HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-11 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED
Approved Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
February 11, 2022 8
Virtual Conference 9
Palo Alto, California 10
11
Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield and Vice Chair LaMere; Commissioners Nellis 12
Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, Anne Cribbs and Amanda Brown 13
Commissioners Absent: 14
Others Present: Council Member Tom DuBois 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Lam Do and Kristen O’Kane, Adam Howard, Megha 16
Bansal, and Peter Jensen 17
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 18
Chair Greenfield welcomed the group to the 2022 Annual Parks and Recreation 19
Commission Retreat. 20
I. PUBLIC COMMENT 21
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 22
Chair Greenfield invited any questions or suggestions on the detailed agenda that was sent 23
out earlier. He noted a few housekeeping matters that the Vice Chair LaMere and he had 24
discussed. First, at the recommendation of former Chair Cribbs, the Parks and Recreation 25
website needs a refresh and an update, so that will be a focus. They will probably set up 26
an ad hoc group to work on that with staff. He said they will all need to do their own part 27
in that, including submitting bios to add to the website. In addition, the new members need 28
to be set up appropriately on the website. They also need to make sure there is a photo for 29
everyone, and the minutes from previous meetings need to be refreshed and easily 30
accessible as a link from the website. They also want to look at what documents and what 31
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 2
plans should be readily accessible. 1
Chair Greenfield said current terms will be ending on March 31st, as opposed to December 2
15th. They have been extended as part of the effort to align the timeframe for when all 3
boards and commission members are appointed. The first day of the new Commission will 4
be April 1st instead of December 16th, as it has been. As a result, their next retreat is likely 5
to happen sometime in May of 2023. Their next work plan, which they would be 6
discussing, will be for the 15-month timeframe as well. This is a one-time transitional 7
change. 8
III. BUSINESS 9
1. Review 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Priorities and 10
Accomplishments 11
Vice Chair LaMere reviewed highlights of 2021. It was a busy time for the Parks and 12
Recreation Commission from early 2021 into early 2022. Since the last retreat on March 13
12, 2021, the Commission continued to meet remotely and held 11 public meetings. With 14
an emphasis on the Council-directed work plan, the Commission was very active. The 15
Commission held discussion and took action on 15 items. The Commission nudged along 16
recreation projects, tackled rules updates for court usage and policy updates for Foothills 17
Preserve, and provided a forum for discussion on topics ranging from fundraising to water 18
recycling, while receiving updates on aquatics and the golf course. They were grateful for 19
the guidance and regular attendance of Council Member Kou and look forward to 20
welcoming Council Member DuBois. 21
Vice Chair LaMere thanked staff for all of their hard work and all they did in the prior11 22
months, as well as former Chair Cribbs and former Vice Chair Greenfield for driving the 23
many projects that were pushed forward, and for following the agendas and Work Plan as 24
best they could. He welcomed Commissioners Freeman and Kleinhaus, whom they are 25
excited to work with and share the review of their accomplishments. He said they tried to 26
align their priorities with City Council’s, including maximizing recreation opportunities 27
using available resources; establishing equity access and inclusion for programs, parks, 28
and open space; promoting Foothills Nature Preserve stewardship; and addressing 29
environmental sustainability and climate change. 30
Vice Chair LaMere commented on the Commission’s accomplishments for the prior year. 31
They approved a couple of Park Improvement Ordinances. The Baylands Tide Gate project 32
was interesting because they discussed it in one meeting and then there were some items 33
within the project that changed it a little bit, and they were able to push that to another 34
meeting to take action on it. Boulware Park and the other PIOs were very important. The 35
Ad Hoc committees spent a lot of time on policy updates and reviews. There was an Ad 36
Hoc Committee for the Sidewalk Vendor policy, which became a very detail-oriented 37
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 3
policy. There was continuing work with Foothills Nature Preserve. The Open Space Photo 1
and Videography policy was approved, which covers all of the parks. The pickleball court 2
usage policy was also reviewed, with its heavy usage and figuring out the right policies 3
for them, including how it affected other court users was important. 4
Vice Chair LaMere shared a summary of the projects the Commission worked on, 5
including the skateboard park, First Tee’s presentation and making a recommendation on 6
the public/private partnership on that, developing the vision for a new Palo Alto gym. He 7
said that he enjoyed the discussions and speakers who presented on sustainability at their 8
meetings. Their information gave a great overview of what the City is doing now and 9
looking at doing looking forward. These discussions included water recycling, the Valley 10
Water purified water discussion. A liaison was selected for the Mid Pen Regional Open 11
Space Hawthorne’s Area Planning process. The Commission also gave some input on the 12
Baylands Nature Interpretive Signs. 13
The Commission wrote letters and memos to the Council regarding such topics as the 14
Junior Museum and Zoo ticket price, and parkland within the NVCAP. Community 15
highlights included some ongoing projects, such as completion of the Highway 101 16
Pedestrian Bridge, opening of the beautiful Junior Museum and Zoo, and the Rinconada 17
Park project, which is almost completed. 18
The Commission spent a lot of time at their previous retreat and in one of their meetings 19
on the 2021 Work Plan. Vice Chair LaMere said he felt the Work Plan is very important 20
and helped guide what they tried to do with their agenda and their meetings. He felt their 21
meetings and discussions were very much in alignment with the Work Plan. They will be 22
using the 2021 Work Plan to inform the 2022 Work Plan. 23
On the Baylands Tide Gate Project, the Commission made a recommendation on July 27th, 24
and City Council approved it on February 7th, which successfully completed the Work Plan 25
and Ad Hoc goal, which they are very excited about. With Fund Development, they had 26
the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and Friends of Parks present to them. The Ad Hoc 27
met a few times to discuss fundraising opportunities and to figure out how best to come 28
up with sponsorship guidelines, which is one thing they will revisit on the 2022 Work Plan 29
and see where that falls into how they move forward. There was a review of the CIP on 30
December 14th. The racquet court policy will also be revisited in 2022, but they did make 31
a recommendation with the new pickleball court rules on October 26th. Council is set to 32
review those on March 7th. 33
Foothills Nature Preserve was a subject the Commission spent a lot of time on the past few 34
years. It was exciting to see many of the ideas come to fruition. Vice Chair LaMere 35
commented that there were things done earlier in 2021, January and February, which he is 36
not covering, as he is only covering things that occurred since their last retreat. There were 37
additional items related to Foothills Nature Preserve which occurred earlier in 2021, but 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 4
they did make another recommendation on March 23rd as well as December 14th. They 1
also recommended with the Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy which 2
encompasses both Foothills Nature Preserve and other Open Spaces and Parks on 3
December 14th. 4
The New Recreation Opportunities Ad Hoc was very busy. They had a youth leadership 5
update. Vice Chair LaMere said it is always wonderful to have the youth present, as with 6
all the other presenters, they sometimes forget the voice of their youth. They have 7
wonderful ideas, such as the young man who called into the Commission a couple years 8
ago which prompted them to start moving on a skatepark. He said continuing to listen to 9
the youth and tapping into their ideas can be a motivating factor for the Commission, 10
because their time goes so fast. If it takes them five years to complete a project, all of a 11
sudden the great idea that young man had at age 14 or 15, he or she may never see that, so 12
he felt they should keep that in mind as they try to push through projects and look at 13
priorities. 14
The Commission’s work with First Tee continued last year, and they gave a 15
recommendation on a public/private partnership. They also recommended their vision for 16
a new Palo Alto gym which Council will review on March 7th. 17
Vice Chair LaMere said these were the actions and discussions taken from the 2021Work 18
Plan. He said looking back on all of the discussion items was extremely informative 19
because those items often are things that provide a great education both on what their city 20
is thinking about, as well as just different policy ideas. He thought those would be helpful 21
in making the Commission more informed and well-rounded in their decision-making and 22
in setting priorities. Overall, Vice Chair LaMere felt the last 11 months were packed with 23
great accomplishments, with compliments to the former Chair and Vice Chair. He 24
concluded by stating that without the work of staff, none of this happens. They need to 25
keep staff always in mind as they develop different projects, different ad hocs, different 26
roles for what they try to accomplish. He appreciated everyone’s hard work for the Parks 27
and Recreation Commission. 28
Chair Greenfield also thanked Commissioner Cribbs for leading them through the past 29
year, which he thought was very successful and they accomplished quite a bit amidst a 30
very challenging environment. He commented that meeting remotely is unfortunate, 31
especially when they are unable to have an event like an annual retreat in person, but 32
hopefully they will get there next year and be meeting in person before then. He said there 33
are tradeoffs and benefits. Some things have been easier meeting in this manner but overall 34
it would be nice to have more human interaction. He echoed Vice Chair LaMere’s thanks 35
for staff and said he values the working relationship that the Commission shares with their 36
staff liaison and the rest of the staff that they work with. They are fortunate to have a 37
relationship with this dedicated group of individuals who do such an awesome job making 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 5
it easier for the Commissioners to continue to participate in the same manner. 1
Chair Greenfield invited comments from Commissioners and staff in looking back over 2
the record of the past year. Mr. Anderson appreciated the Commission’s hard work and 3
the accomplishments achieved together. 4
Adam Howard thanked the Commission for ongoing support and help with tough issues. 5
He said the youth appreciated Commissioner Cribbs for coming to the meetings. He 6
appreciated support with some of the tough decisions and conversations that needed to 7
take place. 8
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought it looked like a tremendous amount of work had been 9
done, and she looked forward to more. She asked if they could do some introductions, as 10
she had not met everyone present. Mr. Anderson, Assistant Director for Community 11
Services, said he helps serve as staff liaison to the Commission. Kristen O’Kane, Director 12
of Community Services, said it has been a great Commission to work with, and the breadth 13
of work they do is impressive. They appreciate the hard work the Commission does. Lam 14
Do, Open Space, Parks and Golf Division, said he also supports the Commission. Adam 15
Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, Recreation Department, overseeing youth 16
and teens, said he has done fields and courts and is currently at Mitchell Park Community 17
Center. Megha Bansal, Senior Engineer, Public Works Engineering Department, manages 18
the Parks and Bridges group within the Engineering Services Division. Peter Jensen, 19
Landscape Architect, City of Palo Alto, working with Public Works Department on 20
primarily park renovation projects and capital improvements projects. Council Member 21
Tom DuBois, Council Liaison explained his role is to mention if Council has taken an 22
official position on anything. He will primarily be listening but will be available if there 23
are questions for him or Council feedback. 24
Chair Greenfield appreciated Council Member DuBois’s approach as a listening role. As 25
they start reviewing their Work Plan from last year and moving forward to this year’s, they 26
are still going through some uncharted waters, as are other commissions. Working through 27
the process and finding the most appropriate way to develop and report on work plans, 28
they would be looking for any input and guidance Council Member DuBois would like to 29
offer, given that he had worked directly with developing the handbook providing the basis 30
for the work plans, 31
2. Establish priorities for 2022 32
Chair Greenfield said in the past these have been calendar year priorities, but this year 33
they would look at priorities for the next 15 months. Chair Greenfield explained that they 34
will go over where the Commission’s purpose and duties are defined and spend some time 35
reviewing highlights from the Handbook. Next would be discussion about alignment. As 36
an advisory group working directly with staff, their priorities would need to be in 37
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 6
alignment City Council’s priorities, recently established at their annual retreat, and also 1
consider staff’s priorities and their available resources. Establishing priorities, establishing 2
the ad hoc groups and liaisons, and the work plan would be interrelated and overlapping. 3
As they talk about priorities, Chair Greenfield said they would take a bottom up approach, 4
first looking at the work they want to do. This will help define what is most important to 5
them. Focusing on the projects they want to work on can be used to help inform and clarify 6
their priorities. In the process, they will look at the previous ad hocs and the work the 7
Commission has done, and consider work not yet completed. Looking at successes and 8
shortcomings would help them better refine the focus so that they can achieve their goal 9
in the specified timeframe. He defined ad hocs as a specified group identified to do 10
specific work over a defined time period. 11
Chair Greenfield turned the discussion to considering priorities, including specific areas 12
the Commission wants to focus efforts on, while considering alignment with Council 13
priorities and working directly with staff in an advisory role to City Council. Other 14
considerations would include consistency with the Master Plans which define the 15
overarching goals, or otherwise specified goals through direction from City Council. He 16
said the duties of the Parks and Recreation Commission are defined in the City Municipal 17
Code as an advisory body, focused on planning and policy for goals, services, construction 18
and renovation. Financially, the Commission can specifically review with staff. Serving 19
as a conduit to the community is a key role as well. Since staff and Council’s reach is 20
limited, the Commission is a next level that can be more in touch with the community. 21
Community members are able to reach out to Commission members as a first point of 22
contact. The Commission can be involved with community meetings on specific areas, 23
such as park renovations, dog park considerations, et cetera. The Commission may also 24
look into certain matters as directed by Council. An example is the recent directive from 25
Council to serve as a community forum for the Urban Forestry Division. Highlights of the 26
agreement, approved by Directors of Public Works and Community Services, include 27
helping to implement programs within the Urban Forest Master Plan, such as preserving 28
and growing the tree canopy in the community and fostering community communication 29
and collaboration. 30
Chair Greenfield explained the new Handbook which defines general guidelines for the 31
City boards, commissions and committees, such as standards of conduct, duties, 32
commitments, et cetera. He highlighted the item, “Creation of the Annual Work Plan and 33
Report.” The work plans are approved by Council and serve as direct feedback to progress 34
forward with the primary items the Commission will work on for the period of the work 35
plan. Regarding ad hoc committees, they are temporary committees with a specified task 36
and purpose, with a specified timeframe in which to accomplish the task, which should be 37
less than one year. One of the reasons for this is to make sure that ad hoc committees are 38
not standing committees, which would be subject to Brown Act constraints. This allows 39
for flexibility to meet regularly with a small group and not be subject to the Brown Act 40
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 7
constraints. It is a minority group of the Commission, with two or three members and may 1
work directly with staff or meet independently. The ad hocs are created by an action of the 2
Commission, with members appointed either by the chair or the action. For the Parks and 3
Recreation Commission, members are typically appointed by an action of the full group. 4
Chair Greenfield invited questions or comments. 5
Mr. Anderson emphasized, from a staff perspective, the value of the ad hocs. He said they 6
are instrumental in getting the work prepared for Commission review, doing the research 7
and assisting the staff to work through issues in great detail, and that they are a great benefit 8
to the community. 9
Commissioner Kleinhaus said she was wondering about identifying items within the Parks 10
Master Plan which may not be the highest priority for the City or easily fit into the City’s 11
priorities for the year, but are things that the Commission thinks are high priority. She 12
wondered if they can still work on things for which there is a program or policy in the 13
Parks Master Plan, but the bucket they fall into are not in the current City priorities. Chair 14
Greenfield answered that if the Commission feels strongly that there is something that 15
should be a priority which is not directly addressed in the Council or staff priorities, it 16
would be something the Commission could discuss. If staff felt it was a reasonable idea 17
that could be supported, they could include it in the work plan as a recommendation to 18
Council, requesting the green light to move forward with it. 19
Mr. Anderson addressed the question, saying that everything in the Parks Master Plan is 20
fair game for including in something they do. They could have a work plan item 21
specifically dedicated to implementing elements of the Parks Master Plan. On the other 22
hand, there is the balancing act of limited resources for all the things they want to achieve. 23
Also, different items rise in priority throughout the year. There may be a Parks Master 24
Plan element that becomes high priority for one reason or another and jumps to the top, 25
but as long as they are considering the prioritization process, including everything they 26
want to achieve, the Parks Master Plan is definitely on the list. 27
Commissioner Freeman commented that they are in a fast-moving world that changes as 28
a result of effects of the pandemic, resources, et cetera and he wondered if there was a way 29
to have an addendum that might not have been part of the Master Plan or initiated from 30
the Council. He wondered if there was any kind of vehicle that adds to the Master Plan to 31
become a priority. Mr. Anderson thought there was a component of the Master Plan that 32
talks about updating it. It is a living document that is refreshed and re-analyzed. He thought 33
the timeframes for that might be spelled out in the Plan. He said it may be that they set the 34
cycle and the plan for a refresh or an addendum. Or it may be that they keep an ongoing 35
list of priorities, and re-examine them. 36
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought the timeframe was five years, and since it was done in 37
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 8
2017, it may be time to start thinking about it. She thought there were a lot of things they 1
may want to re-examine at some point, or bring to the community to examine. She said 2
that the goals in the Master Plan each have policies and programs under them, and there is 3
no clear equity among the goals. Some may get a lot of work, while others didn’t get any. 4
She thought it would be interesting to have this information. Chair Greenfield felt this 5
was a good idea, relating to what is appropriate for the five-year review. He thought they 6
should consider available resources and if it is something they should begin to take up this 7
year. He thought they should at least work to create a list of things to consider to be 8
included in the living document, and also learn the process for getting updates into the 9
Master Plan as well as what a five-year review includes and at what level of detail. Since 10
they will not have answers to these questions at the retreat, it is something to revisit at a 11
later date. 12
Chair Greenfield shifted the conversation to highlights of the Master Plan and alignment 13
with aspirational documents. Other plans are applicable as well, including the City’s 14
overall Master Plan; the Park and Recs Master Plan, including Parks, Trails, Open Space 15
and Recreation Master Plan; the Urban Forestry Master Plan; the SCAP (Sustainability 16
Climate Action Plan); and the GSI (Green Stormwater Infrastructure) plans. He reviewed 17
the principles defined in the Parks Master Plan and said the important principles to keep 18
in mind while considering priorities include Playful, Healthy, Sustainable, Inclusive, 19
Accessible, Flexible, Balanced and Nature. Discussions of priorities should be consistent 20
with most of these principles. Specific goals called out from the Master Plan include 21
providing high quality facilities and services for the community; enhancing what they have 22
both in breadth, quality and variety of use within Parks and Rec and Open Space facilities; 23
creating environments that include regular active and passive activities to support health, 24
wellness and social connections (consistent with the City’s annual priority); preserving 25
and integrating nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout the city 26
(consistent with Council’s sustainability priority); developing innovative programs, 27
services and strategies, which has been important over the past few years with new 28
challenges and the need to re-think different areas; and managing Palo Alto’s land and 29
services effectively and efficiently. 30
Chair Greenfield invited comments or questions. Hearing none, he continued the 31
discussion on priorities. 32
Chair Greenfield presented the City Council’s priorities for the coming year. The four 33
top-level priorities are economic recovery and transition; climate change protection and 34
adaptation; housing for social and economic balance; and community safety and health. 35
He said in looking at the priorities, there are clearly two specific ones speaking directly to 36
the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission with staff – climate change and 37
community safety and health – but t will be important to try to find alignment with these 38
priorities. 39
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 9
Chair Greenfield invited comments from Council Member DuBois. 1
Council Member DuBois remarked that there was a lot of discussion under community 2
safety and health on a wide range of topics, so this is an area where Parks and Recreation 3
work plan can really contribute, as well as climate change. There was discussion about the 4
tree ordinance, about potentially dedicating more parks space, air quality, and many people 5
spoke about noise, particularly airplane noise. Chair Greenfield asked if specific items 6
under community safety and health were listed as priorities. Council Member DuBois 7
replied it was a broad discussion and did include a lot of talk about crime under the 8
community safety piece, and funding of public safety positions, among other things. Chair 9
Greenfield said the Commission has struggled with broadness and specificity in 10
developing priorities. Council Member DuBois said the City’s work plan is much broader, 11
and the PRC work plan didn’t have to align with it one hundred percent. 12
Chair Greenfield initiated the topic of staff priorities, which became somewhat less 13
aspirational and more of a reality check in defining what is possible with existing 14
resources. Mr. Anderson shared the list of items which are above and beyond staff’s day-15
to-day activities, but which are significant – maintaining parks and open space preserves, 16
offering recreational programs, and staffing facilities. Some of their priorities are capital 17
improvement projects, a few of which are longstanding and need to be finished, such as 18
the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which started before the pandemic and 19
was derailed by a number of issues, including need to focus on higher priorities. They hope 20
to finish this soon, hopefully coming to the Commission in March and wrap it up in April. 21
Mr. Anderson went on to say they have improvement projects they are working on as well, 22
including Boulware Park, coming soon, dealing with improvements to the park expansion 23
land that was purchased and dedicated in 2020. That project will include renovating the 24
playgrounds, pathways and amenities. There will be a new restroom and a new dog park 25
associated with the project. This is another project which the Commission had already 26
taken action on by approving a Park Improvement Ordinance, which was approved by 27
Council. They are now at the stage of building them out. These include Ramos Park 28
improvement project, with new playground, pathways and restroom; Cameron Park 29
improvement, with new playground replacement; Cubberley Field restroom, a 30
longstanding project they look forward to making progress on; and the Magical Bridge 31
playground improvement, replacing existing surfacing and a adding a shade element. 32
Other Parks priority projects include the skate park, which needs a push with extra staff 33
attention to get it to the next step of another community meeting. They have been working 34
on this with the stakeholder group and will bring it to the Commission for a 35
recommendation and then take it to Council. Another project is implementing weekday 36
fees at Foothills Nature Preserve. They have only been charging for holidays and 37
weekends, and will implement weekdays after some preparation. A new endeavor is to 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 10
develop an e-bike, electric bike, policy for Parks and Open Space. Current regulations are 1
outdated and need a fresh look at this emerging and growing activity. The First Tee driving 2
range and youth area improvement project was presented to the Commission, and they 3
have a recommendation from the Commission. It is now up to staff to take it to Council as 4
a discussion item, which will happen soon. This project is heavier in terms of staff 5
involvement, guidance and management, so as it moves forward it will take a fair amount 6
of staff resources and time. 7
Mr. Anderson shared some Recreation-focused priorities. Continuing to offer diverse 8
programs to meet enhanced needs of the community. In Aquatics, they need to hire new 9
swim lesson teachers and expand lessons and group swim hours during spring and 10
summer. They will continue their work on the Racquet Court Policy. The Pickleball rules 11
were recently updated, but there is more work to do, which Mr. Howard is working on and 12
will be bringing to the Commission. Another priority they are working on is filling vacant 13
positions. They recently filled a Supervising Park Ranger position at Foothills which had 14
been vacant for two years. Shortly after that, one of the park rangers moved on to another 15
job, creating another vacancy. A Coordinator of Recreational Programs is a position which 16
will help facilitate and support the Commission when filled, among other things, such as 17
the Community Garden program. There are two vacant Park Maintenance positions which 18
they hope to fill soon. A Program Assistant I, a Program Assistant II, a full-time Custodian 19
and a Facility Attendant are also open positions. The work of these vacant positions is 20
currently being spread over existing staff, which spreads them thinner and makes it more 21
challenging to address the previously-listed priority programs. 22
Chair Greenfield invited comments and questions of the Commissioners. 23
Regarding the electronic bikes policy, Commissioner Kleinhaus stated that it came up at 24
Mid-Pen on Wednesday, and they decided to not allow them, because of the high-pitched 25
noise in the spectrum inaudible to humans, but which causes wildlife to disappear from an 26
area. She suggested that perhaps they should not allow electronic bikes in certain open 27
space areas and asked if they were thinking about how to regulate it. 28
Mr. Anderson replied that there is currently outdated language in the regulations which 29
prohibits motorized bicycles from Parks and Open Space, unless handicapped-related. The 30
California Vehicle Code has new language, and their regulation needs to be updated, but 31
they have not looked at the issues and the policy, so they need to do this. He has been in 32
touch with Mid-Pen staff, who worked on the recent policy review, and he felt staff could 33
learn a lot from their research and conclusions. His recommendation was that they 34
eventually form an ad hoc committee to help work through this policy to create their own, 35
as well as updating the regulation. Commissioner Kleinhaus said their Board of Directors 36
did not accept staff recommendations because they thought that they were too liberal. She 37
said regulating this seems like there is a tremendous amount of work for staff, and although 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 11
very important, it would be a difficult thing to ask of staff. 1
Chair Greenfield agreed that it is a reasonable and important observation that staff has a 2
list of priorities they are planning to work on and given discussion of the vacant positions, 3
staff resources are limited right now, more so than usual. If things go well, they may be 4
less limited going forward, but they have to get there first. Regarding the e-bike discussion, 5
he said it is a policy area that has never been specifically addressed in terms of Parks and 6
Open Spaces. It is something that makes sense to him to address as a Commission. It won’t 7
be an easy project and not a one-year project, so they may look at it in terms of scoping 8
things out during the first year to better define what they are aiming for. 9
Commissioner Freeman added that it is a great report and it is nice to see many things 10
happening. Staff has many challenges, especially with filling the vacant positions and 11
competing with other cities in recruitment. Regarding e-bikes, he said the fact that they 12
are trying to be proactive and stay ahead of something that is in the environment, getting 13
a lot of growth and momentum, it was nice to know they are somewhat in front of it. E-14
bikes are starting to become the norm, so he thought it would be a great effort. 15
Chair Greenfield also saw the size and speed of e-bikes increasing, with more of the 16
monster bikes with big tires, going faster. He said there are obviously ranges of e-bikes 17
and different uses and nuances to consider when developing a policy. 18
Chair Greenfield welcomed Commissioner Brown who joined the meeting, and updated 19
her on the discussion. He invited further comments of the Commission. 20
Commissioner Cribbs asked whether there was a timeline on filling the vacant positions, 21
and also whether there have been resignations as well. Mr. Anderson responded that the 22
timeline is tricky. The vacant positions are for community services which predominantly 23
fall into the Park and Rec category; however, it is across the board throughout the City, in 24
different departments, many of which Parks staff rely upon, including to fill their positions. 25
For example, Human Resources is understaffed and struggling, which expands the typical 26
timeframe for filling a position. It may have been three to four months in the past, but is 27
now closer to six. They were given the opportunity to prioritize certain positions, but those 28
get counter-balanced with the entire City, so it is difficult to give an accurate timeframe. 29
He thought in the ballpark of four to six months may be realistic. In terms of resignations 30
within Community Services, he said there have been some resignations, as well as others 31
leaving for jobs elsewhere. 32
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought there was a component of a native plant garden in the 33
Ramos Park Improvement Project, where it shows playgrounds, pathways and restroom, 34
Mr. Anderson confirmed this is the case. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked that native 35
planting be specified in the item. 36
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 12
Chair Greenfield was pleased with the interaction in this section and added that 1
everything they are talking about was meant to be collaborative in the manner of how the 2
Commission operates, in which everyone has a voice. He continued the discussion, adding 3
that as they consider priorities to keep in mind three pillars of the Commission, which are 4
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, so as they consider priorities, they should consider 5
which priorities fit into each area. Also, they should consider the alignment of the three 6
pillars with the Council priorities, focusing specifically on Climate Change Protection and 7
Adaptation and Community Safety and Health. He said as they consider prioritization of 8
what they will select as their focus, it is clear that they have resource limitations. Normally, 9
when resource limitations are considered, it is financial resources that come to mind. As 10
they look into the aspirational Master Plan, there are many projects and great ideas that 11
have been lacking funding in the past. He said a more immediate constraint currently is 12
staff resources, so they need to be careful to make sure the Commission is making things 13
easier for staff on a net basis, with the goal of a net positive, so that staff is getting more 14
out than they are putting in, based on their recommendations and the policies and projects 15
they are working on. 16
Chair Greenfield said as they consider priorities over the past year and new priorities, it 17
is helpful to look at the work done in detail. Priorities for the past year included 18
maximizing Rec opportunities with available resources, equity access and inclusion for 19
programs, Parks and Open Space; Foothills Nature Preserve stewardship; and 20
environmental sustainability and climate change. The end goal of their action was to add 21
their priorities for the coming year. Looking back at the past priorities there is generally a 22
recommendation that something shouldn’t continue as a priority for more than three years, 23
so they would look back at the Commission’s ad hocs and use that to review which projects 24
would be their priorities for the coming year. 25
Chair Greenfield shared the chart of where they were last year. The chart was updated 26
after spending some time with the Vice Chair, staff and others considering what they might 27
want as a starting point for next year. His feeling was that they didn’t need to have an ad 28
hoc for Foothills Nature Preserve in the coming year, but moving that to a liaison role 29
would probably make more sense given that major work has been done in terms of 30
recommendations sent to Council. Looking to better design a specific ad hoc focus for the 31
next 15-month period, he said the CIP Review is done on a short basis every year, over a 32
shorter period of time, as well as information trying to project a time period when 33
something would be addressed. The rough draft of what could be done with ad hocs 34
included addition of an e-bike policy ad hoc to develop a scope for e-bike usage in Park 35
and Open Spaces was touched on. They also thought it would be appropriate to include an 36
ad hoc to make a recommendation regarding potentially rededicating the Byxbee Park 10 37
acres that were part of Measure E, which undedicated the area for potentially putting in an 38
anaerobic digestor. Also, a website refresh was listed as an ad hoc. It would not become 39
part of the Work Plan, but would be something that two to three people could be working 40
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 13
on. 1
Chair Greenfield invited comments from the Commission on the proposed starting point 2
for ad hocs for the coming year. 3
Commissioner Brown noted in regard to Website Refresh that Communications was listed 4
under Funding Opportunities so she recommended thinking about somehow consolidating 5
those, to avoid duplication of efforts, because it would essentially be two groups working 6
on communications. Chair Greenfield thought the Website Refresh would be at a higher 7
level, looking at the website as a whole, looking at other commission websites within the 8
City or potentially other cities. Looking at what is obsolete and doesn’t belong, what they 9
want to add. He said Funding Opportunities is an important area they will want to have 10
included in the website update, but as a fairly small subset. He said it was a good point to 11
consider. 12
Chair Greenfield invited further comments from the Commissioners. 13
Commissioner Cribbs commented she was glad they were continuing to have the Funding 14
Opportunities because she continues to have faith the community that if there is a need 15
that is evidenced that they can find a way to do accomplish it, despite the lack of City 16
budget and staff resources. She felt it was an important ad hoc to continue, although she 17
acknowledged that they don’t want ad hocs to go on forever. She felt that defining the role 18
a bit tighter might be good. She said she was always happy to see Recreation Projects 19
continuing, along with the Racquet Court Policy. Regarding Park Amenities, she thought 20
they had made a lot of progress so it may be good to have a scorecard about timelines, et 21
cetera, that the ad hoc could work on. She said she liked all five of the suggested ad hocs. 22
Chair Greenfield wondered if they needed an ad hoc for Park Amenities or whether a 23
liaison role would be sufficient. Commissioner Cribbs thought it was a good question for 24
staff, but felt that a lot of that is currently in progress and funded, and if there were 25
timelines and a scorecard so that they could just applaud the fact that they are making 26
progress on the renovations, it could possibly move to a liaison role. Mr. Anderson said 27
there were some achievements coming for the Dog Park. Boulware will be adding a new 28
one, which is great, because they don’t do that very often. Advancing other dog park-29
related things such as the off leash program they talked of, which didn’t made much 30
headway, an ad hoc would probably be helpful, although it could be revisited next year. 31
He thought the Restrooms were dialed in fairly well, with four on the agenda, so an ad hoc 32
was probably not necessary to help with that. Park Amenities, for things such as benches, 33
et cetera, he thought a liaison role would be fine, but he was open either way. 34
Commissioner Cribbs asked for an opinion on having a liaison role for the Dog Park 35
specifically so that the dog community has a contact, especially since the one at Boulware 36
is set to be done and there is a little bit of funding for renovation of others, but she didn’t 37
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 14
foresee other dog parks being redone in the near future for which an ad hoc would be 1
needed. Chair Greenfield was also thinking of moving this to a liaison role, so that there 2
would be a dog park-specific one and perhaps a restroom one, although Park Amenities 3
could include restrooms and benches. 4
Commissioner Kleinhaus referred back to the goal, “Preserve and integrate nature, natural 5
systems, and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.” She suggested that one way to 6
do that would be looking at Green Streets and the Urban Forest together. She thought it 7
felt well within what they are asked do under the City Council Sustainability and Health 8
goal. She said bringing nature to the city is something they can do, along creeks, planting 9
native trees and other things that could be looked at and other groups to work with such as 10
the people working on bicycle connectivity. She thought there were connectivity issues 11
that could be looked comprehensively, which she is interested in. She said there is a lot of 12
work being done in other cities in connection with that. 13
Commissioner Kleinhaus said another goal she would like to see as a staff priority is 14
completing Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which has been sitting on the 15
back burner. Under Park Dedication, she expressed interest in looking at the ten acres. 16
There was a City priority in which one of the programs was to look at all the other types 17
of park-like land that the City owns, to see which ones could be dedicated as parkland. If 18
the Commission was going to look at Park Dedication, it might be good to expand it to the 19
other properties in City ownership that could be dedicated. 20
Chair Greenfield said there has been a Park Dedication in the past that has reviewed 21
opportunities, as Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested, which is partly why he suggested 22
calling it the Park Dedication ad hoc, rather than limiting it specifically to Byxbee Park. 23
He thought the focus with the ten acres could include considering other opportunities 24
within the city. On the BCCP, it is on staff’s plan, and set as a liaison role. 25
Commissioner Kleinhaus responded that she is not sure what a liaison is, versus and ad 26
hoc. Chair Greenfield explained that the way they have defined ad hocs is that it is a 27
committee that will work on something that is part of the Work Plan submitted to the City 28
Council for approval, something with a specified timeframe and a specific goal and focus, 29
not something that would be there year after year. It is not a catchall for multiple issues 30
that would become more of a standing committee. He said the liaison roles are typically a 31
single person, one who interacts with a certain group of stakeholders in the city, attends 32
the meetings and reports back to the Commission. A liaison can have a variety of different 33
roles depending on the topic. For example, a Dog Park Liaison would be a conduit to the 34
dog park community. The Field Users Liaison might work with stakeholders and soccer 35
clubs and baseball organizations, in terms of issues they have with fields. In many cases 36
they try to be a point person that relieves some of the burden on staff in terms of 37
community outreach. With respect to BCCP, a liaison would be someone to be the point 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 15
person to help the project get across the finish line, that staff can work with. In some cases 1
it may be helpful for staff to speak with a Commission member before bringing an item to 2
the full Commission to get a first pass of questions and a focus. 3
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought, in light of this explanation, her previous opinions might 4
change. Chair Greenfield responded that the meaning of her idea of bringing nature to the 5
city may need to be clarified, but it might be something that could be a project with a 6
liaison working with staff in developing ideas to bring to the Commission for 7
consideration, and then potentially creating an ad hoc and Work Plan item. Commissioner 8
Kleinhaus said that native plants and trees in parks is really looking at other things. She 9
said the BCCP didn’t need to be there because that would be a liaison role. Chair 10
Greenfield said that is the recommendation. 11
Commissioner Freeman said in looking at the e-bike policy, he wondered if it incorporated 12
the growth in electric scooters and if they are able to ride those in the parks, since they are 13
probably pretty fast as well. He wondered about changing the title on this to cover different 14
types of electric modes that could be used in parks, whether bike or scooter. Chair 15
Greenfield responded their focus is definitely on parks and open space areas, as opposed 16
to streets and sidewalks, which is out of their purview and is part of the Department of 17
Transportation. Mr. Anderson thought that it should be added, and thought it could be for 18
e-bikes and other things motorized. The existing regulation is outdated, but does call out 19
electric motorized bikes and also mentions scooters, so he felt they could look 20
comprehensively at the ordinance, which is broader than just bikes. Chair Greenfield 21
mentioned Segways, which Mr. Anderson said would also fit in that category. 22
Commissioner Freeman suggested, under Recreation, that another area that continues to 23
grow nationwide is pickleball. Though there is pickleball in one location, there might be a 24
need to cover some of the other communities. He wondered about adding that as one of 25
the items under Recreational Projects, or if it would fall somewhere else. Chair Greenfield 26
thought one thing to look at was the “Projected Duration” column and that the Racquet 27
Court Ad Hoc is policy-focused and something they will look to wrap up in the first half 28
of this year, as with Funding Opportunities, which is looking at a narrow focus, to finish 29
and get some ideas posted on the website and disseminated to the public. He said 30
Recreation Opportunities is a broader ad hoc. They may need to refine the definition, but 31
something like additional new courts would certainly apply to that ad hoc. He agreed it 32
would be something appropriate for this Recreation Opportunities Ad Hoc to include in 33
their focus, but it would be separate from the Policy Ad Hoc, so having two separate ad 34
hocs is appropriate, although he was open to other opinions. 35
Chair Greenfield asked if the Commissioners leaned toward not having a Park Amenities 36
Ad Hoc. 37
Council Member DuBois suggested making Park Dedication more broad. Byxbee Park is 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 16
important, but other park opportunities are also important. Otherwise, he felt the 1
Commission’s direction seemed very logical. 2
Commissioner Kleinhaus brought up lighting as an emerging potent pollutant that is 3
impacting ecosystems and human health in teens. Outdoor lighting has been connected to 4
mental health issues, such as anxiety. She said she was not thinking there was something 5
they could do about it, because it is not necessarily only in parks; however, there is more 6
and more interest in more lighting on trails and allowing extended use. The extended use 7
is also causing harm. She thought there were discussions in Palo Alto in the past in this 8
regard, but they died off. She wondered if the Parks and Recreation Commission had any 9
interest or jurisdiction, or should just be aware in case something comes up that they should 10
look at it. Chair Greenfield wondered if there was some way to combine the two items 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus had brought up – bringing nature to the city and the outdoor 12
lighting, as sort of a naturalist overview focusing on ensuring that impacts to the natural 13
environment are properly considered, as well as growing the natural environment and 14
extending its reach. He was not sure if there was a liaison role that could be developed to 15
work with staff. Perhaps it would be related to the Sustainability Liaison role, which is 16
also somewhat ambiguously defined. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought putting it with Bringing Nature to the City would be a 18
good idea. Commissioner Brown thought these concepts would fall under the 19
Sustainability Liaison role, especially with the SCAP going on right now, in which there 20
are a lot of policy changes and opportunity for community engagement around them. She 21
felt the ad hoc role should be reserved for specific projects that arise from the liaison role 22
that have a set timeframe and objectives, and require the input of other committee members 23
on that ad hoc, versus a smaller project that can be done just with the liaison and staff. For 24
example, the sensors at Rinconada Pool is something that Commissioner Cribbs and staff 25
handle and doesn’t need to be a full ad hoc committee. Some projects need a little more 26
specifics and identification of resources required and a timeline before they should rise to 27
an ad hoc committee level. Chair Greenfield agreed and thought they did not have enough 28
at this point to define a specific role for an ad hoc, although he appreciated Commissioner 29
Kleinhaus’ interest in the topic and that it fits within the scope of the Commission, but 30
looking at it as a liaison role initially, working with staff on something that could become 31
an ad hoc would be appropriate. He advocated moving the idea to the liaison list. 32
Commissioner Kleinhaus said since the SCAP is focused primarily on electrification, this 33
probably would never float beyond the bottom of their priority list. She said it is one of 34
the primary goals in the Park Master Plan, and there are a lot of policies and programs 35
associated with it that have not yet been addressed, so having it as a liaison to 36
Sustainability doesn’t actually address it and is basically saying it’s not going to happen. 37
Chair Greenfield said the Sustainability Liaison has in the past been someone liaised with 38
staff. In the past, there were a number of presentations and updates on GSI, on Urban 39
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 17
Forestry, on the SCAP itself, on sea level rise. The liaison role could be defined to be 1
whatever they want, and, as she pointed out, the overall SCAP focus is electrification 2
which doesn’t fit so much with what they Commission is doing, but that doesn’t mean that 3
the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Sustainability Liaison couldn’t be more focused 4
on the natural elements. Commissioner Kleinhaus said she didn’t understand how the 5
liaison influences what the other groups are working with and bringing back to the 6
Commission. 7
Mr. Anderson said, regarding how to include things like bringing nature to the city and 8
addressing lights, he thinks of sustainability in a much broader context and wouldn’t limit 9
it to any one area. For a liaison role it is wide open, so it could include all of those things. 10
He suggested regarding bringing nature to the city, one way to address it would be to make 11
it an ongoing thing, looking for opportunities, calling out issues that are observed or 12
reported from the community, and working with staff on those. Another way would be for 13
the point person on Park Improvement Project review to raise those items. Asking, “What 14
are we doing for native plantings in here?” “Are their native trees addressed?” “Are we 15
addressing native species?” “How about lighting?” That kind of focused view on every 16
project that it brought, with the special attention of a liaison, would fit well. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus said one of the three maps in the Parks Master Plan looks at 18
connectivity in terms of the Urban Forest, in terms of pollinator corridors. The map looks 19
not only at parks, but also areas near creeks, trees on streets, et cetera, to bring nature’s 20
fingers and patches into everywhere in Palo Alto. She wondered if and how that would 21
ever materialize. The liaison role sounded good as described, but it doesn’t really look at 22
the whole fabric of a city. She didn’t know if it was something they could even do. Chair 23
Greenfield thought part of the liaison role in working with staff is to help determine what 24
can be done and answer some of Commissioner Kleinhaus’ questions. Starting off with a 25
liaison role to research and investigate further would be the right approach. 26
Vice Chair LaMere thought it was important to keep in mind as they go through this with 27
their priorities, how many ad hocs they can manage, how many staff can handle, and their 28
own commission of six members. He thought as they come up with ideas and priorities, it 29
was important to keep that in mind as well. They will need to agree on priorities and what 30
can be accomplished. 31
Chair Greenfield concurred and asked for the Commissioners’ thoughts on Park 32
Amenities in terms of trying to limit their ad hocs. He asked if they should move forward 33
for the time being with a Dog Park and a Park Amenity Liaison. Commissioner Cribbs 34
thought they should try that, and they could always revisit it if it’s not working. There was 35
no opposition expressed to this. Chair Greenfield summarized that the ad hocs they were 36
then focused on included CIP; Funding Opportunities, publishing and communicating 37
tools; Recreation Projects, which needs more focus on how to define it to be achievable 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 18
within 15 months; Racquet Court Policy, which will be disbanded once the policy update 1
recommendation goes to Council; the e-Bike Policy, possibly with an updated name; Park 2
Dedication; and Website Refresh. 3
The Commission discussed more appropriate names for e-bike policy, including 4
Motorized Mobility and Motorized Conveyances. Chair Greenfield asked if people would 5
know what motorized conveyance meant. Commissioner Freeman thought someone could 6
easily think of a small motorbike as a conveyance. He said they might just make it e-bikes 7
or scooters. Chair Greenfield said there are scooters and skateboards and one-wheeled 8
devices, and thought maybe Electric Conveyances Policy would work, because they are 9
not talking about a gas-powered device. Commissioner Brown thought it would be fine. 10
Chair Greenfield said if nothing else, the name will serve to educate when people ask 11
what it means. 12
Chair Greenfield moved to discussion on liaison roles. He shared a list of proposed 13
liaisons, based on conversations with staff and the Vice Chair. The proposal would fold 14
the Baylands 10.5 Liaison into the Rec Projects Ad Hoc. Commissioner Kleinhaus 15
interjected that when the City did the outreach on the 10.5 acres, there were equal numbers 16
of people who asked to make part or all of it into a natural area. Given that the loss of 17
habitat on the golf course has been tremendous and that one of the goals of the project on 18
the golf course was to increase habitat and that did not happen, she thought that the 10.5 19
acres should have both the natural habitat restoration aspect and recreation aspect, 20
probably 50/50. Chair Greenfield felt that might be getting too far in the weeds. He said 21
Baylands 10.5 is not specifically a recreation project but something to consider all 22
potential uses. He asked if they should keep it as a liaison role, since the likelihood of 23
something coming in the next year doesn’t seem high at present. 24
Mr. Anderson said this was a challenging one. The 10.5 acres, the First Tee and the 25
Skateboard Park all fall into categories of large projects that require a lot of public 26
outreach, staff time and funding to make progress on. He said it was possible they may get 27
to the 10.5 Acres this year, depending on how things shift, and direction from Council 28
once items like the gym occupy their attention for discussion and direction to staff. He was 29
not sure whether there should be an ad hoc or liaison role, although he thought it should 30
be, at minimum, a liaison role. Chair Greenfield said there is not any immediate activity 31
on it, unless it started from an activity from coming out of a Rec project which would need 32
consideration of environmental impacts and potential environmental uses. Overall, he did 33
not see a role of a liaison for the coming year, but was open to opinions of others. 34
Commission LaMere wondered if they could add a liaison later if it looked like there was 35
going to be activity. Chair Greenfield said it was something they could easily add. 36
Commissioner Cribbs said it could be merged into the Recreational Opportunities, and if 37
it came to the top, then it could go back to being a liaison specifically for 10.5. She felt it 38
should go someplace. Chair Greenfield said they wanted to try to avoid overlap. If there 39
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 19
is a liaison for 10.5 that is not part of the Rec projects then there are potential concerns. 1
Commissioner Cribbs said that is why they would put it in the Rec projects for now and 2
take it away from where it is now. Chair Greenfield agreed. 3
Commissioner Kleinhaus wondered if, when it came back, it would be more focused on 4
the recreational opportunities and not the nature restoration opportunities which at least 5
half of the people commented on in the Parks Master survey, asking for it to be a natural 6
area restoration. Chair Greenfield said that would be the case if it came back as a 7
Recreation project, but if it was coming back as more of a Sustainability project, then that 8
would have a different focus. It is something the Sustainability Liaison could potentially 9
make a recommendation on. If there is a group that is looking to develop it for other, non-10
recreation purposes, that is something else that the Commission should consider. 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus didn’t think people saw it as non-recreational, but just as a 12
“birding issue” rather than development of intense use. She pointed to that day’s front page 13
of the Mercury News, stating that people from all over the country are flying to Palo Alto 14
to see one bird that happened to be somewhere in midtown. She said it has been going on 15
for over a week. The birding part is a recreation facility. It’s just different than a gym, and 16
she thought when the surveys were done in the past, at least half of the respondents asked 17
for a birding park. Chair Greenfield said he understood that she was saying that the natural 18
project would be recreation as well and something else that the Recreation Ad Hoc could 19
take on. Commissioner Kleinhaus said she wasn’t trying to create more and more 20
committees and liaisons, but was concerned with this issue. Chair Greenfield said if there 21
is a group that comes in with a potential project to develop, then they can consider where 22
it fits in. 23
Chair Greenfield moved on to other liaisons. The recommendation was to continue with 24
Baylands Tide Gate, Community Gardens, Cubberley Field Users, Golf, and GSI. He said 25
on Hawthorne’s Area Planning, there was no activity on it last year but it did get 26
information from Mid-Pen and was something appropriate for the Commission to continue 27
having a liaison for and would probably have some activity in the coming year. He said 28
they are looking to create a Funding Partner Liaison, who would be the partner for both 29
the Palo Alto Rec Foundation and the Friends of Palo Alto Parks. For Brown Act purposes, 30
this should be someone who is a point person for these organizations, but is also part of 31
the Funding Opportunities Ad Hoc. Keeping the PAUSD and Safe Routes liaisons, the 32
Sidewalk Vendor Policy would be a short term role, just to help the policy across the finish 33
line. The Skateboard Park would get folded into Rec Projects. 34
Commissioner Cribbs asked what the current situation was with the Ventura plan. Council 35
Member DuBois advised that they have an Ad Hoc that is talking to Sobrato, and the Fry 36
site is a key part of that. Council had a meeting with some preferences and are waiting for 37
that conversation to finish, and it will then go back to Council to select a preferred 38
alternative. He thought Council was very strong about some of the creek restoration. 39
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 20
Commissioner Cribbs thought that was good to know because the Commission was 1
concerned that the area doesn’t have as much parkland as maybe it should, so before it 2
goes farther along, it would be nice to keep up with it. Chair Greenfield said the role of 3
this liaison would be to monitor the activities of that Plan, and report back to the 4
Commission, particularly as it applies to parks in the area, looking to ensure that park 5
resources are included in conjunction with new developments. 6
Chair Greenfield said they would finalize the roles and assignments in the next action, but 7
he directed that they go back to talking more about specific priorities for the year and how 8
the ad hocs fit in with the City Council priorities in terms of climate change, community 9
safety and community health, looking to start articulating their priorities. He said they 10
would take a ten-minute break and he asked the commissioners to think about how these 11
roles would apply directly to their priorities. 12
[The Commission took a ten-minute break] 13
Chair Greenfield said it was time to try to nail down their priorities and noted the 14
discussion they’ve had on ad hocs and liaisons was to include preliminary discussion 15
focused specifically on how to inform what areas and what projects should fall under their 16
priorities. This could include more discussion of points such as those Commissioner 17
Kleinhaus brought up regarding inclusion of a natural focus. He added for consideration a 18
liaison role of Natural Environment Ambassador that they could consider in addition to 19
the Sustainability liaison. He said they will also want to consider under Park Amenities 20
Liaison, with that person being the first contact that staff would reach out to for Park 21
Improvement Plans and PIO reviews, if that was something mentioned as a Sustainability 22
Liaison, or maybe both of them. He felt it would be helpful to look at the 2021 priorities 23
and determine which ones would apply moving forward and which ones would not. He 24
thought they should aim for three or four priorities and try to keep them as concise as they 25
can – and broad at the same time. 26
Commissioner Cribbs said she thought that the Recreational Projects specifically is talking 27
about capital improvements, or things that have to be built. She was concerned that they 28
don’t specifically call out recreation programs, such as new programs that the community 29
might want to see instituted having to do with kids or seniors or adults, or something that 30
is specifically a recreation program. For example, a new dance opportunity in town that 31
everybody wanted to take lessons. Or maybe a senior’s exercise class that they are missing 32
and should have. Chair Greenfield suggested Recreation Projects and Programs. 33
Commissioner Cribbs agreed. 34
Chair Greenfield said looking at their priorities from last year, at a quick glance it would 35
make sense that Foothills Nature Preserve Stewardship would not a be a specifically 36
called-out priority for them, but is one they have completed work on to the extent of not 37
even planning to have an ad hoc specific to that. Having been a specific focus for the past 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 21
two years, it would be nice to be able to move on. He said, looking at the ad hocs and 1
considering how they mesh with the Council priorities, it makes sense for them to align to 2
the Community Safety and Health and the Climate Change Protection and Adaptation the 3
Funding Opportunities, which applies to all of them, also, Capital Projects applies to 4
everything they do in a high level sense. The Rec Projects and Programs applies to 5
Community Health. He was not sure it applied to Community Safety. Commissioner 6
Cribbs thought that it did, because offering programs or projects for people to become 7
involved in may result in crime becoming less attractive. Chair Greenfield said Racquet 8
Court Policy is about health. Electronic Conveyances would apply to all and would be 9
primarily on the Safety front. Park Dedication is about Health and Climate Change. Chair 10
Greenfield was interested in ideas from people on what to state as their priorities for the 11
coming year. 12
Commissioner Heinrichs said they have environment and nature as a big part of the Parks 13
Master plan, and should be there, too. It fits well with Community Health and Safety, with 14
Climate Change, and with Economic Recovery. She thought they should have improved 15
nature in the city rather than always mitigating. Chair Greenfield asked how it would be 16
articulated it as a priority for them to consider. Commissioner Heinrich liked the term 17
Nature in the City. 18
Commission LaMere asked if there were any worthy of carrying over, or if they were 19
trying to come up with completely new ideas and directions similar to City Council, who 20
carried over some that they are able to do. Chair Greenfield said that is an obvious place 21
to start. He thought they do want to consider carryover. They could start by copying the 22
other three priorities in and discuss whether they want to keep them, edit them or omit 23
them, or combine them in some manner. 24
Commissioner Freeman thought Nature in the City could possibly be considered part of 25
Environmental, Sustainability and Climate Change as it is in some ways related, with the 26
tree canopy and other such priorities. Commissioner Heinrich shared a distinction between 27
the understanding of climate change as opposed to biodiversity and ecology, things she 28
has been working on for many years. She explained that nature and biodiversity is the first 29
layer. Sustainability comes under that layer and focuses on humans and how to use less 30
resources and how to share more of the resources. When they do that without taking care 31
of nature and without taking care of the non-human-focused part, then the result is 32
essentially that they will lose everything. She said sustainability, the human part, is part of 33
the natural world, not above it. So, while having Environmental, Sustainability and 34
Climate Change as priorities is critically important, she felt they should also look at Nature 35
and Biodiversity, which are not the same. She suggested perhaps stating Biodiversity as 36
the priority instead of Nature in the City. She said other City Councils and government 37
agencies are recognizing that sustainability is really anthropocentric, and nature and 38
biodiversity are bigger than that. She said it is not easy, but people think they just have to 39
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 22
change how they consume and whether they use electric or gas, or whether they recycle or 1
not, to save the planet. But they have to look at both pieces – the biodiversity part and the 2
human focus. 3
Commission LaMere wondered if it would be appropriate to put Biodiversity, 4
Environmental Sustainability, and Climate together as one priority. Commissioner 5
Heinrich felt if they were all equally weighted that would be fine, although some cities do 6
separate biodiversity and sustainability. Chair Greenfield appreciated raising the 7
distinction regarding biodiversity and advocated combining it with sustainability. The 8
Commission continued to discuss the wording of this priority and came to agreement on 9
Biodiversity, Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change. 10
The Commission discussed Maximizing Recreation Opportunities Using Available 11
Resources. Chair Greenfield asked if the Commissioners preferred to focus on “projects 12
and programs” as opposed to “opportunities,” with areas identified to pursue, highlight 13
and emphasize, or leave the statement as it is. Commissioner Freeman wondered if “using 14
available resources” could be seen as an opt-out opportunity. Commissioner Brown said 15
this was something she felt strongly about last time they were doing this, because it does 16
fall in line with the economic recovery and transition and everything the City has been 17
going through, being strapped for resources and staff. She thought it was important to keep 18
that top of mind, especially because the City Council wanted to focus on economic 19
recovery and transition, and efficient use of staff resources is key to that. The Commission 20
agreed upon the wording, “…considering available resources.” Regarding “Equity, Access 21
and Inclusion,” Commissioner Cribbs felt it was important to keep it as is, since equity is 22
so important in thinking about programs and parks and open space, along with access and 23
inclusion. 24
Commissioner Kleinhaus wondered if the issue of sea level rise should be called out as a 25
separate item. There is a lot of current work being done in Public Works on sea level rise, 26
mitigations, adaptations and many discussions. The Tide Gate is part of that, to protect the 27
community. Since there is so much going on, she wondered if they should consider it this 28
year, separate from climate change. Chair Greenfield thought if they consider their 29
alignment with Council priorities, climate change means protection, adaptation, sea level 30
rise. If they consider that climate change encompasses protection and adaptation, then sea 31
level rise is part of climate change adaptation, and is covered under that priority. 32
Chair Greenfield suggested a check of how the ad hoc priorities aligned with the priorities 33
they proposed. He worked through each of the ad hoc committees, to identify which 34
priority it falls under, and said it looks like all of the ad hocs are consistent with what they 35
are setting up as priorities. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to consider any further 36
update to the proposed priorities. 37
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 23
Vice Chair LaMere moved to adopt the 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission priorities 1
as discussed. Seconded by Commissioner Brown, the motion carried 6-0, by roll call vote. 2
3
3. Establish and Assign Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee 4
and Liaison Roles 5
Chair Greenfield shared the list of proposed ad hoc committees for the Commissioners’ 6
consideration and discussion pertaining to the titles. The Racquet Court CY 22 was 7
changed to Racquet Court Policy Update Ad Hoc since it was close to finished and would 8
be disbanded later in the year. 9
Chair Greenfield requested feedback on the list of staff liaison roles. He pointed out 10
regarding the Baylands 10.5 Liaison that it did not portray the nature-related orientation. 11
Also, in response to the discussion about adding a “Bring Nature to the City” type Liaison, 12
he had added a “Natural Environment Ambassador” as an idea. There was a question of 13
separate roles for a Sustainability Liaison and a Natural Environment Ambassador, and if 14
so, if it would better to have that as two different people. Mr. Anderson thought it would 15
be helpful to have one person cover both of those areas. Chair Greenfield said if there was 16
a need to split it into multiple roles, they could easily do that, as the ad hoc and liaison 17
roles are created by an action of the Commission and could be changed if needed without 18
impacting the Work Plan and did not require Council approval. 19
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked that the Sustainability Liaison be changed to 20
Sustainability and Biodiversity Liaison if it was to be just one person. The Commission 21
was fine with this. 22
Chair Greenfield asked what the consensus was on the Baylands 10.5. Commissioner 23
Cribbs thought it was to be put back in the Recreation Ad Hoc and that if it were to become 24
a passive nature preserve, then that would actually be recreation, too, just a different kind 25
of recreation, so it could fit there. If the need arose, they could change it around. 26
Commissioner Kleinhaus was agreeable as long as the idea of so many people in Palo Alto 27
who wanted it to be a more natural park was not forgotten. 28
With the Commission in agreement as to the list of ad hoc committees and liaisons, they 29
then proceeded to making assignments for the committees and liaisons. Chair Greenfield 30
advised that they should keep in mind that there would be another Commissioner added to 31
the group within the next few months and they will want to get the new person involved 32
in some of the roles. He said if someone’s load gets heavy they may want to give up some 33
space moving forward. Typically, there were three people on the ad hocs. Given that they 34
were looking at seven ad hocs for six people, he highlighted that Website Refresh, CIP 35
Review and potentially Park Dedication were ad hocs that probably could get by with two 36
people, although it would probably be better to have three people on the other ad hocs. 37
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 24
The Commissioners proceeded to communicate which ad hocs they were interested in. 1
Commissioner Freeman was interested in the Electric Conveyance Policy, the Racquet 2
Court Policy, and Recreation Projects. Commissioner Kleinhaus chose the Electric 3
Conveyance Policy. She asked why the Park Dedication ad hoc would take so long. Chair 4
Greenfield said it was because it was an open item. The committee would stay active until 5
a potential item is taken up by City Council. Commissioner Kleinhaus chose the Electric 6
Conveyance Policy. Commissioner Brown preferred the CIP, the Website Refresh and was 7
happy to stay on the Racquet Court Policy for continuity. Commissioner Cribbs was happy 8
to stay on Funding Opportunities and Recreation Projects. Chair Greenfield pointed out 9
that the committees are new committees continuing in a similar related effort. Vice Chair 10
LaMere chose Recreation Projects, Funding Opportunities and CIP Review. Chair 11
Greenfield said his interest would be CIP, Electric Conveyances and Park Dedication. He 12
volunteered to help with Website as well. Commissioner Cribbs added that she would also 13
be on the Racquet Court Policy. 14
The Commission then made assignments for Liaisons. Commissioner Brown volunteered 15
to continue on the Sidewalk Vendor Policy and Dog Parks , in honor of her pet that passed 16
away last week. She was interested in the School District citywide also, but said she could 17
be flexible. Chair Greenfield asked if she would be able to attend the meetings on a 18
Wednesday morning, somewhere around 8:30 or so. Commissioner Brown would check 19
on that. Commissioner Kleinhaus chose Baylands, BCCP and Sustainability and 20
Biodiversity. She was also interested in Foothills and Urban Forestry. Commissioner 21
Freeman assumed most of these meet on a weekly basis. Chair Greenfield clarified some 22
might be monthly, others more quarterly or less frequent, but some will be more than once 23
a month. The nature of the activity and what is happening with it will determine the 24
frequency, and it may not be consistent. Commissioner Freeman went with Park 25
Amenities, Golf and Cubberley. Chair Greenfield shared that Cubberley is a role that is 26
more of a basket waiting for something to happen. If something is happening at Cubberley, 27
it could quickly become a top priority for the Commission but is in more of a monitoring 28
status at present. Commissioner Freeman said Field Users would be another one for him. 29
Commissioner Cribbs chose the Youth Council and Aquatics – unless someone else 30
wanted to take it on – and Funding partners. Vice Chair LaMere volunteered for 31
Community Gardens and Safe Routes. Chair Greenfield remarked that Foothills is where 32
they could potentially have two liaisons, and Ventura Plan was an open possibility. Vice 33
Chair LaMere indicated he would take the Ventura Plan. Chair Greenfield volunteered for 34
Baylands Tide Gate, Field Users jointly with Commissioner Freeman in a transitional 35
manner, Hawthornes and Urban Forestry. Chair Greenfield summarized that all were 36
covered, with two on a couple. He asked if there was any interest in joining anything else. 37
A second person on Foothills could be used potentially. He volunteered if no one else 38
wanted to. Commissioner Freeman offered to take Foothills. There were no final 39
comments or changes made. 40
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 25
Mr. Anderson thought the list looked good, but offered for consideration that on Foothills, 1
some continuity from a previous ad hoc might be beneficial, but not essential. Chair 2
Greenfield said it might be good for him to continue on that. He asked Commissioner 3
Freeman if he minded moving off of Foothills, and Commissioner Freeman was fine with 4
that. Commissioner Kleinhaus said if someone else was interested in Urban Forest, she 5
was happy to give it to them. Chair Greenfield designated the list as a starting point which 6
could be adapted. 7
Commissioner Freeman moved to adopt the 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission Ad 8
Hoc Committees and with assignments, and the Liaison assignments. Seconded by 9
Commissioner Cribbs, the motion passed unanimously, by roll call vote. 10
4. Develop a Calendar Year 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission Workplan 11
Chair Greenfield requested that Mr. Do share the Work Plan template screen, which 12
consisted of two component. First, a report on the Work Plan from 2021 and second, the 13
items included in the 2022 Work Plan. He did not expect to move forward with an action 14
that day to complete the item, but the plan at this point would be for the Work Plan to be 15
completed at the March Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, on the 22nd, and would 16
be going to City Council in April for approval. 17
Chair Greenfield asked the Commission to focus on getting their reviews in place as best 18
they could for the 2021 Work Plan, listing the items to be included in the columns on the 19
Work Plan on Baylands Tide Gate from last year, the primary focus of the project of the 20
ad hoc, the community benefits and measures of success being the main things. He said 21
rather than getting bogged down on wordsmithing, he wanted to focus on concepts. He 22
said a task will be given to each of the associated ad hocs to return with a proposed work 23
plan with all fields completed. This would be submitted to staff and included in the packet 24
for the March meeting. The process will be that each ad hoc will develop what they believe 25
to be an appropriate work plan for the work they will be undertaking and leading, The full 26
Commission would then review it and approve it at the March meeting. The first time the 27
full Commission will see all of the details will be a week before the March 22nd meeting 28
when the packet is posted. 29
Chair Greenfield asked the group to work on input to guide the ad hocs as they create the 30
Work Plan for next year. He invited questions, suggestions, clarifications. Commissioner 31
Cribbs wondered if there was a new, revised, updated work plan, or if this was the form 32
from last year. Mr. Anderson said he was told by the Clerk’s Office that they were 33
developing one and would try to get it to them soon. He recommended that they move 34
forward with this one, given the time schedule, and if he gets a new one he will help move 35
things around, or work with the ad hocs to do so. Commissioner Cribbs said when she read 36
the Boards and Commissioners Handbook again it looked like it was new, but this didn’t 37
look new. Chair Greenfield said he has posed a question to Council Members regarding 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 26
the Work Plan. The process is new, and they’re all figuring out their way, with 1
considerable differences from commission to commission. Right now they are in a one-2
size-fits-all template, based on the work plans submitted last year from the various 3
commissions and boards. He asked what the Council liked, and if they could get examples 4
of work plans that Council considered well-developed and that they could use as models 5
moving forward. He said they may get more information before the March meeting, which 6
Mr. Anderson would circulate. 7
Chair Greenfield suggested they go through and review the status and see to what extent 8
they can decide on the success of each ad hoc. On the Tide Gate, the ad hoc has been 9
disbanded because the goal was completed, with a Park Improvement Ordinance 10
recommended to City Council. Unfortunately, the work on the project was delayed a year, 11
so it will be starting at the end of this year instead of at the end of last year. This was 12
outside of the Commission’s control and something they knew was a potential risk. They 13
will continue with the liaison, but the work is completed. 14
Commissioner Freeman asked if they are working on the Work Plan document in concert 15
with someone else, or providing their own best input. Chair Greenfield said it is a 16
document that each of the Boards and Commissions prepare their own and submit to City 17
Council for approval. It is a check and balance that the commissions and boards are 18
working in areas and projects that Council is authorizing and recognizing as consistent 19
with their priorities and with staff priorities. 20
Mr. Anderson added that the ad hocs are welcome to communicate with staff, both him 21
and Mr. Do, to assist and brainstorm together to get things in the position they want to be, 22
but they cannot consult with other Commissioners until the March meeting because of 23
Brown Act regulations. Chair Greenfield said if there are ad hocs that only have two 24
people, a third commissioner could be involved. 25
On the Dog Parks and Restrooms, Chair Greenfield said there are multiple line items 26
applying to particular that work plan. The Ramos Park restroom construction is not 27
complete. The Park Improvement Ordinance is complete and awaiting construction. On 28
Dog Park Improvements, the Boulware Park Improvement Ordinance is in place and 29
awaiting construction. The Off-leash Dog Park Pilot item is completed, although not 30
successful in moving forward, but it was decided that Ramos Park was not a suitable site 31
for an off-leash park. Public Education on dog park practices was not completed. It could 32
be continued with the 2022 Dog Park Liaison. 33
Regarding Fund Development, support for CSD events, Commissioner Cribbs said all the 34
community events that Mr. Howard wanted to do last year were supported. Some of the 35
events did not happen because of COVID. The relationship with support organizations 36
was very successful, with each coming in to speak with the Commission twice. The 37
guidelines published for public donation and sponsorship is a task that the Ad Hoc will 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 27
continue and wrap up, and will be a starting point for developing the 2022 Work Plan. 1
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked regarding Friends of the Parks if Friends of Foothills Park 2
was part of that. Chair Greenfield indicated that it was not. It has been a focus of funding 3
partners, which is not the role that Friends of Foothills Park have played. Mr. Anderson 4
said there has been a recent development where they are connected and working under 5
their 501(3)c. They are a distinct entity with a distinct focus, but for their fundraising and 6
non-profit status, they have to tie into Friends of Palo Alto Parks. Chair Greenfield asked 7
if they were working with Environmental Volunteers on some of the work at Foothills. 8
Mr. Anderson said their work is independent of that. Commissioner Cribbs said there are 9
some conversations going on with Grassroots and the EVs. They have good 10
communications, some coming from the stakeholder’s group at the City Manager’s Office. 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there was a separate liaison to the stakeholder group. 12
Chair Greenfield explained that in the past year the Chair and Vice Chair served as liaisons 13
to that stakeholder group. They could potentially add a third person to be involved with 14
the stakeholder group. If Commissioner Kleinhaus was one of the Foothills Liaisons, it 15
would be appropriate for her to be in that role. Mr. Anderson described the stakeholder 16
group, saying it was originally put together to help address the influx of new visitors to 17
Foothills when it opened to the general public. It was intended to be a diverse group of 18
people from Stanford and adjacent cities, all looking at and weighing in and discussing 19
things during that process. It has tapered off some as visitation has become more 20
manageable. But it is still helpful in reviewing the latest and being aware of what is going 21
on. He felt it would be helpful to have another Commission join. The frequency of 22
meetings has diminished and will probably be around every other month. Commissioner 23
Cribbs added that one of the things she thought they should focus on is future plans, such 24
as a docent program and the relationship with the community college, and things they can 25
do for the Preserve or can suggest in the future. She said it has been very effective in 26
thinking and talking with different groups. Commissioner Heinrich thought it would be 27
hard to be the liaison for Foothills without being part of that group, or at least know about 28
it and what is going on with it. It was decided that Commissioner Heinrich would be added 29
to the stakeholder’s group. 30
Commissioner Cribbs asked to go back to the PRC Review of CIP Priorities. She wondered 31
if there was a way to get a more timely review from the CIP Committee about the gaps, 32
because one of the ideas was to be able to do some fundraising for things that fell out of 33
the CIP program, but sometimes they don’t know about it far enough in advance to do 34
anything about it. Chair Greenfield said that is part of his goal for the CIP Ad Hoc this 35
year. Commissioner Cribbs wondered how to do this in view of Brown Act considerations. 36
Mr. Anderson agreed it was a challenge, with the Brown Act, to have those two related 37
Ad Hocs communicate. He thought a route to try would be to have things in his Department 38
Report that could be shared for the community and the full Commission. Commissioner 39
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 28
Cribbs thought they should try that, because too many times in the past they have been at 1
a community meeting and there’s a hole that could be filled by neighbors willing to help 2
pay for something, and by the time they get it organized it’s already past. She said it’s 3
nobody’s fault but she wanted to figure out to get that to be more visible. 4
Chair Greenfield continued with review of the status on the PRC Review of CIP Priorities. 5
Mr. Anderson thought that the review was successful. 6
On New Recreation Opportunities, further discussion on a City Gym definitely happened. 7
On Baylands 10.5 Acres Assessments, Chair Greenfield was not sure they had further 8
discussions on that. The Skate Park goal of further community discussions did occur; abut 9
the recommendation to be forwarded to City Council has not happened yet. First Tee, 10
Vice Chair LaMere said they took action on a public-private partnership, shared facilities, 11
with the City and PAUSD and sports organizations. Vice Chair LaMere said nothing 12
happened with shared facilities. The survey regarding ethnic and gender opportunities did 13
not occur and is something to consider for next year. 14
Foothills Nature Preserve – the item was completed and the Ad Hoc disbanded. A 15
recommendation was forwarded to City Council for consideration on a future agenda. 16
For the CIP Review, List of Gaps, Identifying Supplemental Funding Opportunities – they 17
were not successful in that, but it was something to strive for in the coming year. Chair 18
Greenfield said they did review and discuss the plan. It is a matter of timing on when they 19
can get information to have an opportunity to influence what happens. This one is a burden 20
for staff to be able to carve out time to review this with the Commission within the limited 21
window in which they have access to the information. 22
The Racquet Court Policy is in process but not completed. Mr. Anderson added that 23
Pickleball Rules were completed. Chair Greenfield said he has heard some requests that 24
pickleball rules be posted more prominently. For example, the amount of time someone 25
can play on a court versus the pickleball convention of 75 minutes to 90 minutes. The 26
convention is 20 minutes on, and then the next group rotates. He wondered if this was 27
something that the Court Policy Ad Hoc that will be coming back to the Commission with. 28
Mr. Howard advised that it has already been passed forward. It is a part of the rules that 29
were approved, but they have not gone to the Consent for the City Council. He is trying to 30
get it through on March 7th. There has been delay, but as soon as it gets approved, the signs 31
are ready to go, and those rules will be posted and visible at the sites. 32
Chair Greenfield moved the discussion to the 2022 Work Plan. He suggested prioritizing 33
talking about the new Work Plan items as opposed to the carried-over items from the 34
previous work plan, because those Ad Hocs have a good basis on the direction to move in. 35
Chair Greenfield started with the Electric Conveyances Policy and said they need 36
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 29
understand what is realistic to try to accomplish this year. He thought they could be 1
researching policies of neighboring jurisdictions and reviewing how they apply to Palo 2
Alto. Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested researching some of the science, a lot of which 3
has been done by other jurisdictions. Commissioner Brown asked how detailed, because 4
it seems like it’s getting into the “how” of the policy creation and she wondered how 5
detailed they should be. She felt this seemed like one of the more narrow-focused ones. 6
They can carve out individual actions, but she didn’t want to pigeonhole any Ad Hoc to 7
doing things a certain way. Commissioner Freeman thought, on the research, to make it 8
more expansive, reaching out not only with neighboring communities, but also across the 9
country, because they are related. Commissioner Kleinhaus said she does think they need 10
to look at the science. Chair Greenfield thought looking at signage would be helpful as 11
well. The benefits would be safety, preservation of natural environment, increased access. 12
Commissioner Kleinhaus said that needs to be evaluated. Chair Greenfield said part of the 13
research would be balancing access and recreation with safety and environmental 14
protection. He thought it would need to be conservative in goals. He asked Mr. Anderson 15
if it was realistic to have a policy recommendation as a measure of success. He thought 16
they should send some kind of recommendation to Council, but was unsure whether it 17
should be scoping it out, or a policy. Mr. Anderson said he is normally conservative on 18
these because he hates to let anyone down, but he would aim for completing this and 19
sending a policy recommendation to Council. 20
The Commission discussed Park Dedication next. The following goals were suggested: 21
Reviewing and making a recommendation regarding potential rededication of Byxbee 22
Park 10 acres; consideration of other park dedication opportunities with research and 23
review. Commissioner Cribbs thought there had been discussion about pros and cons of 24
park dedication. Chair Greenfield said when they are reviewing the rededication of 25
Byxbee, for example, it should be a balanced discussion, which includes the benefits of 26
doing so and reasons to consider not doing it as well. Chair Greenfield suggested increased 27
dedicated park space to meet Master Plan goals. He wondered if there were mandates for 28
the park space, or just a goal. Commissioner Kleinhaus said there can’t be mandates in the 29
plan, but it did have goals. Chair Greenfield wondered if there were any mandates 30
anywhere else. Mr. Anderson said only with Comprehensive Plan and Master Plan goals. 31
Commissioner Kleinhaus said there was the Quimby Act but she didn’t know if it applied. 32
Mr. Anderson did not think it was a mandate to achieve those acres per resident goals. 33
Chair Greenfield suggested the measure of success on the first item be recommendation 34
to Council on the Measure E site. He thought they should make a recommendation, 35
whether it be to rededicate it or not. The measure of success on the second item would be 36
reviewing other potential sites, discussing them in the Commission, and forwarding a 37
recommendation to Council if appropriate. 38
Chair Greenfield invited questions on the work plans for the other Ad Hocs – CIP Review, 39
Funding Opportunities, Racquet Court Policy, Rec Projects. He said there will be six work 40
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 30
plans coming out of the Parks and Recreation Commission and said this was an opportunity 1
for the full Commission to speak openly on any of these subjects. Commissioner Heinrich 2
asked that on the Recreation Projects there be some kind of integration of biodiversity 3
where possible. 4
V. COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 5
ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 6
Chair Greenfield advised that it was 2:30, their targeted end time. He thanked the 7
participants for their attendance for the four hours. Commissioner Cribbs said it will be 8
great when they can all get together in person and have lunch and conversation. Chair 9
Greenfield thanked everyone for their different levels of work in preparing for this, a lot 10
of work done very recently, including Mr. Anderson, Mr. Do and Mr. Howard, for making 11
it an informative event. He looked forward to working with everyone in the coming year 12
and getting a new member added to the Commission as well. He thanked staff for their 13
assistance and support through the year. 14
Mr. Anderson echoed Chair Greenfield’s sentiments and appreciated staff being there and 15
spending time helping them out. He looked forward to working with the Commission. He 16
said staff is excited about working with them and making the City as good as they can 17
make it, offering great programs and projects, parks and open space. He complimented the 18
Chair for his leadership and the prep work put into this process, and the Vice Chair as well. 19
Vice Chair LaMere thanked everyone for their participation and input. He was excited to 20
see what the Commission could do in the next 15 months. 21
Chair Greenfield thought they had articulated a reasonable set of goals that they get move 22
forward on. He looked forward to their next meeting on February 22nd. 23
VI. ADJOURNMENT 24
25
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. 26