Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-24 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesAPPROVED APPROVED 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 SPECIAL MEETING 6 May 24, 2023 7 In-Person & Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Anne Cribbs, 11 Nellis Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, Joy Oche, and Bing Wei 12 Commissioners Absent: 13 Others Present: 14 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Lam Do 15 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 16 Chair Greenfield called the meeting to order and requested the roll be called. 17 Lam Do, called roll, and noted seven were present. 18 PUBLIC COMMENT 19 There were no public comments. 20 AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 21 There were none. 22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the May 2, 2023, Parks and Recreation 24 Commission Special Meeting 25 Chair Greenfield asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Freeman 26 moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oche. The motion passed, 6-27 0, by roll call vote with Commissioner Wei abstaining. 28 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 29 2. Department Report 30 APPROVED APPROVED 2 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, provided a PowerPoint 1 presentation and addressed recruitment, recreation programs and events, project updates, 2 and capital improvement projects. As soon as he received updates, he would provide the 3 Commission with additional information related to the Cubberley Field Restrooms 4 Project. On June 19, the purchase of the restrooms would be before Council for approval. 5 He explained that there had been challenges with bidding processes. 6 Chair Greenfield loved the new PowerPoint format and assumed it would be posted in the 7 agenda every month. 8 Commissioner Cribbs asked how long it would take to do a parking study for the skate 9 park and if studying traffic when leagues were not in session made a difference. 10 Mr. Anderson indicated he had never done such a study but Planning staff thought it 11 would be relatively quick. He thought it would be a month or two. He would know more 12 when the contractor was onboarded, and he would update the Commission. He was not 13 sure if studying traffic when leagues were not in session made a difference, and he would 14 let the Commission know as he learned more. 15 Commissioner Freeman requested more information concerning bidding on various 16 projects and asked what changes were being considered to make that a better process. 17 Mr. Anderson commented that the bidding process was multifaceted and voiced some of 18 the problems with it. More staff time had been dedicated to the process, and it seemed to 19 be progressing a little quicker. There had been struggles related to the end-result bidders, 20 either not enough bids or high bids, and construction costs had increased. 21 Commissioner Wei inquired if Ad Hoc commissioners should attend the Baylands 22 boardwalk piling repair project meeting in June. 23 Mr. Anderson thought it would be staff only, that it would be a kickoff meeting, and there 24 would be subsequent meetings, which there could be a conversation related to the Ad Hoc 25 commissioners’ attendance. 26 Commissioner Oche wanted to know who tracked the programs for Enjoy! online, how 27 many programs there were, and the process in the event of a long wait list. 28 Mr. Anderson would connect Commissioner Oche to Cayla Koga, Community Services, to 29 address her questions. 30 Chair Greenfield was concerned how representative and accurate the parking study would 31 be, and he looked forward to getting more information. He requested that there be 32 feedback to the Commission or the Ad Hoc before going forward. He was interested in 33 the Commission receiving more information related to doing outreach for the chili 34 APPROVED APPROVED 3 cookoff to include a list of participants over the last five years. He looked forward to 1 getting more information regarding the West Bayshore Project and park dedication and 2 asked what item was needed before proceeding with dedication. He queried as to the 3 impact to users of Boulware Park related to the construction and how communication of 4 the construction would be presented to residents. 5 Mr. Anderson would verify and connect Chair Greenfield via email. He did not yet know 6 what was needed before proceeding with the park dedication and noted that it was not 7 ready as of his last conversation with the Attorney’s office, Planning, and Real Estate. He 8 would know more about the staging of Boulware Park construction once the contractor 9 was on board and there was a preconstruction meeting. He believed there would be a 10 contract soon, and he would let the Commission know a date as soon as he knew. He 11 thought communication of the construction would be through signage at the park, updates 12 to the City website, and direct outreach to residents. He noted that Peter Jensen, City 13 Landscape Architect, had done public outreach, and emails could be sent to all the 14 participants. 15 Commissioner Cribbs thought the Commission should think about entering the chili 16 cookoff next year. 17 Chair Greenfield stated the Commission participating in the cookoff could present a 18 conflict of interest if Park commissioners were to judge the cookoff. 19 BUSINESS 20 3. Parks and Recreation Commission Work Plan – Chair Greenfield – Action 21 Chair Greenfield declared there were two parts to this item – confirming the results of 22 last year’s work plan and addressing the FY24 work plan. 23 PUBLIC COMMENT 24 There were no public comments. 25 Chair Greenfield noted that there would be one vote at the end of the discussion and 26 everything to be voted on would be compiled into the draft work plan, which staff would 27 display and update as the meeting progressed. He went through the slides of the 28 accomplishments of the prior year and asked the Commission to address each work plan 29 item if there were comments or questions. He asked if there was any feedback in terms 30 of the length of the Accomplishment section and if there was opportunity to address that. 31 He requested it be sent to the Chair and Vice Chair to review on behalf of the 32 Commission. 33 APPROVED APPROVED 4 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, did not yet have feedback 1 in terms of the length of the Accomplishment section. He had reached out to the Clerk’s 2 office but had not heard back. He thought there were minor changes made to make it fit. 3 There would possibly be opportunity to review in between the time it would be 4 submitted to the Clerk’s office and it going live. 5 Commissioner Wei questioned if there was a solution approved by City Council related 6 to E-bikes. 7 Chair Greenfield answered that the Commission had recommended a specific E-bike 8 policy, which was adopted by City Council. City Council requested there be further 9 investigation on some items, which would be covered in the Bicycle E-bike Work Plan 10 item for this year. He detailed there were seven projects/goals/items on the work plan, 11 and the Ad Hocs had submitted updates, which were in the packet. He asked for 12 clarification of the track changes. He asked if what was included in the packet was 13 submitted to staff before May 17. 14 Mr. Anderson noted that a motion that had not been approved by Council was 15 inadvertently included and had been track-change removed with the approval of the Ad 16 Hoc after consultation with them. What was included in the packet was submitted to staff 17 before May 17, and the changes were that of staff and the Ad Hoc for the Bicycle/E-bike 18 Access Policy. 19 Discussion ensued as to how to proceed with the conversations, and it was determined 20 that the Commission would start with the Master Plan – Project/Goal 3. 21 Chair Greenfield thought the nomenclature for the timeline should be standardized to be 22 consistent and that the most accurate would be to use FY24 as the timeline or specific 23 quarters within it. He requested that resources requiring staff time be standardized using 24 low, moderate, and high. 25 Commissioner Freeman asked if staff would make the determination of staff time being 26 high, medium, and low. 27 Chair Greenfield thought staff would have the final say related to staff time. 28 Commissioner Wei requested the normal benchmark for staff time, if two hours was 29 considered low. 30 Mr. Anderson expressed that staff time would be variable depending on the item. He 31 suggested the Commission and staff come up with an estimate, and staff would do their 32 best. 33 APPROVED APPROVED 5 Chair Greenfield asked how staff would specify needed resources for Project/Goal 3. He 1 requested standardized formatting with consistent use of bullets, spacing, etc., and 2 consistent use of City Council versus Council, PRC as opposed to Commission, etc. He 3 would leave it to staff to edit the document. 4 Mr. Anderson indicated that Project/Goal 3 would need moderate staff time. 5 Commissioner Freeman questioned, concerning the timeline, how something being 6 worked on for 2023 that might fall into 2024 would be defined and if a quarter related to 7 when a project/goal would be completed. He asked how items without an end date would 8 be identified. 9 Chair Greenfield remarked that FY24 would start on July 1, and a quarter would relate to 10 when a project/goal would be completed. He inquired if the timeline was for completion 11 or for action, which would include completion, and he thought it could be interpreted 12 however one wanted. Something done throughout the entire year would be FY24 and if it 13 was something to be completed sooner, quarters could be added in it. Regarding items 14 without a specific end date, work plan items must be very specific in the task and 15 timeline for completion, so they could remain Ad Hoc committees as opposed to 16 standing committees. He outlined the high priorities of Project/Goal 3. The resources 17 needed would be reflected as low-to-moderate staff time. 18 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if potential deficient areas in programs, policies, etc., 19 were captured. 20 Vice Chair Brown noted that the purpose of the high-level review of the implementation 21 of the plan was to capture deficiencies. 22 Chair Greenfield thought potential deficiencies were covered in the lower priority items. 23 He expected that each project and program in the Master Plan would be addressed. 24 Commissioner Oche thought the detailed status review would be high priority. She asked 25 if lower priorities would be addressed after addressing the higher priorities and how this 26 aligned with review of the recreation programs. 27 Chair Greenfield noted that lower priority items would be outlined in terms of the scope 28 of the more detailed review to be done. He noted that the lower priority items were not 29 being addressed at this meeting but were included to provide insight. He noted this was a 30 high-level work plan item. He suggested formatting to add Phase 1 to the beginning of 31 the High Priority section and Phase 2 before the Comprehensive Parks Master Plan. The 32 timeline for Phase 1 items was the next six months, sooner if possible. To make the 33 intent of the item clearer, maybe Phase 2 should include something to the effect that a 34 APPROVED APPROVED 6 new Work Plan item would outline a Comprehensive Parks Master Plan review. He 1 suggested adding Master Plan Policy to 2.G and 6.A in the document. 2 Commissioner Cribbs inquired if the review of the Master Plan should be the first goal, 3 which was an overarching way to look at the work being done this year. 4 Chair Greenfield thought review of the Master Plan should be the first goal. 5 Commissioner Freeman provided an overview of the Master Plan. 6 Commissioner Kleinhaus noted the focus was to implement what City Council directed, 7 which she outlined. 8 Commissioner Wei queried if the Commission had a right to implement an E-bike speed 9 limit and if the City sponsoring pilot bikes could reduce staff time. 10 Chair Greenfield answered that the Commission would make a recommendation using 11 the best resources available. Sponsoring pilot bikes was outside the scope of this item. 12 Commissioner Freeman specified there was a responsibility to work with staff to ensure 13 signage would be easily understood. There could be input from the public or other 14 agencies, such as PABAC, related to rack locations and trail restrictions especially as 15 technology changed. What other communities were doing could be considered to add 16 value to measuring success of the project. 17 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there was monitoring of E-bike technology and if there 18 should be something related to following trends of use in open spaces. 19 Commissioner Freeman inquired if monitoring would be by rangers and the public. 20 Chair Greenfield thought E-bike policy should be monitored in addition to technology. 21 Mr. Anderson felt it was reasonable to monitor policy and technology. 22 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted science to be used in the monitoring process. 23 Chair Greenfield thought there should be a specific bicycle policy recommendation. 24 Commissioner Wei wondered how wildlife would be monitored and if the quantity of E-25 bikes could cause problems. 26 Commissioner Freeman noted that over time there could be more bikes than pedestrians. 27 Commissioner Kleinhaus replied that assessing impacts should be in terms of biological 28 impacts and safety issues. She indicated that existing scientific studies found that 29 APPROVED APPROVED 7 biological resources were affected by volume access, not by the type of technology, and 1 she did not know how that should be addressed. It was important to her to have the 2 words “science” and “impacts” in the document, and she wanted information from new 3 studies to be considered. 4 Chair Greenfield wanted to be aware of impact studies done. He asked if evolving E-bike 5 technology and impact analysis should be monitored. 6 Vice Chair Brown suggested the document state there would be continued monitoring of 7 E-bike-related issues or topics with examples listed. 8 Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested that it read bicycle and E-bike access issues would 9 continue to be monitored, like the title received from City Council. 10 Commissioner Wei asked if bicycles were the focus or if horse access was being 11 considered. She asked if bike access should be considered a high priority versus a low 12 priority. 13 Chair Greenfield noted it was primarily E-bike related but policy for bicycle and E-bike 14 was being considered, so it was included. He thought it was reasonable to put Council 15 directives as high priorities and the other items as the low priorities. 16 Discussion ensued regarding technology, science, and environmental and usage impacts 17 evolving and monitoring of technology and potential environmental impacts. 18 Commissioner Oche asked if developing signage included the wording and content. 19 Chair Greenfield noted that developing signage was broad. He suggested language for 20 the Bicycle/E-bike Policy Access and Resources Needed sections and suggested 21 including Master Plan policies 1.G.2 and 2.A.7 in the State Mandated/Council Approved 22 box. He did not know if policy and access should address areas permitting E-bikes where 23 they were not currently permitted, which was a controversial issue within the 24 community, and if E-bikes should be permitted where bicycles were permitted. 25 Commissioner Wei questioned if community education should be a priority. 26 Chair Greenfield replied that a lower priority item could be outreach of bicycle/E-bike 27 policies. 28 Commissioner Kleinhaus thought that would add to staff time. 29 Chair Greenfield noted that the signage issue was being addressed. He asked if the 30 websites had been updated and inquired if the Ad Hoc should assist in reviewing 31 APPROVED APPROVED 8 bicycle/E-bike policy, communication, and outreach in conjunction with the other work 1 the Ad Hoc was doing. 2 Mr. Anderson acknowledged that the websites had been updated. Staff had developed the 3 signage, and they would present it to the Ad Hoc and PABAC. 4 Discussion ensued related to continued monitoring of E-bike policy communication and 5 outreach to improve the effectiveness of communication to the community. 6 Commissioner Cribbs wanted to have a discussion concerning grants. 7 Commissioner Oche noted that addressing grants would help determine next steps. They 8 hoped for at least one grant and to access volunteer grant writers and thought a 9 perspective on how to move forward with a grant would be helpful. She wanted to open 10 the opportunity for interns who might want to help. They were looking for available 11 resources that were not being leveraged now. She commented that there had been 12 discussion related to projects that needed grants, which needed to be focused on. 13 Commissioner Wei noted that there had been a discussion and the goal was to try to 14 reduce staff’s time, bandwidth, and/or additional responsibility. If there were existing 15 spreadsheets, etc., they could use it to establish a grant writing process. 16 Vice Chair Brown thought the grant process being a cost benefit should be considered, 17 and staff time needed to be considered for administration of the grant. She believed the 18 Ad Hoc was to work with staff to determine if a grant should be pursued and, if so, then 19 attain help in writing the grant. 20 Commissioner Cribbs would be happy to remove obtaining a grant from the Measures of 21 Success section and to focus on whether a grant would be important. 22 Chair Greenfield suggested that a top-level goal be to determine how to increase funding 23 for park, open space, and recreation programs and projects. 24 Commissioner Wei noted that they were trying to identify a past process or list of 25 existing grants to use as a foundation. She queried if there was a list of grants in the last 26 year. 27 Commissioner Kleinhaus explained that it could be helpful to look at grants in 28 partnership with other departments and potentially outside agencies. 29 Mr. Anderson stated he could assemble a list of past grants. 30 Chair Greenfield suggested adding to the Beneficial Impacts section that obtaining new 31 grants would increase funding for programs and projects. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 9 Commissioner Freeman suggested adding language indicating that obtaining a new grant 1 would increase funding for programs and projects critical to PRC community service. 2 Commissioner Kleinhaus indicated that was implied. 3 Discussion ensued regarding the content of the Beneficial Impacts, the Resources 4 Needed, the High Priority, the Low priority, and the Measure of Success sections. 5 Commissioner Oche questioned if all projects or programs were eligible for grants. She 6 wanted there to be a focus on what the grants would be used for and examples of 7 successful grant applications to see if those partnerships could be continued. 8 Chair Greenfield stated projects or programs being eligible for grants would depend on 9 the grant. 10 Mr. Anderson thought staff could provide a list of 10 projects or programs that lacked 11 funding, and which could benefit from grants. He noted for successful grant applications, 12 it may be helpful to look beyond Community Services, and he suggested partnerships 13 that could be leveraged. 14 Discussion continued regarding the content of the High Priority, the State 15 Mandated/Local Law/Council Approved, the Low Priority, and the Measure of Success 16 sections. 17 Vice Chair Brown spoke of Project/Goal 4, which was to consider potential sites to be 18 dedicated to parkland and to address best practices in future review of potential sites. 19 Chair Greenfield asked how much staff time would be needed. 20 Mr. Anderson stated staff time would be low. 21 Commissioner Kleinhaus explained why she suggested the Beneficial Impacts section 22 read increase “dedicated” parkland. She asked if this would include opportunities to buy 23 land or create a new park where there was not one. 24 Chair Greenfield answered that it could potentially include opportunities to buy land or 25 create a new park where there was not one. 26 Discussion arose regarding seeking new parkland opportunities, which was addressed in 27 the Comprehensive Plan or the Park Master Plan. 28 Commissioner Freeman declared the goals, resources, and timeline of Project 5. 29 APPROVED APPROVED 10 Chair Greenfield clarified that the Commission was considering the recommendation on 1 the synthetic turf replacement strategy, which the timeline was Q1-2. He indicated that 2 the timeline for the next item should be Q3-4, which would be review of the Field 3 Reservation Policy, which was addressed in the Master Plan under Programs 1.F.1, 4 2.A.3, and 2.C.3. He suggested language for the Resources Needed section. 5 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked what was done with the replaced turf. 6 Mr. Anderson expressed that the replaced turf was recycled or donated to other 7 communities. 8 Commissioner Cribbs inquired if some of the stakeholders could help fund the fields 9 through grant opportunities. She found that there was scientific evidence that synthetic 10 turf was harmful to the environment, not recyclable, and posed harmful health impacts. 11 Chair Greenfield confirmed that there were grant opportunities but thought it was outside 12 the scope of this work plan item. 13 Commissioner Wei inquired if the field could be changed to natural materials. 14 Commissioner Freeman indicated that existing technologies could be evaluated. 15 Chair Greenfield declared that the strategy for replacing a synthetic turf field was to be 16 reviewed, including the materials process, which could be natural. He noted that 17 synthetic turf fields were important in terms of field hours available to the community. 18 He voiced that health impacts needed to be considered. 19 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the lifespan of a material would be evaluated. 20 Chair Greenfield thought part of the process needed to include confirmation that the right 21 materials would be used, which he was sure staff would evaluate. 22 Commissioner Kleinhaus hoped there would be something about sustainability. 23 Chair Greenfield noted that could still come under optimum, and the Ad Hoc’s 24 recommendations would come before the Commission for review and recommendation 25 to staff. 26 Chair Greenfield opined that it might make sense to place Project 6 in the Project 2 27 position as it had direct tie-ins with the Master Plan. 28 Commissioner Oche discussed Project 6 being a new goal and believed it to be a 29 prerequisite for the Master Plan Goal as it addressed gaps discussed at the annual retreat. 30 APPROVED APPROVED 11 She hoped it would also provide or expand more program offerings and provide better 1 program communication to residents. 2 Commissioner Wei had observed that a lot of people were unaware of existing programs 3 and that there was oversubscription to current programs. They thought to leverage the 4 increase in population and new immigrants in the City to call for more volunteer teachers 5 for new programs, which were not in the Enjoy! catalog and use it to leverage the 6 excitement of new programs to attract new funding and grants and to look at 7 affordability and inclusivity for all. 8 Commissioner Freeman asked for information related to the financial and social impact 9 to Palo Alto residents. 10 Commissioner Oche answered that the financial part would leverage on partners and 11 residents who could volunteer for free programs. 12 Commissioner Wei discussed the social impacts of residents offering skillsets. 13 Commissioner Kleinhaus thought financial and social impacts needed to be reduced. She 14 understood that this would provide affordable, equitable, and inclusive recreation 15 opportunities and would involve the community in offering programming that they were 16 interested in. 17 Commissioner Wei confirmed that this would involve the community offering 18 programming. She provided examples of possible offerings that could provide a solution 19 to the oversubscription problem. 20 Discussion ensued regarding the language of Project 6. 21 Chair Greenfield was not sure the goal discussed at the retreat addressed affordable, 22 equitable, and inclusive recreation opportunities, though it was a great goal. He was 23 concerned with the tie-in with the Master Plan review. Given a comprehensive review of 24 all programs and projects would be done, he understood that the Ad Hoc was created to 25 do something more objective as a foundational step to work in parallel with the Master 26 Plan Review Ad Hoc. 27 Commissioner Wei asked if the goal should be modified to work in parallel with the 28 Master Plan. They intended to do the gap analysis and pass it on to the Master Plan team 29 for input. 30 Mr. Anderson thought the goal was to analyze current programs for the Master Plan, 31 which would then be passed on to the group working on the Master Plan. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 12 Chair Greenfield was concerned that the gap analysis was complicated because the gaps 1 needing assessment needed to be addressed and some gaps were easier to asses than 2 others. In terms of categorizing the offerings, he wanted oversold programs and waiting 3 lists to be included. He did not know if there were available metrics to assess how 4 quickly programs reached capacity. 5 Discussion ensued regarding content and language of Project 6 Recreation Program 6 Review. 7 Commissioner Wei asked if they should develop the gap analysis after the Commission 8 had the overall strategy and guidelines. 9 Chair Greenfield thought development the gap analysis should occur after the 10 Commission had the overall strategy and guidelines. 11 Commissioner Oche did not interpret it to mean the gap analysis should occur after the 12 Commission had the overall strategy and guidelines. She remarked that programs were 13 filled very quickly. 14 Chair Greenfield specified that existing programs should be assessed for capacity and 15 availability. A challenge for the Ad Hoc in compiling the data would be finding broad 16 metrics to use for assessment. 17 Commissioner Wei asked how to go about finding such metrics. 18 Chair Greenfield did not know how to find the metrics and indicated there should be a 19 conversation with staff. The gap analysis would not be top priority and might not be part 20 of the goal until there was a new Master Plan goal. He did not expect the complete 21 Master Plan review to be done this fiscal year, but a process should be established. 22 Discussion ensued regarding language and content of the High Priority section. 23 Commissioner Kleinhaus believed the request to the Ad Hoc was to look at the Enjoy! 24 catalog and determine where more resources were needed. 25 Chair Greenfield thought a lower priority could be to identify gaps and potential 26 solutions, but not a complete gap analysis. He thought metrics needed to be identified 27 and gathered moving forward. 28 Commissioner Freeman did not think gaps could be identified without data to support it. 29 Commissioner Wei liked the data approach and asked if there was data over the last 12 to 30 24 months. 31 APPROVED APPROVED 13 Commissioner Freeman believed there needed to be data covering more than 24 months. 1 Mr. Anderson was not positive how much data there was. He noted that staff did track 2 some data. 3 Commissioner Wei noted that the Enjoy! catalog was time sensitive and thought that it 4 should start there and then expand to other programs. 5 Chair Greenfield noted that a lower priority goal could be to consider new programs to 6 be included the next Enjoy! catalog. 7 Vice Chair Brown thought members of the Commission were talking about two different 8 types of gap analysis – one being high level and tying in with the Master Plan and the 9 other addressing operational gaps, funding, and staffing. She implied that more 10 affordable and more accessible programs could be considered, which would be 11 decoupled from the Master Plan. She wondered if this should be more standalone and not 12 tied in so much with the Master Plan and instead just evaluate the Enjoy! catalog for 13 solutions in terms of affordability, accessibility, and programs not offered. As part of the 14 work plan, she suggested speaking with staff and the community concerning bottlenecks 15 and challenges as well as contacting other agencies for information regarding problems 16 they may have faced and finding out how they had addressed them. 17 Commissioner Wei thought assessing the Enjoy! catalog was a good starting point. She 18 asked if there was past precedence of a process to increase the programs for the Enjoy! 19 catalog. 20 Mr. Anderson commented there was a precedence of a process to increase the programs 21 for the Enjoy! catalog among staff. He was not aware of there being collaboration with 22 the PRC. He did not know if staff had gone to the depth being proposed now. 23 Chair Greenfield thought the focus should be on a recreation program review, and it 24 could be decided if it would be predominantly the Enjoy! catalog but not limited to the 25 Enjoy! catalog. 26 Mr. Anderson recommended the review be broader than the Enjoy! catalog but with the 27 Enjoy! catalog being the main area of focus. 28 Commissioner Wei asked if looking at the Enjoy! catalog would be Phase 1 and if Phase 29 2 would be looking at the broader picture. 30 Mr. Anderson indicated both could be done at the same time. 31 Chair Greenfield questioned the staff time to support this. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 14 Mr. Anderson anticipated it would require quite a bit of time, to include Recreation staff 1 and possibly other parts of CSD and would involve moderate staff resources. He detailed 2 why he thought it was worth doing. 3 Commissioner Freeman asked if the needed data existed or if there had been an ongoing 4 process to expand the programs or a process to make sure the right programs were being 5 offered. He asked if at some point the PRC or the Ad Hoc would be able to provide 6 statistics on number of programs, people enrolled, and the wait lists. 7 Mr. Anderson expressed there had been ongoing assessment by staff on a lot of the 8 programs but doing a systemic and holistic study would require a lot of time even if data 9 had already been gathered. He envisioned the Ad Hoc condensing the number of 10 programs, people enrolled, and the wait list into a report, which staff could contribute to. 11 Chair Greenfield indicated that the Master Plan included a lot of specific directives in 12 terms of annual and regular reviews of programs and community outreach. 13 Commissioner Wei queried if the Enjoy! website automatically generated data when 14 people subscribed. 15 Mr. Anderson replied that he was less involved in the website, but every quarter there 16 were reports of the number of people on wait lists, which was from the online program. 17 Chair Greenfield thought it was reasonable to do a review of existing recreation 18 programs and to focus on identifying gaps in the Enjoy! catalog with a limited focus. He 19 inquired if it was reasonable for the Ad Hoc to take on the categorization of the offerings 20 as currently specified in the document or if the Master Plan Ad Hoc could possibly 21 change the directive. He thought identifying gaps could occur after the secondary part of 22 the review. 23 Commissioner Wei thought with staff’s help with the data and analysis, that 24 categorization of the offerings could be done. There needed to be a meeting to see what 25 already existed. 26 Chair Greenfield offered suggestions related to the content and language of the High and 27 Low Priority items. 28 Commissioner Wei questioned the process for reaching out to the community, if staff 29 could help do a survey, and if community outreach should be listed as a high priority. 30 Mr. Anderson acknowledged that surveys were an option, and a focused email outreach 31 to program participants and front desk at community centers were possibilities. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 15 Chair Greenfield was concerned that listing community outreach as a high priority may 1 overlap what the Master Plan Ad Hoc might be recommending. In the bigger picture, 2 different types of community outreach and feedback needed to be investigated as a whole 3 for the Master Plan. There may be a way to include some community outreach, but he 4 thought it would have complexity and staff impact. 5 Vice Chair Brown thought the high priority section could include working with the 6 community and staff to assess current program offerings, which would provide flexibility 7 for as-needed community engagement efforts. 8 Chair Greenfield was concerned that would be more than staff could support. 9 Discussion ensued concerning content and language of the Measure of Success, the State 10 Mandated/Local Law/Council Approved, the Beneficial Impacts, and the Goals sections. 11 Chair Greenfield directed the conversation to Project/Goal 7 and suggested language for 12 the item. 13 Discussion arose related to content, language, and formatting of the Beneficial Impacts, 14 Resources Needed, High Priority, Low Priority, Measure of Success, and Council-15 Directed Policy Update sections. 16 Vice Chair Brown proposed renumbering the Project/Goals as Master Plan first, 17 Recreation Program Overview second, Wellness Center third, E-bike fourth, Playing 18 Fields fifth, Park Dedication sixth, and Grant Opportunities seventh, and the 19 Commission agreed. 20 Chair Greenfield motioned to recommend the Work Plan, including everything in the 21 document with the specified edits and with the prior year accomplishments. Seconded by 22 Commissioner Cribbs. The motion passed 7-0, by roll call vote. 23 4. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair Greenfield – Discussion 24 Chair Greenfield noted that all Ad Hoc committees had met, and he thanked them for 25 their work. 26 Commissioner Cribbs stated that Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community 27 Services, had made a nice presentation related to the skate park as part of the Staff 28 Report. She noted that Sam Kaplinsky had also sent some drawings, which she asked 29 Mr. Anderson to share with the Commission. 30 PUBLIC COMMENT 31 There were no public comments. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 16 Chair Greenfield requested the list of Ad Hoc and Liaison groups be displayed. He 1 provided an update on Park Dedication and announced that the Park Dedication Ad Hoc 2 would consider a strip of land near San Antonio and Alma as being a potential area of 3 park dedication. He voiced that Commissioner Cribbs had asked to be part of the 4 Wellness Center Gym Ad Hoc Committee and that the Ad Hoc Committee be renamed 5 as Recreation Wellness Center. He noted that those changes would be made, and that 6 Commissioner Cribbs would join the Ad Hoc. He stated that Commissioner Oche had 7 requested withdrawing from the Grant Opportunities Ad Hoc, which was currently a 8 three-person Ad Hoc, and originally it was outlined to be a two-person Ad Hoc, so he 9 was satisfied with that. He remarked that it was a good time to finalize all Ad Hoc and 10 Liaison roles. He asked if there were final thoughts on joining or participating in a two-11 person Ad Hoc. They would look to make these final moving forward. 12 Commissioner Oche asked if there was a minimum number of Ad Hocs a person could 13 participate in. 14 Chair Greenfield clarified that the minimum was to make sure the Commission had 15 everything covered. 16 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 17 ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 18 19 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, declared that next month’s 20 agenda may include the Tree Protection Ordinance and that the possible park dedication 21 of the Greer site 2850 West Bayshore easement was tentative. He had nothing else ready 22 for next month. 23 Chair Greenfield did not think it was likely that next month’s agenda would include the 24 Tree Protection Ordinance. He thought City Council would have a presentation on the 25 Tree Protection Ordinance next month. He inquired if there would be a Park 26 Improvement Ordinance and/or a Foothills update. The Commission was expecting a 27 general update on the nature preserve from the managing ranger. 28 Mr. Anderson did not recall there being a Park Improvement Ordinance for next month. 29 Regarding the Foothills update, he expressed that the improvement plan would not be 30 ready by next month. In the interim, visitation could be discussed, and Mike Warner, 31 Supervising Park Ranger, could introduce himself and answer questions. 32 Chair Greenfield noted that could be discussed based on how far out the Foothills 33 Improvement Plan would be. 34 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if there was visibility or influence on the scope of the 35 Improvement Plan. 36 APPROVED APPROVED 17 Mr. Anderson answered that that CIP had been submitted, so there was not much to alter 1 the main focus, which was a pedestrian pathway, fencing, and parking lot improvements. 2 He explained what was meant by parking lot improvements, which would not include 3 additional parking. 4 Commissioner Cribbs suggested the Recreation Foundation and the Friends of the Parks 5 speak to the Commission about their programs since grants and fundraising were being 6 discussed. She specified that Grassroots Ecology was doing wonderful things and 7 suggested hearing from them. 8 Chair Greenfield would explore the Recreation Foundation and the Friends of the Parks 9 speaking to the Commission. He specified that Grassroots had been before the 10 Commission about a year ago. 11 Commissioner Kleinhaus spoke of pictures she had taken on the back side of Los 12 Trancos, which got a response from the CDFW, especially concerning an endangered 13 species, and she asked if there was an effort to remove oats and invasive species from 14 that location. She requested an update on work being done in the less frequented areas on 15 the back side of Los Trancos. 16 Chair Greenfield declared that question was beyond future agenda items. He suggested 17 Commissioner Kleinhaus send Mr. Anderson a detailed email request. He would look 18 into the foundations speaking to the Commission in the next calendar year. 19 ADJOURNMENT 20 21 Meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. 22