Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-24 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesDRAFT DRAFT 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 October 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, Bing Wei 12 Commissioners Absent: 13 Others Present: Vice Mayor Stone 14 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Sarah Robustelli, Javod Ghods 15 16 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17 Chair Greenfield called the meeting to order and asked for a roll call. All were present 18 with Vice Chair Brown and Commissioners Kleinhaus and Wei being remote. 19 PUBLIC COMMENT 20 John Kelley spoke about an increase of impact fees on the fiscal year 2024 municipal fee 21 schedule. He wanted to know who is paying for those fees. He mentioned a Historic 22 Review Board meeting being held concurrently in the room next door concerning the 23 new historic inventory for the Council which he thought was unfortunate. 24 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 25 None. 26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 26, 2023, Parks and Recreation 28 Commission Regular Meeting 29 Commissioner Cribbs moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oche. 30 The motion passed by a 6-0 by a roll call vote with Commissioner Freeman abstaining. 31 DRAFT DRAFT 2 1 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 2 2. Department Report 3 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, introduced Sarah 4 Robustelli, the new division manager for Open Space Parks and Golf. He gave a slide 5 presentation updating recruitment process items, the Enjoy! Catalog registration 6 information, the upcoming Jack-O-Jaunt event, Aquatics, skatepark project, Johnson 7 Park Basketball Court project, Lytton Plaza Fountain Repair project, Peers Dog Park 8 project, Cameron Park Improvement project, the Cubberley Field Restroom project, the 9 Rinconada Restroom project, Robles Park Improvement project and Nature Notes about 10 tarantulas. 11 Commissioner Cribbs asked if there was an update on the family restroom status at 12 Rinconada. She wanted to know if the table tennis tables were still standing up at Lytton 13 Plaza. 14 Mr. Anderson made a note to bring that information to the next meeting. He said that one 15 of the table tennis tables had to be removed as it was badly damaged and one remained. 16 There was discussion of replacement options and Staff was looking at a concrete option. 17 Commissioner Oche wanted clarification on what depicts project completion. 18 Mr. Anderson answered that the purpose of the Lytton project was to address the 19 fountain repair. Once that was completed, there were cleanups to make the site clean and 20 fresh. 21 Commissioner Freeman wanted to know if there was a mechanism of communication in 22 place to let people know what is going on regarding projects. 23 Mr. Anderson stated there could be more outreach to the Chief Communications Officer 24 who would put the information out on different platforms and he would work on 25 improving that. 26 Chair Greenfield suggested it might be reasonable for Mr. Anderson to forward his 27 department report presentation to the Communication Department. 28 Mr. Anderson agreed to look into that idea. 29 BUSINESS 30 3. Palo Alto Youth Council – Chris Sanchez – Discussion – (45 min) 31 DRAFT DRAFT 3 Olivia, President of the Palo Alto Youth Council (PYC), and Natya, Vice President of 1 PYC, Zara and Siyona together provided details about the PYC. They provided a slide 2 presentation discussing themes and events from last year and outlined events that were 3 provided by PYC. They discussed the upcoming goals and planned initiatives for the 4 coming year. They discussed improvements being made to their “Palo Alto-gather” 5 Newspaper and would be providing copies to the Commission members after the 6 presentation. 7 Olivia asked how PYC can best serve the Park and Recreation Commission’s primary 8 objective this year. 9 Commissioner Oche stated she is planning to do monthly or quarterly visits to the PYC. 10 She wanted to know why they dropped climate change from the themes. She asked how 11 feedback was obtained from other teens who are not actively engaged. She suggested 12 using apps. She wanted to know how they planned to do the youth census and if they had 13 channels for mentorship. She was curious to know when the next meet and greet with the 14 City Council would be. 15 Olivia answered based on conversations with their peers and demographics and interests 16 of the PYC, civic engagement and mental health were the most pressing issues. She 17 stated that primarily all of their meetings are open to the public and they hold events 18 throughout the year where other teens can directly engage with the PYC. The Youth 19 Political Issue Census was created to distribute this year in order to better understand the 20 specific political civic issues Palo Alto teens are most concerned with. She said the last 21 meet and greet did not have as much turnout as they had hoped so they are attempting to 22 shift to more online advocacy, hosting political issues and current events on social 23 media. 24 Natya stated there were no current mentorship initiatives but a lot of their events were 25 geared toward teenagers and youth, in general, so they could see how they could get 26 involved in Palo Alto. She added there is mentorship within the council. 27 Commissioner Bing wondered if technology would be helpful for the mental health 28 aspect. She offered to connect PYC with two individuals developing two separate mental 29 health apps. She suggested PYC could do social media about what Park and Rec does or 30 have one of the Commissioners as a speaker and offered her assistance. 31 Chair Greenfield asked how often PYC meets with a City Council member. 32 Olivia answered the primary way they are involved is sending one or more of the Palo 33 Alto Youth Council members to each City Council weekly meeting. They also have their 34 Council representative, Julie Lythcott-Haims, in attendance at their meetings on 35 DRAFT DRAFT 4 Tuesday. They also email back and forth about other initiatives. She expressed 1 willingness to do similar things for the Parks and Recreation Commission. 2 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to know if Commissioners could talk to the Youth 3 Council directly and not through the liaisons. She asked if PYC could speak at City 4 Council about the recommendations they make. She wondered if nature issues ever came 5 into discussion. She felt it was important to consider that being in nature has a direct and 6 immediate impact to mental health and cognitive abilities. She hoped PYC would 7 consider researching the connection between nature and mental health. 8 Chris Sanchez answered that all their meetings are open to the public and someone could 9 request to be added to the agenda by sending an email or contacting him directly. 10 Olivia stated they were open to public comment at the Council meetings. 11 Mr. Sanchez added that if the Commissioners are looking for feedback from PYC, they 12 will attend their meetings or send him some questions that he presents to PYC and send 13 the feedback to them. 14 Natya stated since their goals for the year are more centered on mental health and civic 15 engagement, they have not discussed nature issues as much but would be happy to if it 16 came up in discussion. She added there are a lot of incredible student led climate 17 initiatives in Palo Alto. 18 Olivia said they would consider events or initiatives geared toward inviting youth to 19 spend more time in nature. She invited Commissioner Kleinhaus to contact them or 20 attend one of their meetings if she had objectives or event proposals to suggest. 21 Chair Greenfield stated that if Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to address PYC as a 22 Commissioner, she should work through the liaisons. 23 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to know where the boundary of Brown Act is if she 24 attends one of their meetings to talk about nature. 25 Natya added they hoped to promote City events in their Palo Alto-gather news magazine 26 and distribute it to teenagers in Palo Alto. 27 Vice Chair Brown thought PYC could help by going through the liaisons and making 28 sure they are aware of what is on the agenda to help know what issues Palo Alto youth 29 might be interested in. She suggested looking through the annual City Council’s 30 Workplan Development Process documents or attending the meetings to identify 31 potential areas of alignment. 32 DRAFT DRAFT 5 Commissioner Freeman asked if PYC reaches out to other groups or communities that 1 can help keep the initiatives moving forward. 2 Olivia answered that their Youth Council team is comprised of people spanning from 3 San Mateo down to Los Altos. They distribute their resources to all of those schools 4 across the Bay Area. They also talk to some of the student council groups within those 5 areas in terms of working on some of their projects. 6 Natya added they have a great partnership with the allcove™ center and had a student 7 from PALY speak about her experiences. 8 Mr. Sanchez discussed other organizations PYC collaborates with. 9 Chair Greenfield stated the Commission was interested in understanding the Youth 10 Community’s perspective on recreation programs and how they could better serve them. 11 He expected the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan would be 12 discussed at the meeting the following month and might be interesting for some people 13 from their council to monitor and potentially speak on. 14 Commissioner Cribbs questioned if there was ever a time there was not enough money in 15 the budget for an event they had planned. 16 Natya answered they had been fortunate to not have to worry about the budget much. 17 They tried to make sure the events were not just about getting people food. They were 18 lucky to have voluntary speakers. 19 20 4. Park Dedication of Tower Well Site – Daren Anderson – Discussion – (45 min) 21 Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, discussed the potential park 22 dedication for the Tower Well Site. He explained the meaning of a park dedication 23 ordinance. He stated Ad-Hoc and Staff were investigating potential sites and had 24 identified Tower Well Site as a location they should more forward with in terms of 25 dedication. He presented slides that showed what is on the site. He pointed out the 26 maintenance of the site is performed by a contractor that Community Services 27 Department manages. He discussed the electric and fiber utility infrastructure on the site 28 that serves the adjacent area that could require maintenance or replacement in the future 29 but he did not believe that would damage or change the use of the dedicated park other 30 than the amount of time it would take. He gave a history of the site and then outlined the 31 next steps. 32 Commissioner Oche wanted to know about the associated impacts of dedication. 33 DRAFT DRAFT 6 Mr. Anderson said that if Council accepted their recommendation, it would be limited to 1 the three purposes he mentioned and a change in those purposes would require a vote of 2 the people. 3 Commissioner Kleinhaus questioned if there were any bats in any of the structures. 4 Mr. Anderson answered he had not seen any bats in the tower. The only thing he 5 observed was rat feces. 6 John Kelley felt there might be an expansion of housing on the periphery of Palo Alto 7 around San Antonio and thought it would be more prudent to spend the money there. 8 Vice Chair Brown said the priority was areas that people thought were dedicated park 9 land but were not. This fell into that category and there is a long list of other properties 10 that are being explored. 11 Chair Greenfield noted one of the key sites they had been looking at recently is 12 Rinconada Gardens, which they were working through some hiccups. He discussed some 13 traffic circles outside San Antonio Avenue near Alma that had been mentioned by the 14 public. He asked Mr. Anderson to reclarify the financial implications of potentially 15 dedicating this area. 16 Mr. Anderson though the financial implications were relative low. They would add a 17 sign and some touchups. Regardless of dedication, they will need to refresh the 18 interpretive signs. 19 Chair Greenfield assumed at some point in time the issue of the building would come up 20 and if the site was dedicated as park land there would likely be some potential uses for a 21 functional building on that site. 22 Commissioner Freeman wanted to know what the maintenance cost has been. 23 Mr. Anderson said he would have to double check that information but that it is pretty 24 low cost. 25 Commissioner Cribbs was interested in the cost and projected cost over the next year and 26 the timeline if they do suggest doing the project. She mentioned that she does not see 27 people using the site and wondered if people know that it is a park. She clarified they 28 would work with an Ad-Hoc and Historical Society on the name. 29 Mr. Anderson suggested maybe a park sign would help. He clarified an Ad-Hoc and the 30 Historical Society would work on a name. 31 DRAFT DRAFT 7 Chair Greenfield thought the goal and intention was to bring this back as an action this 1 year in November or December. 2 Commissioner Wei echoed that the site does not look like a park and wondered if it 3 needed more greenery around it and whether there should be dedication including the 4 history of the well. She suggested doing a survey in the neighborhood to learn what they 5 think could add value to the site. She was curious to know the dedication process. She 6 suggested possibly making it a Zen garden to give it its own persona. 7 Chair Greenfield commented that the site would not be a recreational park but a peaceful 8 respite. He agreed there was opportunity to upgrade the vegetation. He felt the goal in 9 recommending dedication was to maintain the character of the site. 10 Commissioner Oche believed a clear picture of the desired outcome would be helpful. 11 Vice Chair Brown clarified the discussion was whether or not to dedicate this as park 12 land for those specific uses and not a visioning exercise of what it should look like in the 13 future. 14 Mr. Anderson said the park dedication was independent of any future park improvement 15 projects. There are a number of dedicated park land elements that are waiting for 16 development so they can be separated out. He added park dedication would not prohibit 17 doing a formal designation as a historical site. 18 Commissioner Oche asked how the naming of parks is done. 19 Mr. Anderson stated there is a naming policy guide that he would share to the 20 Commission by email. He discussed the process. 21 22 5. Tree Protection Ordinance Update Review – Peter Gollinger – Discussion – (60 23 min) 24 Peter Gollinger, Urban Forester Public Works, provided a slide presentation to include 25 the timeline of the tree ordinance process, key changes in the updated ordinance, the 26 current protected trees, tree removal permit impacts, protected tree maintenance 27 notification, Staff proposed changes to Chapter 8.10, proposed updates for clarity, 28 proposed updates for tree removal reasons to include an explanation of retrenchment, 29 proposed updates for tree removal as part of a residential and nonresidential projects, an 30 exemption for excessive pruning, potential additional actions, Urban Forest tree 31 estimates and Urban Forest benefits. 32 DRAFT DRAFT 8 Chair Greenfield clarified that there are Staff recommendations of changes to the 1 ordinance passed last year and then another section of additional areas for consideration 2 Staff is not recommending at this time but highlighting them as possibilities. 3 Mr. Gollinger stated that was correct. 4 Commissioner Oche wanted to know what pollarding is. 5 Mr. Gollinger explained that pollarding is a type of pruning where a tree is pruned back 6 to the same height every year once it has reached the desired height and detailed reasons 7 for this. 8 Commissioner Freeman asked if anything has changed with the inventory and how trees 9 will be managed with the major storms that occurred last year. He wanted to know if 10 they were looking at both residential and City trees. 11 Mr. Gollinger said some of these modifications were because of things that were 12 encountered during the storms. This is in general for all protected trees but a lot of it is 13 focused on private property protected trees. City street trees are maintained to the same 14 standards but are inspected on a regular basis. 15 Chair Greenfield clarified there are no proposed changes to the section of Municipal 16 Code dealing with public trees and public protected trees. He wanted to know if they 17 would go to City Council with the recommendations or return to the Commission with a 18 potential action for a policy change recommendation. 19 Mr. Gollinger answered edits were only being proposed to Chapter 8.10 at this time. He 20 stated the main reason they were there as a discussion item was based on Council’s 21 direction and they would also be attending PTC the following month as a discussion item 22 as well. He expected any feedback or potential changes to their recommendations would 23 be incorporated when they go to Council in December. He did not believe they would 24 bring a votable item to them, either. 25 Commissioner Kleinhaus requested a clarification of the 25% rule and wanted to know if 26 it is standard and who came up with that rule. She queried who makes the decision about 27 a tree being structurally incompatible and asked about the potential outcome of a specific 28 situation. 29 Mr. Gollinger said the 25% rule can be used to remove a protected tree when the tree 30 protection zone of that tree takes up more than 25% of the buildable area of a lot and 31 described what would qualify for that. He was uncertain where the rule came from. He 32 was not familiar with the situation Commissioner Kleinhaus mentioned but stated it was 33 intended for situations where a private protected tree was incompatible with an 34 DRAFT DRAFT 9 immediate environment and provided some examples of that. The decision would be 1 made by the arborist doing the arborist report and Staff would review it and have to 2 agree with the assessment. 3 Chair Greenfield asked if the 25% rule has been in the code specifically with respect to 4 single family residence. 5 Mr. Gollinger answered projects can either go directly to building permit or through 6 planning, which requires them to get additional layers of approval. The 25% rule would 7 apply to residential projects. 8 Commissioner Wei wanted to know if there was any other policy or procedure to recover 9 the vegetation or green coverage in an area that a tree has been removed and if the 10 arborist employed to evaluate and make a recommendation on tree removal is 11 independent or part of City Staff. 12 Mr. Gollinger replied there are mitigation requirements in place and described 13 replacement strategy. The arborist would be independent hired by the applicant. 14 JP Renaud, Executive Director of Canopy, stated that Canopy supports the 15 recommendations as they clarify several provisions critical to smooth implementation 16 and better reflect the realities on the ground. They believe it will be premature and 17 counterproductive to contemplate additional changes before seeing if the redline 18 adjustments are adequate. 19 1415****355, member of Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, observed that these changes 20 have been based on one unusual year of observation and suggested moving with caution. 21 The club supports the Staff recommendations but expressed concern regarding some 22 changes that would result in a reduction in the number of protected trees and hoped they 23 would consider those guidelines carefully. 24 Leah Russin had a large tree on her property that was creating a nuisance. She attempted 25 to get a permit to have it removed but the City was very slow in response and 26 discouraged her by telling her the permit would be denied. As a result, her data point 27 from her tree was not included in the data set of the presented Staff report and she 28 cautioned that the number of permits received does not have anything to do with the 29 number of people who want to remove trees on their property. Even though the tree had 30 been deemed safe by two independent arborists, it fell into her home creating extensive 31 damage. 32 John Kelley disagreed that the cost associated with the new trees was a good use of 33 resources. 34 DRAFT DRAFT 10 Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Gollinger to characterize the flexibility he now has. He 1 discussed which parts of the proposed changes he supported and which ones he did not. 2 He asked how the ordinance compares with other communities. He asked how Ms. 3 Russin’s event would apply to the tree ordinance. 4 Mr. Gollinger felt the updates created more flexibility in permitting tree removal. He 5 discussed the comparison of the ordinance with surrounding communities in which they 6 were consistent. He added they were still in the process of gathering data about the 7 canopy coverage and discussed their goals. He felt there was still room for improvement. 8 Regarding Ms. Russin’s event, he admitted they were not prompt in their responses. He 9 felt there was some confusion as the questions they were asked were not clear. He hoped 10 the ordinance changes would potentially impact similar situations in the future. 11 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the mitigation ratio required actually required planting 12 a tree or paying a fee for the City to plant trees and if a fee is charged, do they have a 13 place to plant the trees. She asked if the replacement trees were the same as the one 14 removed. She expressed support for the Staff recommendations but thought they should 15 consider being more specific on “incompatible with the immediate environment”. She 16 was not interested in seeing changes to the protected tree list. 17 Mr. Gollinger answered the mitigation ratio would depend on the specific site and gave 18 an explanation. He thought there was always room to find places to plant trees. He stated 19 the replacement trees were generally required to be similar or larger if at all possible. 20 Commissioner Freeman was interested to know if there has been a deep dive into why so 21 many trees came down during the big storm and how to prepare for that as much as 22 possible in the future. 23 Mr. Gollinger answered he felt they were well prepared but the storms they had were 24 unusually severe and the damages would have been far worse if they had not already 25 have the process in place. 26 Vice Chair Brown was supportive of the cleanup recommendations from Staff. She 27 cautioned against making too many changes and thought they should focus Staff 28 resources on educating the changes. She inquired as to the definition or criteria for 29 structurally incompatible as she worried about it being applied inconsistently. 30 Mr. Gollinger stated there is no specific definition of that in the ordinance as it is. He 31 said they could be more specific about that in the tree technical manual. 32 Commissioner Oche asked what the cadence for inspection of trees is. She wondered if 33 there are risk categories. She wanted to know if residents have guidance on how to know 34 when to call for an emergency. 35 DRAFT DRAFT 11 Mr. Gollinger answered they do not personally inspect private protected trees unless they 1 are called by a resident with a concern. During a storm event, they often have people out 2 in the field that might be able to come by and take a look and give a permit if there is an 3 emergency. The inspect City trees before or after storms. They are inspected regularly. 4 They have crews out in the field throughout town constantly looking at the trees near 5 where their worksite is and looking for hazards. Their maintenance cycle is between five 6 and seven years. There is a tracking schedule for pruning and maintenance. They log 7 inspections but do not have a specific inspection cycle for all trees. In certain 8 circumstances, they can prioritize which trees on a street they will remove first based on 9 their maturity. They are currently conducting a case study where they have done in-depth 10 inspections of all trees on the block and making a plan to replant in locations next to the 11 trees before they are removed and hoping this can be expanded to other parts of the City. 12 He stated they updated the frequently asked questions during the storm season and tried 13 to push that out though social media and that information is available on the Canopy 14 Website. 15 Commissioner Wei wondered if there are certain methods or processes to reinforce a tree 16 that is not yet dead and cannot be removed but may cause danger, if there are training 17 sessions to alert people on avoiding danger of trees during a storm and if the City has a 18 helpline for immediate help if they experience a tree falling. She suggested these could 19 be put into the Palo Alto newsletter. 20 Mr. Gollinger answered they have the tree care guidelines that advise what to do before 21 and after a storm. They have not considered a webinar or public training but that could 22 be explored. If a serious emergency occurs, he instructed 911 should be called. If it is 23 something that might be an emergency involving a City street tree, public works could 24 be called. He stated these guidelines are in the frequently asked questions. 25 Chair Greenfield asked if any changes to the number in classifications of protected trees 26 would have had an impact on the flexibility in issuing tree removal permits. He asked 27 what the Community receives from Canopy given the modest contract they have. 28 Mr. Gollinger did not think changing the classifications would have directly impacted 29 what happened during the storms. He provided a long list of the services that Canopy 30 provides as part of their agreement and in relation to Urban Forestry. 31 Commissioner Freeman wondered if there was a way Urban Forestry could tap into the 32 resources such as Canopy for things like workshops to give people more information. 33 Mr. Gollinger said that was something they could look into. 34 35 DRAFT DRAFT 12 6. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair Greenfield – Discussion (15 1 min) 2 Commissioner Cribbs commented that the Recreation Foundation will continue to fund 3 the things they have in the past. There was nothing to report on Parks. The Chair of the 4 Parks said they are looking to do new signs for the Interpretive Center at Foothill Park. 5 Commissioner Freeman said that City Staff is continuing to work with the ecological 6 consultant on developing a plan to get in compliance with requirements of the State 7 Water Board. He did not have a timeline but he felt it would be before the end of the 8 year. Golf Course play was up 3% compared to the past year. 9 Commissioner Cribbs talked about grants. They had a good meeting with the Silicon 10 Valley Community Foundation to understand what grant opportunities existed for Palo 11 Alto. They were asked to provide three ideas which were City restrooms by the Magical 12 Bridge, a small museum and a redo of the Interpretive Center and the big one for 13 Buckeye Creek. They will be sending that off to their contact there who will share it with 14 the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. 15 Commissioner Wei discussed attendance of the Silicon Valley Foundation annual event. 16 She also discussed meeting with a Japanese Conglomerate which has an office in Palo 17 Alto who are looking for education in environmental self-improvement. She hopes to 18 reengage them in April 2024 to see if there is anything they can get from their local 19 office. 20 Commissioner Cribbs mentioned in November it will be two years since the Commission 21 heard the first presentation about the Recreation Wellness Center. She believed Mr. 22 Anderson and Kristen would be having a meeting to talk about scheduling the new 23 Community outreach. She hoped some of Peter’s ideas would be incorporated in the 24 PowerPoint they would be using. 25 Chair Greenfield added the playing fields policy and projects group met with Staff to 26 review some of the potential options for synthetic field replacement as well as a survey 27 of the materials used for a number of fields in the area. Staff is actively continuing 28 research this and has clarified the timeline for replacement of both the synthetic turf at El 29 Camino Park and at Mayfield. For El Camino Park, they are looking at spring of next 30 year when it will not be raining. Assuming the budget comes through, Mayfield will be 31 funded next fiscal year beginning July so will be aiming to have the work done in the 32 July-August-September timeframe. He talked about recently attending a Leadership Palo 33 Alto Panel discussion joined by some other Board and Commission Chairs where they 34 spent time talking about their roles and experience on the Commission and tried to drum 35 up interest for other people to consider participating in boards and commissions. There 36 will be a meeting coming up regarding the Baylands Tide Gate modified project with 37 DRAFT DRAFT 13 Valley Water. The project has been scaled down from the previous intentions. He 1 discussed a meeting being held the following day joined by Commissioner Oche to hear 2 about potential plans for GSI at Briones Park. The Master Plan ad-hoc has been meeting 3 regularly working toward getting their arms around optimizing the Staff input on the 4 Master Plan and move forward with some plans and would be coming to the 5 Commission the following month with ideas and thoughts. 6 Commissioner Oche mentioned she and Commissioner Wei were planning to do a deep 7 dive on Recreation Programs ad-hoc and they hope to explore the opportunity of the 8 PYC providing support to help achieve that. They plan to better engage the Youth 9 Council in the coming weeks. They hope to divide and conquer to attend their meetings 10 to maintain a better engagement and bring back word from them to close that gap. They 11 would be having a meeting the following day with the City’s Stormwater Compliance 12 Program Manager to install a green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) at Briones Park. 13 They hope to be able to report back to the Commission the following month. There were 14 no updates from plans for ISI or pursuing awards for any project yet but she hoped to 15 update the Commission on that in the coming weeks. 16 Commissioner Wei agreed with Commissioner Oche’s comments about the Recreation 17 Program and engagement with PYC. They also plan to map out the Recreation Program 18 to provide their thoughts and suggestions for the Master Work Plan before the November 19 meeting. 20 21 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 22 ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 23 24 Commissioner Cribbs wanted to make sure everybody saw the Grass Roots Ecology 25 2022-2023 annual report that appeared in her mailbox. 26 27 Mr. Anderson discussed the potential Park Dedication Ordinance for the Tower Well 28 depending on how the naming conversation goes and the Parks Master Plan Review 29 pending the ad-hocs would both be likely ready. 30 31 Commissioner Oche recommended presenting on the Recreations Programs Review in 32 December or January. 33 34 Commissioner Wei agreed that January was the best time after she and Commissioner 35 Oche observed enough meetings with the youth and with City Staff. 36 37 Chair Greenfield agreed with January for the Recreations Programs Review. 38 39 DRAFT DRAFT 14 Mr. Anderson stated he had a meeting the following day to discuss with Planning and 1 Transportation what the next steps would be for the Foothills PIO. He hoped they could 2 get that on the December agenda. Regarding the Wellness Center, he stated it was about 3 Staff they could assign in the absence of support they had from Public Works 4 Engineering. Peter has other projects he is working on and cannot dedicate his time to 5 this one. He said that E-bikes were pending a meeting with ad-hoc and Staff to work 6 through a few things. He would put a meeting together with Commissioners Kleinhaus 7 and Freeman. He discussed issues they were needing to look at and agree on and felt 8 they would be meeting in the next week and a half and thought it would be possible to 9 bring an update to the Commission in November or December. 10 11 Chair Greenfield stated after a meeting with Pam Boyle Rodriguez the following day 12 they would better understand if she would be looking to present to the Commission soon 13 with the Green Stormwater Infrastructure. Briones looks like a good possibility. 14 15 Commissioner Cribbs thought they would be ready to present grant opportunities to the 16 Commission in December or January. 17 18 Mr. Anderson said December 19 was tentatively agreed on for the next meeting. 19 20 ADJOURNMENT 21 22 Meeting adjourned at 10:13 P.M. 23