
Ms. Fiore: Leaving number 9 as is, right? 1265
1266
Chair Reckdahl: What's the new title for number 5? 1267
1268
Mr. de Geus: Increasing the variety and access of things to do in existing parks for all 1269
ages and abilities. 1270
1271
Ms. Fiore: "Variety of and access to." 1272
1273
Commissioner Ashlund: Do we have to switch it? Do you think that sounds awkward? 1274
1275
Vice Chair Markevitch: We should leave it as what Rob said. 1276
1277
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm fine with it. You could also flip it, "access to and variety 1278 of" would be fine. Either way it's okay. 1279 1280 Commissioner Hetterly: "Increase the variety and accessibility of things to do," then you 1281
have matching word tenses. 1282
1283
Chair Reckdahl: Variety and accessibility. 1284
1285
Commissioner Ashlund: More parallel language. Thank you. 1286
1287
Chair Reckdahl: I'm digesting this. One second. In the three sets, five appears in the 1288
first one and the second one. Nine appears in the third one. Nine is a programming 1289
accessibility. Five is for recreation facilities and parks. I'm happy with that. Any other 1290
comments? Deirdre, do you have any comments? 1291
1292
Commissioner Crommie: Nope. 1293
1294
Chair Reckdahl: Jen, are you tapped out? 1295
Approved Minutes 31
APPROVED
1296
Commissioner Hetterly: Yep. 1297
1298
Chair Reckdahl: Your ball. 1299
1300
Mr. de Geus: They were the two things that we wanted to get to today. It might be 1301 helpful to have the ad hoc committee do one last review of the survey, because there were 1302
a lot of comments, before we go live with it. If that would be okay. Next week. 1303
1304
Commissioner Lauing: Target live date is when? 1305
1306
Ms. Fiore: Next Wednesday. We can get you a redlined version too of the online survey 1307
for that meeting. 1308
1309
Commissioner Crommie: You probably already covered this. How are we advertising 1310
this? 1311
1312
Ms. Fiore: About the same as we did for the last online survey. It will go out to our 1313
mailing list. It'll go out through the city's social media and newsletter. I forget exactly. 1314
We'll also send it to our stakeholder advisory group and ask them to forward it. Send it to 1315
you folks and ask you to forward it. 1316
1317
Chair Reckdahl: Will it go out to the neighborhoods, PAN? 1318
1319
Ms. Fiore: Yes. They're on that list. 1320 1321 Vice Chair Markevitch: The schools can get it? 1322 1323
Ms. Fiore: It should be through the stakeholder advisory group. 1324
1325
Commissioner Ashlund: How are we getting it to schools? Is that covered? 1326
1327
Ms. Fiore: I don't know that we have direct access to the PTA list. Someone on our 1328
stakeholder advisory group has offered to forward it. 1329
1330
Mr. de Geus: I can help you with that too. Definitely should get it through the schools. 1331
1332
Vice Chair Markevitch: I can help you with that. 1333
1334
Commissioner Crommie: Do we have that same protection to look at the electronic 1335
address to figure out if multiples are being submitted? 1336
1337
Approved Minutes 32
APPROVED
Ms. Fiore: We do, yeah. We'll have a record of that. 1338
1339
Commissioner Crommie: There's a little confusion over the last survey. Are you hoping 1340
that multiple ages within the family are doing this? Mother, father, children, each 1341
submitting one. 1342
1343 Ms. Fiore: Absolutely, if they're all interested. 1344
1345
Vice Chair Markevitch: If they're only using one email address ... 1346
1347
Ms. Fiore: Your IP address will show up more than once. 1348
1349
Commissioner Crommie: Each one has to do it from their own computer? 1350
1351
Chair Reckdahl: It says your name. As long as they use different names ... 1352
1353
Vice Chair Markevitch: They could be making up names. 1354
1355
Commissioner Hetterly: You don't put your name. The name doesn't go in the survey. 1356
1357
Commissioner Ashlund: That's optional. 1358
1359
Chair Reckdahl: Optional, oh shoot. 1360
1361
Commissioner Ashlund: That's to be added to the list. 1362 1363 Chair Reckdahl: You don't require an email address, which means that you just look at 1364 an IP. 1365
1366
Ms. Fiore: Yeah. 1367
1368
Commissioner Crommie: Is that written in the directions? I remember a lot of people in 1369
my neighborhood were confused about that. They were all asking me, "What should we 1370
do? Do we need to try to make that explicit?" Is it written anywhere that it's okay to do 1371
it that way? 1372
1373
Ms. Fiore: We can indicate that. 1374
1375
Commissioner Crommie: Do you want to leave it open? I don't know everyone's feeling. 1376
I had people coming up to me and saying, "Can my daughter do it? I've already done it." 1377
I didn't know what the answer was. 1378
1379
Approved Minutes 33
APPROVED
Ms. Fiore: We have a little blurb at the end. "Please help us reach as many of your 1380
friends, neighbors and coworkers." We could make that up front. 1381
1382
Commissioner Crommie: Family members? 1383
1384
Ms. Fiore: Yeah. 1385 1386
Commissioner Hetterly: The tricky thing about a family all having the same email 1387
address ... 1388
1389
Commissioner Ashlund: IP address? Do you mean IP or do you mean email? 1390
1391
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't have any idea. If they're going to use the same computer 1392
and they have the same answers ... 1393
1394
Ms. Fiore: That's what raises the red flag. 1395
1396
Commissioner Hetterly: ... coincidentally, they may get thrown out. Right? 1397
1398
Ms. Fiore: If they had exactly the same answers for every question, that would raise a 1399
red flag for us. If there are four people ... 1400
1401
Commissioner Hetterly: Can they put a note in the final box? 1402
1403
Ms. Fiore: Mm-hmm. 1404 1405 Vice Chair Markevitch: If it's one person sending in five different things with slightly 1406 different answers, their attention to detail on this is impressive. 1407
1408
Chair Reckdahl: If they think that strongly about it, maybe they deserve extra weighting. 1409
1410
Commissioner Crommie: We all feel like parents ... 1411
1412
Vice Chair Markevitch: I don't care. 1413
1414
Commissioner Crommie: It shouldn't matter. It's like more voices ... 1415
1416
Commissioner Reckdahl: My son would not agree with my choices. 1417
1418
Commissioner Crommie: It would be highly unlikely they would all match, first of all. 1419
Unless you're doing it for your infant child, on their behalf. 1420
1421
Approved Minutes 34
APPROVED
Commissioner Lauing: Let's not try to solve those corner cases right now. 1422
1423
Commissioner Crommie: Yes, I agree. 1424
1425
Commissioner Hetterly: I have one last question about the community prioritization 1426
process. That includes this workshop which will be advertised how we discussed, and the 1427 survey. What about the stakeholders' prioritization process? How does that work? 1428
1429
Ms. Fiore: They will be doing a similar exercise. We were talking earlier today about 1430
the date. One option is to have them meet earlier in the day, like immediately before the 1431
community workshop. Rob had a question whether they would want to reflect on what 1432
we heard at the workshops and build on that or what the appropriate timing would be. 1433
We're still discussing that. 1434
1435
Commissioner Hetterly: They will want to have, I presume, a more robust discussion 1436
than would be allowed in the survey or would necessarily happen in the regular 1437
community workshops. You're going to be able to accommodate that? 1438
1439
Ms. Fiore: Yeah, that's the intent. 1440
1441
Chair Reckdahl: I would think you would want the results of the survey ... 1442
1443
Ms. Fiore: To present to them. 1444
1445
Chair Reckdahl: ... to present to them, and say, "This is the results. What are your 1446 comments on this?" Last time, we went through and we had a meeting and we wrote 1447 down all the suggestions. It was collecting of ideas. What is the purpose of the next 1448 workshop? This is for the stakeholders. 1449
1450
Ms. Fiore: For the stakeholders, it is the same intent as what we just went through with 1451
this online and what we'll do at the workshop. What Commissioner Hetterly is 1452
suggesting is probably more detail. Part of that may be "Here's what we heard from the 1453
survey and in our workshop." 1454
1455
Chair Reckdahl: The order is we're going to do the electronic questionnaire. We're going 1456
to close that, and then we will go to the workshop. 1457
1458
Ms. Fiore: There will be a little overlap. 1459
1460
Chair Reckdahl: People then will be able to get the same input at that workshop. We 1461
will compile those results from the workshop and the online survey and present those at 1462
the stakeholders meeting. What is the purpose of the stakeholders meeting? Is it to get 1463
Approved Minutes 35
APPROVED
their feedback, to get a specific list? Is it a general kvetch fest? They can tell their ideas, 1464
and we're collecting ideas? Are we trying to achieve some specific goal? 1465
1466
Ms. Fiore: We're trying to get at their prioritization, again with limited resources and 1467
these areas of focus. It's more challenging because each of them was chosen because 1468
they represent one or more interest groups. We probably know what some of their 1469 answers are going to be. Replicating the prioritization weighting exercise with them and 1470
figuring out how to do it in a way that has a little more meat on the bones. Something 1471
between what we discussed with the Commission and what we're putting out to the 1472
general public. 1473
1474
Chair Reckdahl: Last time, there was a lot of cooks there. 1475
1476
Ms. Fiore: It's a big group. 1477
1478
Chair Reckdahl: A lot of people were able to say a sentence and that was it. 1479
1480
Commissioner Hetterly: If I were on the stakeholders group, I would want to comment 1481
on this survey before it goes out. My interest would be in making sure that all the bases 1482
are covered in one way or another, just like our interests are that way as well. 1483
1484
Mr. de Geus: My view on this is the stakeholders group should not be only looking at the 1485
areas of focus. They have a deeper understanding and appreciation of parks and 1486
recreation and the issues. The areas of focus is for the general public and maybe the new 1487
person that's just starting to look at the Plan and what we're doing here. I was telling 1488 Ellie about the different tiers of analysis. This is the deepest analysis with the 1489 Commission and the staff and the matrix. The stakeholders group is the second tier. 1490 They have a pretty good understanding of that matrix. They will have. We should talk 1491
about that and the principles and the areas of focus. The workshop should be designed 1492
differently for that stakeholder group ... 1493
1494
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with that. 1495
1496
Mr. de Geus: ... a much deeper conversation. It can't just be ideas at this point. It needs 1497
to be focused conversation about tradeoffs, about different ways we could invest in the 1498
parks and recreation system. Then it still comes up to us and the Commission after that 1499
to then further synthesize that information from those tiers to come up with a final Plan. 1500
1501
Chair Reckdahl: I'm concerned there's going to be a lot of long-winded people at that 1502
stakeholders workshop. 1503
1504
Approved Minutes 36
APPROVED
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. A lot of them come with a specific interest. We need to design that 1505
thoughtfully and ask people to think outside of their particular area of interest. I haven't 1506
seen a plan for the stakeholder group meeting yet. 1507
1508
Commissioner Ashlund: Are you asking or expecting them to speak outside of their 1509
area? If they're there for stakeholders, I thought their whole purpose was to represent the 1510 sports field people, the dog people, and so forth. 1511
1512
Mr. de Geus: We do want to hear that, but we want them to think beyond their area of 1513
interest, think about the person sitting next to them that cares about tennis courts or dog 1514
parks or other things, that there is a balance of thinking. Otherwise, we hear a focused 1515
interest from 25 different people. That's not necessarily ... 1516
1517
Commissioner Ashlund: Twenty-five different interests or you're hearing ... 1518
1519
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. We'll have the seniors saying the senior pieces. What we're trying 1520
to look at as we get closer to developing and putting the Plan together is where is there 1521
overlap and themes and emphasis that we could solve more than one problem by 1522
investing in a certain way. Where we've got field users thinking about dog exercise, and 1523
senior folks thinking about what the teens are interested in. 1524
1525
Commissioner Hetterly: Is there only one stakeholders meeting left? 1526
1527
Mr. de Geus; I think there's two left. 1528
1529 Ms. Fiore: There will be two. There's a third one that will be a review of the draft Plan. 1530 1531 Commissioner Hetterly: I'm wondering how sensible it is to wait for the survey and then 1532
share that with them. I'm not sure that's the most efficient use of their time, because then 1533
they'll get bogged down in what the results of the survey were. You might want to talk 1534
about the principles and the criteria ... 1535
1536
Commissioner Crommie: I agree with that. 1537
1538
Commissioner Hetterly: ... and the process and then come back around ... 1539
1540
Mr. de Geus: That's not a bad idea. 1541
1542
Commissioner Hetterly: ... at the next stage with "this is what we're hearing." 1543
1544
Commissioner Crommie: I agree. 1545
1546
Approved Minutes 37
APPROVED
Chair Reckdahl: I'm worried about it becoming a zoo. If we don't present the results, it 1547
could be a little less of a zoo. It can still be a zoo, but there will be a few less animals. 1548
1549
Commissioner Crommie: Their results feed in too. There's multiple pathways in, and 1550
they're one of the pathways in. They don't have to react a lot to this pathway. They have 1551
their own voice as a group. 1552 1553
Commissioner Ashlund: The question is do we feel from that initial stakeholders 1554
meeting that those views are represented in this thinking that we've got so far in here. A 1555
couple of us were at that first stakeholders meeting. From those notes, do we say, "We 1556
forgot the Girl Scout House?" 1557
1558
Ms. Fiore: The areas of focus are intended to be and how we've been vetting them 1559
hopefully is are they high level and inclusive enough that any suggestion that would 1560
come out of this Commission or out of the stakeholders group would fit into one of those 1561
12 areas. That's what those are designed to do, to be inclusive. 1562
1563
Commissioner Ashlund: I think they are. 1564
1565
Chair Reckdahl: Have we gone back and reviewed the whiteboard notes? 1566
1567
Mr. de Geus: Mm-hmm. 1568
1569
Chair Reckdahl: We're convinced that what we have here does not omit any of those 1570
areas? 1571 1572 Ms. Fiore: We did look at them when we were initially drafting these. I haven't done it 1573 more recently than that, but we could do so. 1574
1575
Mr. de Geus: That's where the focus of areas largely came from. All of those 11, 12 1576
different sources of data. 1577
1578
Commissioner Crommie: I was at that first meeting too. I believe Daren Anderson was 1579
the one who wrote up the notes. Is that right? He gave everyone who was at that meeting 1580
an electronic copy. Is that correct? 1581
1582
Mr. de Geus: It was one of the meetings. I don't remember which one. 1583
1584
Ms. Fiore: You're jogging my memory. We have a summary of that, and I believe Daren 1585
did augment those notes. It's been a while though. Yeah, that was one of the things we 1586
looked at when drafting these categories, if you will. 1587
1588
Approved Minutes 38
APPROVED
Chair Reckdahl: We don't need the survey results by the time we have the stakeholders 1589
meeting. 1590
1591
Ms. Fiore: Right. 1592
1593
Chair Reckdahl: We can schedule them independently. 1594 1595
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, we can. Although, it would be helpful for us as the organizers and 1596
maybe the Commission to have some of that information when we have the meeting with 1597
the stakeholders, even if we're not presenting the results. Maybe we ask a little more 1598
thoughtful questions than we would otherwise, if we have that data. 1599
1600
Chair Reckdahl; That's a good point. 1601
1602
Commissioner Crommie: I'm trying to think from the point of view of the stakeholders. 1603
They'll know we've done the survey, because they're getting notified. 1604
1605
Mr. de Geus: They can participate in the survey. 1606
1607
Commissioner Crommie: They want to participate, and they want to advertise it to their 1608
constituency to participate. They're going to be well aware of this survey when they 1609
show up at a meeting, whether we give them results or not. 1610
1611
Ms. Fiore: Correct. 1612
1613 Commissioner Crommie: What is it we're asking them at that meeting? We're not going 1614 to be asking them, "Do you think we did a good job on this survey?" They're going to 1615 have opinions. When they see this survey, all of our stakeholders are going to have 1616
opinions on how well we captured their thoughts. I do think Commissioner Hetterly has 1617
a good point that ideally you would potentially allow them to see this before we send it 1618
out. I don't know if that's too ... 1619
1620
Commissioner Ashlund: It's a big group, right? 1621
1622
Mr. de Geus: It's a big group. 1623
1624
Commissioner Crommie: It might be too messy. We need to capture whether they 1625
thought we did a good job on this, after the fact even. They should be able to give their 1626
viewpoints on that. 1627
1628
Commissioner Ashlund: Ellie can review it. You go down the list of stakeholders and 1629
you have somebody on their for sports fields and somebody on there for dogs, and you're 1630
Approved Minutes 39
APPROVED
going to be able to cross check it. If you do find an omission, I don't think you are. It's 1631
more straightforward to have you do a cross check than to open this up to review by 60 or 1632
whatever people it was with all the wordsmithing and all the preferences. 1633
1634
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. It would be a disaster to have them design the survey 1635
with us. 1636 1637
Commissioner Ashlund: Right. We can ... 1638
1639
Commissioner Hetterly: My point is only that they're going to want to have something at 1640
a (crosstalk) level, more in-depth level than what the regular workshop is going to have. 1641
We should be sure to provide them that and give them opportunities to weigh in in 1642
different ways. 1643
1644
Chair Reckdahl: I'm going to go through some schedule. We're planning to open it on 1645
8/26; that's our target date. How long are we keeping that open? 1646
1647
Ms. Fiore: Through end of September, the 30th. 1648
1649
Chair Reckdahl: 9/30. The workshop, do we have a rough idea of when that's going to 1650
be? 1651
1652
Mr. de Geus: September 21st is the tentative date. 1653
1654
Vice Chair Markevitch: Which one? 1655 1656 Ms. Fiore: September 21st. 1657 1658
Mr. de Geus: By the way, that's a Monday. That's not a good day. 1659
1660
Ms. Fiore: That's not generally a good day. 1661
1662
Chair Reckdahl: The stakeholder meeting, we think now is going to be after that. That 1663
would be mid-October? 1664
1665
Mr. de Geus: I don't know if it needs to be that far out. Within a week or two of the 1666
workshop would be fine. 1667
1668
Ms. Fiore: Well ... 1669
1670
Mr. de Geus: No? 1671
1672
Approved Minutes 40
APPROVED
Ms. Fiore: The survey results will take us a little bit of time. 1673
1674
Chair Reckdahl: If you wanted the staff to be able to look at the survey results, then it 1675
would have to be after 9/30. 1676
1677
Mr. de Geus: Right, because the survey is still open the week after the workshop. 1678 1679
Chair Reckdahl: Early October for the stakeholder? 1680
1681
Mr. de Geus: Mm-hmm. 1682
1683
Chair Reckdahl. Early October. The draft report, what are we shooting for for that? 1684
1685
Mr. de Geus: It's end of the year, end of the calendar year. 1686
1687
Chair Reckdahl: End of the calendar year, okay. In January we would have another 1688
stakeholder review of that draft? 1689
1690
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 1691
1692
Ms. Fiore: We have a broad review of that draft. 1693
1694
Mr. de Geus: January or February. 1695
1696
Ms. Fiore: And then go to the other Commissions. 1697 1698 Mr. de Geus: That'll be our two-year mark working on this. 1699 1700
Chair Reckdahl: Are there any other hoops? We have the draft. Obviously there's a lot 1701
of work to do. Is there any more community interaction? Are you meeting with other 1702
groups at all? 1703
1704
Ms. Fiore: There's a Council work session on August 31st. 1705
1706
Commissioner Crommie: Which date? 1707
1708
Ms. Fiore: August 31st. 1709
1710
Commissioner Lauing: Which year? 1711
1712
Ms. Fiore: In two weeks. 1713
1714
Approved Minutes 41
APPROVED
Commissioner Crommie: That's a Monday, August 31st. 1715
1716
Ms. Fiore: That's a big one. 1717
1718
Commissioner Hetterly: What is going to be covered there? That's a pretty ... 1719
1720 Ms. Fiore: It is an update to the process, since it's been a while since we were in front of 1721
that group. I'm focusing largely on the principles and policy level direction setting and 1722
getting their buy-in on those, and then a preview of the community workshop 1723
prioritization exercise and the criteria. Rob and Ryan and Peter and I have all been 1724
working on what that looks like. 1725
1726
Mr. de Geus: It's an update report for the Council which will go out next week. It'd be 1727
great if some of the Commissioners could be there. 1728
1729
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's also a good time to put up a nice big slide, "here's where 1730
you go to do the survey," so people who are watching at home can see that, people in the 1731
audience. You could even put little fliers where the agenda items are, on that table. Take 1732
one home and this is where you can log in. 1733
1734
Ms. Fiore: That's a great idea. 1735
1736
Chair Reckdahl: Any more questions? Thank you. We made a lot of progress. It's 1737
coming along. 1738
1739 Ms. Fiore: Thank you all. 1740 1741 3. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 1742
1743
Chair Reckdahl: Does anyone have any input? We had community gardens penciled in 1744
for next month. 1745
1746
Commissioner Crommie: I have a question on that. We're holding off on community 1747
gardens because Daren Anderson is having a meeting on some of the questions that have 1748
come up. Does anyone know when that meeting is taking place? 1749
1750
Catherine Bourquin: August 26th. 1751
1752
Commissioner Crommie: It's taking place on August 26th. 1753
1754
Chair Reckdahl: Is that a public meeting? 1755
1756
Approved Minutes 42
APPROVED
Commissioner Crommie: No, it's not. Our ad hoc should meet with Daren after that 1757
meeting, but before we present to our Commission. Someone has to consider what report 1758
we're using. 1759
1760
Commissioner Ashlund: Are you back for the regular September meeting? 1761
1762 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. I get back on August 31st. I'd like to schedule that 1763
meeting with Daren. I'll talk to Commissioner Ashlund. She'll help out to make sure we 1764
get that after that August 26th meeting. 1765
1766
Chair Reckdahl: It's possible that there will be more work to do after that? 1767
1768
Commissioner Crommie; Exactly. We need to get it done in time for the packet for the 1769
September meeting. 1770
1771
Chair Reckdahl: I'm reluctant to commit to having it on next month. We'll have to 1772
evaluate how the meeting goes and if Daren wants more time. 1773
1774
Commissioner Crommie: That will give us a full month. Since he's having the meeting 1775
on August 26th, at least we have a full month until the following meeting. 1776
1777
Chair Reckdahl: Our goal is to get it in, but be careful that there may be other issues 1778
going on. 1779
1780
Rob de Geus: Other ad hoc committee updates or is that all? 1781 1782 Commissioner Hetterly: We don't have any update on the website, but we may want to 1783 be presenting next month. That's an agenda item. The dog ad hoc, we did have a 1784
community meeting. There were 80 to 100 people there; it was a big turnout. It was very 1785
civilized. Daren did a great job soliciting a lot of comments. We'll update on that as 1786
well, maybe next month, maybe the month after. We have a meeting with Daren next 1787
week to circle back around on some other issues. 1788
1789
Commissioner Ashlund: Did you have all pro dog participants or did you have some 1790
anti? 1791
1792
Commissioner Hetterly: We had a pretty balanced group. 1793
1794
Vice Chair Markevitch: The dog owners were encouraged to bring their animals. I 1795
checked, and dogs are not allowed other than service dogs in the Lucie Stern ballroom. 1796
They had to leave their little friends at home sadly. 1797
1798
Approved Minutes 43
APPROVED
Commissioner Hetterly: The child owners also showed up to express their position. 1799
1800
Commissioner Crommie: Can you talk a little bit more about next steps? Where is this 1801
going? 1802
1803
Commissioner Hetterly: We're going to do that next month when we have it on the 1804 agenda. 1805
1806
Commissioner Crommie: You will get it on next month is what you're saying. 1807
1808
Commissioner Hetterly: We're meeting with Daren next week, and we'll determine then 1809
whether we'll be able to do all this or go back in order to present it. Abbie's been 1810
traveling quite a bit, so it's challenging to schedule. 1811
1812
Chair Reckdahl: How about the budget process? Last year, when did we start meetings? 1813
1814
Commissioner Lauing: CIP budgets, not operating budget? 1815
1816
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, CIPs. I'm sorry. 1817
1818
Commissioner Lauing: I think it was July, as I recall. 1819
1820
Mr. de Geus: We're probably at the point of coming together again on the capital budget. 1821
That would be good to do. 1822
1823 Chair Reckdahl: Do you know when that has to be submitted? 1824 1825 Mr. de Geus: We haven't received a request yet from the Office of Management and 1826
Budget. Typically we submit things in November, that time range. We got a head start 1827
on it, and it was helpful last year to do that. 1828
1829
Commissioner Lauing: We'll have a similar problem in that we're still prioritizing for 1830
parks and rec. 1831
1832
Mr. de Geus: I'm happy to set up that meeting. Is it still the same ad hoc committee? 1833
1834
Chair Reckdahl: I'm happy to still do it. 1835
1836
Commissioner Lauing: It can be, unless somebody else wants on it. 1837
1838
Mr. de Geus: I'll initiate a meeting then. 1839
1840
Approved Minutes 44
APPROVED
Chair Reckdahl: What is the timeline for the new members? When do the outgoing 1841
members end? 1842
1843
Vice Chair Markevitch: December. 1844
1845
Commissioner Hetterly: October. 1846 1847
Commissioner Crommie: No, it's October. We got an email. 1848
1849
Commissioner Hetterly: Next year it's December. This year it's October. 1850
1851
Vice Chair Markevitch: I checked with the City Clerk about a month ago, and she said 1852
December. 1853
1854
Commissioner Hetterly: David Carnahan says it's October. 1855
1856
Commissioner Crommie: I got an email from Carnahan saying October. 1857
1858
Commissioner Ashlund: October 31st, yeah. 1859
1860
Mr. de Geus: The Council has scheduled on their longer term schedule interviews for 1861
new Commissioners in September. 1862
1863
Commissioner Crommie: Someone told me the deadline for submission of applications 1864
might be August 26th. Is that right? 1865 1866 Commissioner Lauing: That sounds about right. 1867 1868
Commissioner Crommie: Does that mean that those of us who are coming up to term and 1869
not reapplying, do we plan to attend the October Commission meeting? 1870
1871
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 1872
1873
Chair Reckdahl: What happens if the Council is slow at selecting? Do they get bridged? 1874
1875
Mr. de Geus: We ask if they will continue to attend until someone's appointed. 1876
1877
Chair Reckdahl: They still have full authority and voting rights then? Okay. Any other 1878
comments, questions? Okay. 1879
1880
Approved Minutes 45
APPROVED
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1881
1882
Chair Reckdahl: Rob, do you have any comments or announcements? 1883
1884
Rob de Geus: The Council is back in session. I'm surprised to see Council Member 1885
Filseth here, because they had a long marathon meeting. 1886 1887
Council Member Filseth: We met only today. 1888
1889
Mr. de Geus: They went late into the night last night. They're back. They had a lot on 1890
the agenda. We had a lot of things on the consent calendar too. We had some Park 1891
Improvements Ordinances for the batting cages and Monroe Park and Byxbee Park. All 1892
went through last night with Council approval. That's exciting. The 31st is the next 1893
meeting where we have things on the agenda for Council. We have the study session and 1894
also the discussion of the 7.7 acres at Foothills Park. The Commission spent a lot of time 1895
on that. The Staff recommendation is that we hold off on doing anything significant until 1896
the hydrology study is complete. That's the primary recommendation. We have the 1897
background of the Commission work and the community meetings around that. That's an 1898
action discussion item on the 31st. You may be interested in participating. It would be 1899
good to have a Commissioner there, not necessarily to speak to it but because the staff 1900
report references the Commission and the Commission's point of view. Council might 1901
have questions for the Commission. The Chair can decide who can be there. 1902
1903
Chair Reckdahl: You or Daren ... 1904
1905 Mr. de Geus: Daren and I will be there presenting. The Council will be discussing the 1906 item. 1907 1908
Chair Reckdahl: My guess is that if you and Daren are presenting it, they will not have 1909
any questions for us. You'll be able to handle anything. 1910
1911
Mr. de Geus: Probably not. I don't know. There is some different opinions on Council 1912
about the 7.7 acres. The last time they did talk about it, there seemed like there was some 1913
interest to open it up and allow people to get in there. Staff's not recommending that. It'll 1914
be interesting to see how they respond. I would find it helpful if you could be there, 1915
Keith, or have someone there. 1916
1917
Chair Reckdahl: I certainly will try to be there. I would recommend that if people are 1918
interested, they should come. 1919
1920
Vice Chair Markevitch: Which day is it? 1921
1922
Approved Minutes 46
APPROVED
Chair Reckdahl: August 31st, the Council meeting for the 7.7 acres. 1923
1924
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's also the same as the ... 1925
1926
Commissioner Hetterly: Master Plan. 1927
1928 Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah, Master Plan. 1929
1930
Chair Reckdahl: We'll have two things to talk about. 1931
1932
Mr. de Geus: Other than that ... 1933
1934
Chair Reckdahl: Daren talked a few months ago about water conservation. How's the 1935
city doing? Are we meeting our goals? 1936
1937
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. That's a good question. We're spending a lot of time on that. We've 1938
got data for one month, July. We narrowly reached the target of 34 percent reduction. 1939
We're happy with it. 1940
1941
Chair Reckdahl: That's for the city government or is that for the city as a whole? 1942
1943
Mr. de Geus: City as a whole. 1944
1945
Chair Reckdahl: How is city government doing? The parks. 1946
1947 Mr. de Geus: Very well. 1948 1949 Vice Chair Markevitch: I went to that meeting, the water conservation meeting that was 1950
at Mitchell Park. It was very well run. They gave a lot of information to the 30 of us that 1951
were in the room. It was good. 1952
1953
Mr. de Geus: We're working closely with Utilities and Public Works on that plan. You'll 1954
start to see the impacts, if you haven't already, that some of the grass is going brown or 1955
dying off a little bit in those areas that are not heavily used. You'll see more of that as we 1956
go on. As we get further along in the year and have better data about how we're doing, 1957
we may have more flexibility in terms of the water use and adjust the plan a little bit here 1958
and there. At this point, we have one month of data. 1959
1960
Commissioner Lauing: Is the city going to start enforcement soon? 1961
1962
Mr. de Geus: I don't know a lot about the enforcement strategy and plan for people that 1963
are not doing their part. 1964
Approved Minutes 47
APPROVED
1965
Commissioner Lauing: You wouldn't have to walk far from your office to see problems. 1966
I drove by there yesterday. That house across the street was spraying about noon on their 1967
lawn. 1968
1969
Vice Chair Markevitch: They have a phone number you can call and rat them out. 1970 1971
Mr. de Geus: I did hear that a lot of people are doing that. People care a lot, and they 1972
make the calls. We're not going out and ticketing people at this point. 1973
1974
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 MEETING 1975 1976
Chair Reckdahl: The agenda for next month, what do we have on that? 1977
1978
Rob de Geus: The Junior Museum and Zoo may come back. We're not sure yet. The 1979
team is working hard on the feedback they received the last time they were here. I'm not 1980
sure they'll be ready in September, but they said they might be. We'll have the Parks, 1981
Trails, Open Space Master Plan, and then the two additional that we know of, the 1982
community gardens ad hoc and perhaps the dog exercise area ad hoc committee. 1983
1984
Commissioner Hetterly: And the website ad hoc. 1985
1986
Catherine Bourquin: I think the Interpretive Center too. 1987
1988
Mr. de Geus: Are they read for September? I have to remember that. 1989 1990 Ms. Bourquin: (crosstalk) 1991 1992
Mr. de Geus: It's starting to get a little busy. 1993
1994
Chair Reckdahl: Is it the signage? Deirdre and Stacey, you're still on that ad hoc or has 1995
that disbanded? 1996
1997
Commissioner Crommie: I'm a little confused about what we're supposed to be doing. 1998
We thought that John Aiken was going to present to us on this. It had to do with a CIP 1999
for signs at the Interpretive Center. The idea of expanding it into the whole open space 2000
area was his vision. We haven't been able to hear about that yet, so it'd be ... 2001
2002
Mr. de Geus: I'm not sure that he's made much progress on that. I think it is the right 2003
way to do signage at the Baylands. Not to think about it piecemeal, but think about the 2004
whole preserve. 2005
2006
Approved Minutes 48
APPROVED
Commissioner Crommie: It relates to finances. The CIP right now is not large enough to 2007
allow for that. We have to understand where that is in the pipeline. 2008
2009
Mr. de Geus: I'll check in with John on that, and maybe this comes up with our CIP ad 2010
hoc committee as well. It's underfunded. The money in there is sufficient to replace the 2011
existing signage around the Interpretive Center only. That's not the way we want to do 2012 this. 2013
2014
Commissioner Crommie: Will you handle talking to John Aiken? 2015
2016
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, I will. I did want to mention one thing back on announcements. 2017
The Council, I think on the 31st, is also taking up the Comprehensive Plan goals 2018
discussion. The Community Services and Facilities Element is one of the two elements 2019
being discussed that evening. The study session on the Parks Master Plan, the 7.7 acres 2020
plus the ... 2021
2022
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's nice of them to combine them all for us on that one night. 2023
2024
Mr. de Geus: The Commission's done a lot of work on that Element and provided a lot of 2025
feedback. That might be of interest too. 2026
2027
Chair Reckdahl: We had talked about getting a presentation about the Cost of Service 2028
Study. Is anyone working on that? 2029
2030
Commissioner Hetterly: We can't fit it in next month anyway. 2031 2032 Chair Reckdahl: That's probably going to take some time anyway, so I'm trying to feed 2033 the pipeline. If you want it, you have to ask for it two months ahead. Eventually I want 2034
that to come back. That is fertile ground for us to talk about that. 2035
2036
Mr. de Geus: The City Auditor reports to the Council directly. One of their audits 2037
they're doing this year is on fees. Not just CSD fees, but fees generally. It just got 2038
started, so I don't know a whole lot about that. I suspect it's going to relate to the Cost of 2039
Service Study and the policy the Council adopted in the spring. That might be of interest 2040
to the Commission too. If we have them both come together. 2041
2042
Chair Reckdahl: Any other comments, suggestions, things? 2043
2044
VII. ADJOURNMENT 2045
2046
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Crommie and second by Vice Chair 2047
Markevitch at 8:55 p.m.2048
Approved Minutes 49