Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-28 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesAPPROVED Approved 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 February 28, 2023 7 In-Person & Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair LaMere; Commissioners Amanda 11 Brown, Anne Cribbs, Nellis Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, and Joy 12 Oche 13 Commissioners Absent: 14 Others Present: Council Liaison: Vice Mayor Greer Stone 15 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Javod Ghods 16 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17 Chair Greenfield welcomed all to the meeting. 18 BUSINESS 19 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 20 Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency 21 MOTION: 22 Motion by Commissioner Cribbs for adoption. 23 Motion seconded by Commissioner Oche. 24 Motion approved 6-0. 25 PUBLIC COMMENT 26 Nate Blair thanked the Commission and particularly Commissioner Freeman for their 27 help in coordinating with the City and Palo Alto Little League regarding the maintenance 28 of Hoover Field. 29 AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 30 APPROVED Approved 2 There were no suggestions. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 24, 2023, Parks and Recreation 3 Commission Meeting 4 MOTION: 5 Motion by Vice Chair LaMere for approval. 6 Motion seconded by Commissioner Freeman. 7 Motion approved 7-0. 8 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 9 3. Department Report 10 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, provided an update on 11 recruitment. He spoke of challenges caused by weather-related events. Cubberley and 12 Greer Park fields were open and renovations completed. The baseball field at the 13 Baylands Athletics Center would open by March 3. He furnished an update on the 14 Cubberley Gym, and staff was obtaining a new repair quote for the revised 15 recommendations. Public Works would move forward with obtaining a contractor for 16 hazardous material remediations, which could take 6 to 12 months. He hoped to have 17 more information on timeframes soon. The Rinconada Pool would be closed for the 18 replastering project March 6 through April 20. Swimmers were welcome to register for 19 membership at Burgess Pool. There would be a community meeting on March 7 at 6:30 20 p.m., at Mitchell Park Community Center to discuss the proposal for the Recreation 21 Wellness Center. An invitation had been emailed to the commissioners. For those unable 22 to attend, there would be an online survey on March 7. The Palo Alto Arts Center would 23 host a free annual family day event on March 5 from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m., and activities 24 would be appropriate for ages five to adult. More information was available on the City’s 25 home page under calendar. City Council approved the PRC Commission E-bike 26 recommendation along with a few additions, which would likely be on the Commission’s 27 workplan next year. The updated ordinances and regulations would become effective 28 April 13. The Measure E recommendation would be a discussion topic for City Council 29 scheduled tentatively for April 3. He would update the Commission if there were any 30 changes in schedule. He discussed why the Valley Water Tide Gate Project had been 31 deferred, and he explained that it would be a two-phase project. 32 BUSINESS 33 APPROVED Approved 3 4. Sewer Line Rehabilitation Project – James Allen– Discussion 1 James Allen, Manager Water Quality Control Plant, shared slides and provided the 2 history of the pipeline make-up. The lowest 2,400 feet of the pipe was severely corroded 3 and in danger of further corrosion and collapsing and needed rehabilitation. An 4 additional 6,560 feet would need rehabilitation in 10 years or more. He commented that 5 consultants had evaluated methods of rehabilitation, and they would be using a cured-in-6 place-pipe (CIPP) method, which he explained. He provided information related to the 7 activities of Mountain View’s pipe relining. He described details of Palo Alto’s 8 upcoming project. The project cost was approximately $5M at the current design level. 9 They would continue to work with Landfill and Park staff throughout design and 10 construction. They were doing CEQA work. Information and detour signs would be on 11 trails for the public, and there would be fencing and flaggers for truck traffic. He 12 supplied a slide showing trail detouring signage and fencing. 13 Commissioner Freeman asked how noise would be minimized and how odors would 14 impact the community and how long that would occur. 15 Mr. Allen commented that they would comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, and 16 they would require sound enclosures on the bypass pumps. 17 Michael Randall, Jacobs Consultant, discussed how they would limit the risk of odors by 18 letting water cool during the lining process. 19 PUBLIC COMMENT 20 There was no public comment. 21 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if the blue liner would remain and function as an 22 independent conveyance when all the metal corroded; if the corrosion was occurring 23 inside and not due to saltwater in the groundwater; when the project was expected to take 24 place; if they were coordinating parking with the horizontal levee project; if closure of 25 the area would be for longer than this project only as there was another project to occur 26 after in the same area; if there would be lighting and where it would be; and if there 27 would be active construction activity at night. She queried if flashlights could be used 28 versus having lighting to check on the pumps or if lights could be turned on as needed 29 versus having all-night lighting. She was concerned about wildlife disturbance. 30 Mr. Allen clarified that the concrete was being protected from further corrosion to 31 provide structural support. There would need to be more rehabilitation. He noted the 32 outside of the pipe looked good when they had dug up a section for repair. They wanted 33 to bid the project later in the summer, and contractors would plan work for spring and 34 summer in about February, so they wanted the contract, etc., in place later in 2023. As 35 APPROVED Approved 4 contractors worked in dry weather, the project would take place next spring/summer. 1 They would coordinate with Public Works regarding parking and the horizontal levee 2 project. He furnished a slide showing where the lighting would be for the workers to 3 check on pumps, and he did not know the safety details of using flashlights versus 4 having lighting, but he would work with the contractor. 5 Mr. Randall gave an analogy of the pipe being laminated. The CIPP liner would protect 6 the steel and would act as a new preventative corrosion measure. Regarding corrosion, 7 the condition assessment showed the inside condition of the pipe. It was hard and 8 expensive to assess the condition of the pipe exterior. They were trying to rehabilitate the 9 internal surface of the pipe. There were no indications of external problems with the 10 pipeline. Once lined, additional cathodic testing could be done to see if there was 11 exposure on the outside of the pipe. They indented to have project lighting to facilitate 12 the bypass pumping. It was up to the contractor to determine if existing lighting at the 13 landfill would facilitate the need. There would not be active construction at night putting 14 in the liner, but the bypass system would run 24/7. 15 Commissioner Brown questioned if there would be information on the website, staff 16 presentations at Council, or other messaging in addition to the information and detour 17 signs. 18 Mr. Allen expressed they could add information to the website and list the website on the 19 signage. 20 Commissioner Freeman asked when the biological survey was expected to be completed 21 and if work would start before or after its completion. 22 Mr. Randall declared the biologist would be on site tomorrow to do the preliminary 23 CEQA investigation, and the findings would guide them through the City’s Planning 24 Department on further steps preconstruction and during construction to comply with 25 environmental requirements. 26 Mr. Allen noted the pipeline would be on the service roads, and future relining of the 27 upper reaches of the pipe would require more environmental work. 28 Commissioner Cribbs inquired how communication to the public would be handled; how 29 long they expected the rehabilitated pipe to last; and how often the pipe would be tested 30 for failure. 31 Mr. Randall indicated the life expectancy of the rehab liner was 25 to 50 years, but it was 32 dependent on hydrogen sulfide gas and how well of a cleaning job the contractor would 33 be able to do. 34 APPROVED Approved 5 Mr. Allen noted the pipe had been televised twice in its 50-year life and more in recent 1 decades. There were assessment standards. 2 Vice Chair LaMere queried if the pipe would need to be completely replaced if it failed 3 in 25 years or if it could be relined again. He wanted to ensure there would be signage 4 showing detours and perhaps maps at the beginning of the trails. 5 Mr. Randall indicated that the liner should last 25 to 50 years. Condition assessments of 6 the liner would need to be conducted in the future, and additional lining options could be 7 used, and there were also other technologies that could be utilized. 8 Chair Greenfield questioned if there would be someone on site 24/7 to monitor operation 9 once the bypass was in place. He shared Commissioner Kleinhaus’ concerns related to 10 lighting and would appreciate lighting being on demand or as needed. He asked which 11 was more intrusive to wildlife, flashlights or fixed lighting. He presumed the Baylands 12 website would include trail closure information and thought their webpages could 13 include links to the project and the reason for the closure, and he requested Community 14 Services staff coordinate with Public Works in that regard. He asked the timeline of the 15 Tide Gate Project. He wanted to ensure there was coordination of the seismic 16 improvements, the horizontal levee, and this project, particularly in the planning phases, 17 to make sure there would be no problematic overlapping. 18 Mr. Allen acknowledged there would be someone on site 24/7 to monitor operation once 19 the bypass was in place. He did not have an answer as to which kind of lighting was 20 more intrusive to wildlife. Regarding other projects in the Baylands, he had asked for an 21 update from Valley Water, and as soon as he received the information, he would connect 22 it. 23 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, would coordinate with 24 Public Works regarding links on the Baylands website. As for follow-up on this item, 25 Mr. Allen would share information with him, which he would pass on in the Department 26 report. 27 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired where the catchment was coming from; if the 28 alignment was going under the Los Altos Treatment Plant; and if they were ensuring that 29 anything needing to be done in the future would not be made more difficult due to 30 construction in the area. She thought cumulative impacts related to wildlife, etc., of all 31 projects in the area, not just this project, should be considered due to so many projects 32 coming to the Baylands. 33 Mr. Allen replied there was 62.5% flow share from Mountain View, and the other 34 agencies were Los Altos, South Palo Alto area, and Los Altos Hills, which he could not 35 remember the percentages. The alignment was just west of the Los Altos Treatment 36 APPROVED Approved 6 Plant. He discussed this pipeline being the regional water quality control plant. An 1 easement would be created to repair and maintain the pipe. 2 Chair Greenfield inquired if there would be cost sharing with neighboring cities and how 3 the project compared with similar projects recently done in the Baylands and Mountain 4 View. 5 Mr. Allen remarked there was cost sharing of 62.5% with Mountain View, and he 6 thought it was 4% for Los Altos Hills and the difference split between Los Altos and 7 Palo Alto. It was commensurate with the usage and the capacity. It measured up with the 8 allocated capacity right to flow within the pipe. The project was very similar to projects 9 in the Baylands and Mountain View, but Palo Alto was using a much larger pipe, so 10 there was a smaller pool of contractors. 11 Mr. Randall commented on the complexity of three-foot versus six-foot pipe. 12 Commissioner Kleinhaus queried if there was capacity for the planned growth of North 13 Bayshore. 14 Mr. Allen voiced there was capacity for the planned growth of North Bayshore and 15 explained the pipeline’s capacity. 16 Chair Greenfield asked if there were environmental issues or lessons learned with the 17 Mountain View work. 18 Mr. Allen commented that Mountain View had no environmental issues and that they 19 had worked with their in-house biologist. 20 Commissioner Kleinhaus noted the biologist had to closely monitor Mountain View due 21 to burrowing owls nesting, which Palo Alto occasionally had them wintering. 22 5. Attendance Policy – Tim Shimizu - Action 23 Tim Shimizu, Assistant City Attorney, provided a reminder of changes in the Brown Act. 24 Most of his training was review from the Boards and Commission training earlier in the 25 year. The California State of Emergency related to COVID-19 ended today. He provided 26 a history of the Brown Act related to COVID and remote attendance. The default rule 27 would be in-person attendance starting tomorrow, and use of remote attendance would 28 be much more constrained. He supplied slides. He outlined requirements to attend a 29 Brown Act meeting remotely. He explained that remote attendance was allowed under 30 AB 2449 under certain circumstances with certain limits. He discussed the circumstances 31 in which AB 2449 could be used and the processes for using it. There was a list online, 32 which could also be sent to Commissioners, outlining conditions for remote attendance 33 under AB 2449. He specified that there were additional requirements that applied to 34 APPROVED Approved 7 outside of the person making the request, which was why it was important to contact 1 Daren Anderson as early as possible when AB 2449 had to be used. He outlined the 2 requirements. 3 PUBLIC COMMENT 4 There was no public comment. 5 Chair Greenfield asked for an explanation of the options in the action; the remote 6 attendance policy for the City Council; why the same policy would not automatically 7 apply to all BCCs as opposed to each commission deciding their own policy; and if 8 potential exposure to a contagious illness would be permissible under AB 2449. 9 Mr. Shimizu indicated the action decision was whether the PRC wanted to impose 10 numerical limits on “making one’s house a public meeting space” for participation. 11 There were no limits on how many times that could be done in a calendar year. City 12 Council put a limit on how many times that could be done under certain circumstances 13 for their members, which he believed was to promote in-person attendance. City Council 14 left it up to each board and commission to decide for themselves what they wanted to do. 15 Every board and commission he attended decided not to put additional limits on remote 16 attendance beyond what the law stipulated. He had no recommendation as to what PRC 17 should do. He could not say with certainty that potential exposure to a contagious illness 18 would be permissible under AB 2449, but commissioners could work with him and 19 Daren Anderson for any given specific situation with an eye toward compliance and the 20 spirit and letter of the law but acknowledging AB 2449 was intended to facilitate 21 business continuing when people were or might be ill. 22 Commissioner Brown asked if AB 2449 required participation with video and audio on 23 at all times and if other commissions had imposed additional restrictions for standard 24 remote participation, which could be by phone. 25 Mr. Shimizu did not think a participant had to be unmuted, but there must be the capacity 26 to participate with video and audio in general. He would let PRC know if video and 27 audio would be required at all times. Other commissions had not imposed additional 28 restrictions for standard remote participation, which could be by phone. Standard remote 29 participation required one be in a fixed place, so attendance could not be from a car or 30 where the public could not attend, such as an airport terminal, etc. 31 Vice Chair LaMere questioned if speakers and the public could call in remotely. He was 32 in favor of opposing no additional restrictions. 33 Mr. Shimizu declared if the Brown Act under AB 2449 was being used that the public be 34 allowed to participate remotely. 35 APPROVED Approved 8 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, questioned if staff could 1 participate remotely. 2 Mr. Shimizu answered that the Brown Act did not indicate anything new regarding how 3 staff participate as a presenter. Remote presentations could be continued. If the 4 Commission had a preference for specific items, it could be voiced to Daren Anderson. 5 Chair Greenfield asked for an example of a physical or medical emergency; if it would 6 apply to commissioners not being able to attend in person due to a disaster; and what 7 limitations City Council had placed. He understood if a BCC member was remote under 8 AB 2449, the remote option had to be available to the public, but Palo Alto would 9 continue with the remote option for the public, staff, and City Council liaisons. 10 Mr. Shimizu could not give an authoritative interpretation of a physical or medical 11 emergency, but common sense should be used. As specific examples were dealt with, 12 they would have a better idea what would and would not be included. It could apply to a 13 family member. There were provisions in the Brown Act regarding state of emergency 14 and being able to meet virtually. AB 2449 was not designed to deal with earthquakes, 15 etc. City Council had limitations in terms of availing themselves, especially for standard 16 remote attendance. He was not aware of another commission adopting that for 17 themselves. 18 Vice Mayor Stone believed City Council capped it at three meetings for the standard 19 exception, not AB 2449. He remembered that the new exceptions would fall under the 20 20% limitation. 21 Mr. Shimizu indicated it was correct that the remote attendance option for the public, 22 staff, and City Council liaisons would continue. 23 Commissioner Freeman asked if this applied to only meetings of the Commission and 24 not ad hoc meetings. 25 Mr. Shimizu expressed that was correct. As the law was new, the Commission could 26 work with Daren Anderson to figure it out. 27 Chair Greenfield understood it applied to any publicly noticed meetings, and not ad hocs 28 as they did not fall under Brown Act constraints. He inquired if any commissioners 29 wanted to discuss placing constraints other than what other commissions had done. 30 There were no additional comments. 31 MOTION: 32 APPROVED Approved 9 Motion by Vice Chair LaMere to not impose any additional restrictions on the remote 1 attendance policy. 2 Motion seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. 3 Motion approved 7-0. 4 6. Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for 2850 W. Bayshore Development Project 5 – Garrett Sauls – Action 6 Garrett Sauls, Planner with the Planning & Community Environment Department, 7 discussed a 48-unit townhome project City Council approved last year. The question and 8 items the Commission were to discuss tonight related to the existing sewer easement. 9 The applicant was looking to replace the existing sewer line and realign the easement to 10 be outside the Field 3 zone of play. He described and provided slides showing the 11 existing sewer line layout. He indicated there could be an alignment with the easement 12 placing it outside the bounds of Field 3 in the area of play, and the area of work would 13 not impact Field 3 areas of play. There were no proposed tree removals. Start and 14 completion for construction could be a two- to three-week process, and parts of the dog 15 park would be unavailable for two to three days. Following completion of the work, 16 there would be six to eight weeks for soil decompaction, seeding, and turf 17 reestablishment. He discussed the proposed construction method. 18 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, declared the construction 19 activity would not interference with soccer on Field 3 nor the little league activities on 20 weekday afternoons. Both groups had been notified of the project. Feedback was 21 collected, and they were comfortable with moving forward. A slide was furnished 22 showing the access route for equipment and materials. Any shrubs removed or pruned 23 would be replaced with native species, and Park staff would be in consultation with 24 Grassroots Ecology. He outlined the applicant’s responsibility at the end of the project. 25 The outside buffer edge of the turf would be impacted, which would go through the 26 typical prescribed renovation process, but it would not affect use of Field 3. 27 Mr. Sauls indicated he envisioned having the ordinance on City Council’s Consent 28 Calendar on March 6, to have a second reading on the 20th, and having the ordinance 29 become effective 30 days after so construction could begin for the applicant, and the 30 housing construction project could begin. He highlighted benefits of the new easement 31 alignment. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance. 32 PUBLIC COMMENT 33 John Hickey, Vice President of Development for Summer Hill Homes, stated they were 34 trying to help the City achieve their goal. They had the existing easement but thought 35 APPROVED Approved 10 what was presented was a better approach for the City. He understood they had the 1 support of little league, the soccer teams, Planning, Public Works, and Park staff. He 2 asked for the Committee’s recommendation. 3 Commissioner Kleinhaus commented she wanted to see public benefit. 4 Commissioner Oche inquired as to the entire project timeline for construction and the 5 option if the proposed recommendation was not approved. 6 Mr. Sauls noted that construction of the project start to finish would be about two weeks, 7 but in the event of rain, it could be two to three weeks. 8 Mr. Anderson stated the Commission could recommend Council either approve or not 9 approve the ordinance or the applicant or staff could be asked to come back another time. 10 If it was not supported by the Commission, it would be at staff’s discretion whether to 11 take it to the Council or ask the applicant to come back to the Commission. It would 12 depend on the concerns and if those concerns could be remedied before going to 13 Council. If it was something that could not be remedied, it might call for a different 14 course of action. 15 Commissioner Freeman opined the new proposal was a better workable solution. He 16 queried if there would be a new manhole on the field. He voiced that early signage 17 needed to be provided for the dog park. He questioned if there were plans to make the 18 dog park space usable while the grass grew, etc. 19 Mr. Sauls stated there would not be a new manhole on the field. 20 Mr. Anderson thought the condition could of the dog park could be restored to a usable 21 state quickly. Regarding signage, they would typically target two weeks, but it could be 22 done earlier. He would keep the Commission informed of updates. He had a meeting 23 scheduled with the President of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Association. 24 Commissioner Cribbs asked if there could be something additional done about the dog 25 park as it was being put back together and if the time of the whole project was six to 26 eight weeks. 27 Mr. Anderson commented they were looking at only two to three days of the dog park 28 being inaccessible, so there was probably not much more that could be done other than a 29 robust cleaning by in-house staff. The construction project was about three weeks. It 30 would take six to eight weeks for grass regrowth. He shared a slide of the map related to 31 the fencing. 32 Vice Chair LaMere queried why the project needed to be done and if the City confirmed 33 the lines needed replacement. He questioned the impact of a 50-foot-wide zone that 34 APPROVED Approved 11 could be needed for the truck excavator and loader. He asked if the old pipe would 1 remain with no work done to it if it was decided to proceed with the new easement. 2 Mr. Sauls voiced that Summer Hill had communicated there were maintenance issues 3 with the existing sewer line. What was being proposed was similar to what currently 4 existed. He commented that using the existing easement would impact the Field 3 play 5 zone and would require a new manhole in the middle of the field. As for as the City 6 confirming the lines needing replacement, Utility staff had been working closely on the 7 project. He shared slides outlining two options related to the impact of the truck 8 excavator and loader. The old pipe would be abandoned in place if the new easement 9 plan moved forward, which was a fairly common practice, unless there was an 10 environmental issue, but that did not seem to be the case in this scenario. 11 Mr. Hickey declared that some city maps indicated the existing line was an eight-inch 12 line, but potholing indicated it was a six-inch line, and a six-inch line would not be 13 adequate to serve the new project, so it would need replacement even if there were no 14 problems with it. He did not know if Public Works had checked the line. The line was 15 well past its lifespan, and the existing line could have infiltration problems. If staff could 16 confirm an existing line of 8 inches that would not require repair for 60 to 70 years, they 17 would be happy to not replace it. He thought two weeks was an accurate prediction of 18 the total amount of time to install the line. They anticipated the time to trench across the 19 park would be five days. They may need an additional day for the dog park. He 20 addressed the dog park being more of a dog run. If staff desired, a temporary, dog-safe 21 fence could be installed so most of the dog park would be usable during the period of 22 work. He explained why they would probably move forward with the existing easement 23 if they were not able to move forward to Council after tonight. 24 Chair Greenfield questioned if the existing pipe would be sealed on each end if it were 25 abandoned in place. He asked for clarification of the City allocations regarding the 26 current easement and if parkland would be undedicated for the new easement; if there 27 was a berm on the edge of the field; if the proposed location was clear of all tree 28 driplines; if the plan had been passed by the Urban Forestry Section; and if the 29 replacement plan for shrubs should be part of the PIO. He believed it was important that 30 the PIO have a more complete replacement plan, including species involved, before 31 going to City Council and that there be consultation with the Urban Forestry Section. He 32 inquired if the construction area would be cordoned off with a fence during the 33 construction phase. 34 Mr. Sauls did not currently have an answer to the existing pipe being sealed on each end 35 if it were abandoned in place. He spoke of possibly capping it off in some areas. He 36 described the current easement and the agreement in relation to the property owners’ 37 development rights to perform maintenance on the line. There was a berm within the 38 APPROVED Approved 12 space, and Summer Hill would be responsible for replacing that to its existing condition. 1 The proposed location was clear of all tree driplines. The plan had been passed by the 2 Urban Forestry Section, and they had no issues. The replacement plan for shrubs/trees 3 could be part of the PIO, and he believed they had drawings relative to a replacement 4 strategy. Any sort of removal would require replacement based on the City’s Tree 5 Technical Manual requirements. As part of the formal application, there was a tree 6 replacement strategy. City Council approved part of the scope of work included in that. 7 Replacement of shrub species would be consistent with the Tree Technical Manual and 8 the approved plans from the Planning Entitlement that Council reviewed last year. The 9 construction area would be cordoned off with a fence during the construction phase. 10 During construction, there would be fencing primarily around the areas where 11 construction was occurring, and then there would be an orange fencing placed typical to 12 what a lot of other park projects used. 13 Tim Shimizu, Assistant City Attorney, added that the current easement was not dedicated 14 parkland. Parkland would not be undedicated for the new easement as it would require a 15 vote of the people. The proposed easement would run subject to regular rules about park 16 improvement ordinances. The plan was to abandon and vacate the existing easement, and 17 the City would have a policy question whether to rededicate that strip like any other 18 piece of undedicated land. The PIO included shrubs being replaced with native species. 19 Commissioner Kleinhaus queried how often the City provided access to parkland for 20 projects by developers and if there was a PIO for a developer-related project rather than a 21 City-owned project. She questioned if the recommendation could include the easement 22 being dedicated. 23 Mr. Anderson answered that the City providing access to parkland for projects by 24 developers had not happened often. This easement probably existed before there was 25 dedicated parkland. Regarding the easement being dedicated, he thought it could go to 26 Council on consent versus being agendized. 27 Mr. Sauls expressed this was one of the first experiences he had with the City providing 28 access to parkland for projects by developers. They did not want to have easements 29 serving properties running across parklands. 30 Mr. Shimizu declared that the recommendation to dedicate the easement could be added 31 to the motion, but it would not happen by March 6 because the item was already 32 agendized on the City Council calendar. It could be added to the motion to direct staff to 33 bring an ordinance to Council to dedicate the vacated easement as parkland. Vacating of 34 the easement was not happening at the same time as the PIO, so it could be 35 recommended at the same time easements were handled at Council, which would be a 36 few weeks later, that Council adopt an ordinance to rededicate that vacated space. 37 APPROVED Approved 13 Chair Greenfield asked if it would be more appropriate for the Commission to agendize 1 the dedication of this area as parkland at another Commission meeting. 2 Mr. Anderson explained why he suggested it be done now. 3 Mr. Shimizu declared that rededicating parkland was very serious. To be cautious, the 4 Commission could re-agendize this for the next meeting and have a very brief discussion 5 and take a vote, and Mr. Anderson could forward it to Council on consent, especially if 6 rededication was unanimous from the PRC. 7 Chair Greenfield indicated it would be appropriate to agendize it so there would be an 8 opportunity for public comment. 9 Mr. Anderson mentioned that agendizing it would give staff an opportunity to make sure 10 there were no obstacles or constraints inhibiting rededication. 11 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if the motion could include City Council requiring 12 some benefits to the public, especially the desired skateboard bowl. She thought there 13 should be some level of improvement to the park to compensate for the project going 14 through the park. 15 Mr. Sauls noted that the project had already been approved. The only specific issue was 16 related to the easement. He explained the traditional planning process and a PC 17 Application. He was not sure incorporating a public benefit into this could be done. 18 Commissioner Cribbs declared that Commissioner Kleinhaus brought up a good point of 19 there needing to be improvement to the park to compensate for the project, but she was 20 not sure the timing worked. She believed the Commission learned a lesson about timing 21 and when to ask for things. She understood this project was incredibly important to the 22 Council and the City because of the housing it would provide. She did not want do 23 anything to stop approvals going forward. 24 Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested that in the future the Commission be notified of such 25 timing issues before it was too late to do anything. She thought Council could still do 26 something about improvement to the park to compensate for the project. She inquired if 27 it would go on consent if the proposal was supported as it was. She wanted the City to 28 discuss it. 29 Chair Greenfield appreciated the desire to try to get assistance in building the skate park. 30 There were plans in the works to update and expand the existing skate park at Greer 31 Park. Given that there was an easement, he was not sure if there were grounds to pursue 32 improvement to the park to compensate for the project. He suggested moving forward. 33 APPROVED Approved 14 Mr. Anderson thought it would go on consent either way as it was on City Council’s 1 calendar for March 6. If the vote was no or not unanimous, it would be noted in the 2 supplemental report. Unless Council decided to pull the item, it would not be revisited. 3 Chair Greenfield supported the recommendation as there were benefits for the 4 community and the opportunity to expand the dedicated parkland footprint. 5 MOTION: 6 Motion by Commissioner Freeman to recommend that City Council adopt a Park 7 Improvement Ordinance at Greet Park for the sewer line connection associated with the 8 2850 W. Bayshore Road development project. 9 Motion seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. 10 Commissioner Freeman specified it benefitted the City overall. The Commission had 11 discussed opportunities, which he hoped the developer would take into consideration. 12 Commissioner Cribbs agreed with Commissioner Freeman’s comments. She was anxious 13 to move forward. 14 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked how the rededication of the easement would come back 15 to the Commission. 16 Mr. Anderson would add the rededication of the easement to future agendas planning. 17 Chair Greenfield requested the follow-up date the easement issue would go to City 18 Council. He enthusiastically supported bringing it to the Commission. 19 Mr. Anderson thought the easement issue would go to City Council about mid-March. 20 Motion approved 7-0. 21 7. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Discussion 22 Commissioner Cribbs shared that there would be a public meeting for the Recreation 23 Wellness Center on March 7. The Ad Hoc Committee was excited to hear from the 24 community. She had sent a note to Chris Penaranda at the Youth Council because she 25 was interested in inviting the Youth Council and the Youth Advisory Board to take the 26 survey, talk about it, and send their thoughts to the Ad Hoc Committee. 27 Chair Greenfield asked what outreach had been done and which specific groups and lists 28 were notified. 29 APPROVED Approved 15 Commissioner Cribbs had been tracking the City’s Facebook page and the City’s website 1 through the Facebook page. If one was signed up for newsletters, they would receive an 2 announcement as part of the newsletter. She believed Ed Shikada, City Manager, talked 3 about it in his report to the Council the other night. The Commissioners received a note 4 today, so she was hopeful the Commissioners would send it out to their networks. She 5 did not have a list, but she was sure CSD Director Kristen O’Kane did. 6 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, would check with the Chief 7 Communications Officer and make sure notifications were sent out to the City’s 8 regularly used publicizing platforms, and he would ask which specific groups and lists 9 notifications go to. 10 Commissioner Kleinhaus requested a link to the survey. She asked if the plan included 11 preference for locations, etc., and if anything on the other side of 101 was out of the 12 discussion after it was removed from the EIR. She wanted to support it if there was a 13 proposal or an option that it would be on the other side of 101. 14 Mr. Anderson specified the survey would come out on March 7. People had so far 15 responded in person at the community meeting, and for those that could not attend, he 16 understood that the survey was released that day. Location was a topic at the community 17 meeting. He was not sure if it was removed from the EIR. 18 Commissioner Cribbs added that the survey would stay open until maybe the first two 19 weeks in April if it needed to be extended. At some point, the Ad Hoc would have a 20 discussion with the Commission (hopefully the last meeting in March), which would be 21 on the agenda and the public could comment. She was hopeful there would be a 22 recommendation to the City Council at that meeting and that it would be placed on their 23 agenda. 24 Commissioner Freeman noted that a reason for the community meeting was to obtain 25 input and build from that. He was looking forward to the community meeting. 26 Vice Chair LaMere provided an update related to Safe Routes. He had a meeting with 27 Rose Mesterhazy, which she had updated him regarding finding a location for a traffic 28 garden for youth to practice cycling safety skills; bike clubs doing bike repair, which 29 were also in conversations related to the grade separation projects; and bike parking 30 counts at the parks being on a wish list, which they hoped to collaborate with SRTS. 31 Commissioner Cribbs reported that there would be a senior games swim meet on March 32 5, which would be the last activity at the pool before closure. 33 Vice Mayor Stone appreciated PRC for the e-bike recommendation and Chair Greenfield 34 for answering questions last night. 35 APPROVED Approved 16 Commissioner Freeman remarked that he had been working with Daren Anderson and 1 Adam Howard as far as providing notification to the little league and soccer teams and 2 others who would be impacted by the Sewer Line Rehabilitation Project. He appreciated 3 them being in communication with the folks who would be affected. He met with Lam 4 Do on the Golf side, and they had discussed the status of the State Water Board. He had 5 reached out to the State Water Board again and they did not have any updates, and they 6 were focused on addressing some of the emergency permit applications resulting from 7 the storms. He would continue to follow up with them. As Golf had been affected by the 8 recent storms, it could affect revenues a little, which he was keeping up to date on. 9 Commissioner Cribbs queried if Golf was going to come back and talk about the 10 community programs that had been asked about during the last report on finances. She 11 wanted to hear the financial aspect but also what was being done for the community. 12 Mr. Anderson indicated that could be done via Department report or agendized for a 13 more robust discussion. 14 Chair Greenfield declared that the Urban Forestry Ad Hoc, he and Commissioner 15 Kleinhaus had met with Peter Gollinger, Project Manager, Urban Forestry, to get an 16 update on the rollout of the changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance that was passed in 17 June 2022. A mailer with some of the updates had gone out with utility bills recently. He 18 explained why some updates to the new Tree and Landscape Technical Manual were 19 behind. There had been a meeting with the Foothills Nature Preserve partners for 20 discussion and updates, which included the pay station, and he was looking forward to 21 getting an update regarding new annual passes. An increase was expected. A lot of work 22 had been done by the E-bike Ad Hoc. There had been a meeting with PABAC. There had 23 been a premeeting for the horizontal levee project, which would come to the 24 Commission in March or April. Making a practice of having a premeeting with a 25 presenter could improve the chances that something would not need to return to the 26 Commission. There would be similar meetings this month regarding the sewer projects. 27 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 28 ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 29 30 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, declared that a March or 31 April item would be the horizontal levee project park improvement ordinance. A 32 potential item would be the park dedication for the abandoned easement in Greer. He 33 wondered about a potential item broaching the topic of retreat and workplan topics. He 34 would confirm if the Wellness Recreation Center presentation was to be in March and/or 35 April. 36 37 APPROVED Approved 17 Chair Greenfield noted that the tree protection ordinance would be pushed out. There 1 would be a reorganization meeting regarding the retreat and workplan items in April, and 2 new members of the Commission may be beginning as well. A retreat date was being 3 considered for early May, and priorities, ad hocs, and liaison roles would be set up. The 4 workplan may be completed and approved at the May meeting for Council approval. 5 6 ADJOURNMENT 7 8 Meeting adjourned at 9:46 P.M. 9