Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-25 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesAPPROVED APPROVED 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 June 25, 2024 7 In-Person & Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Amanda Brown, Vice Chair Nellis Freeman, Commissioners 11 Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Joy Oche, Bing Wei 12 Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Shani Kleinhaus 13 Others Present: 14 Staff Present: Kristen O’Kane, Steve Castile, Sarah Robustelli, Javod Ghods 15 16 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17 Chair Brown called the meeting to order. A roll call was done with six present. 18 PUBLIC COMMENT 19 None. 20 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 21 None. 22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the May 28, 2024, Parks and Recreation 24 Commission Regular Meeting 25 Commissioner Cribbs indicated the word “team” on page 3, line number 37 should 26 probably be “teams”. On line 24, page 4, she asked for clarification about the statement 27 “skatepark not actually approved project”. 28 Kristen O'Kane, Director of Community Services, explained it means it is not a project in 29 the CIP and a revision could be made. 30 APPROVED APPROVED 2 Commissioner Cribbs made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2024, Parks 1 and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting, seconded by Vice Chair Freeman. The 2 motion passed, 5-0-1, with Commissioner Greenfield abstaining. 3 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 4 2. Department Report 5 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager Open Space, Golf, and Parks, provided a slide 6 presentation discussing special events including movie nights and the 4th of July Chili 7 Cook-Off and a summer camp update. 8 Steve Castile, Assistant Director of Community Open Space, Golf, and Parks, resumed 9 the presentation describing capital improvement projects in construction. 10 Vice Chair Freeman inquired about the attendance and feedback of movie night and if 11 the Mitchell Park Project has started and what type of notification is being made to the 12 public. 13 Ms. Robustelli indicated that Recreations reported that there has been several hundred at 14 each event. 15 Assistant Director Castile replied a notification about the expansion project was put out 16 on the fence line at the main dog park, there are postings online, and they have outreach 17 inviting the public to remove existing chairs that are not part of the project. 18 Ms. Robustelli added a mailer is being to all of the residents within 500 feet. 19 Commissioner Oche asked if there was a notice on when the Ramos and Rinconada 20 restrooms would be ready. 21 Assistant Director Castile was not sure if there was a notification as to when they would 22 be ready but it could be put on the website. 23 Commissioner Greenfield queried if there was any direct outreach to the dog park 24 advocacy groups and suggested she connect with the dog park liaison. He wanted to 25 know the timeframe for the start of construction and completion of the dog park and 26 Cameron Park improvement. He wondered if it would be possible to have a flyer similar 27 to the Movie Night one talking about the Twilight Concert Series included in the next 28 department report. 29 Ms. Robustelli liked that idea and would connect with the dog park liaison. The 30 construction would start July 8 and would complete in October and the dog park will be 31 closed during that time. Construction on Cameron Park would begin that week and 32 APPROVED APPROVED 3 would complete August 30. 1 Commissioner Wei questioned if movie night was at capacity or if there was enough 2 space if it increased. She wanted to know how it was advertised to have reached such 3 success. 4 Ms. Robustelli replied that Recreation has not indicated there to be any problem with the 5 capacity of movie night. It had been advertised in the catalog, on their website, social 6 media, the City’s Uplift newsletter, and other correspondence. 7 Commissioner Cribbs inquired if there was any update on where the proposed restrooms 8 for Mitchell Park might be and if there had been any community outreach. She stated 9 they would love to know what the plan was as soon as possible. 10 Director O’Kane answered the exact location of the next restroom project has not yet 11 been determined. During the Finance Committee meetings when the budget was being 12 reviewed, there was a direction to focus the next restrooms on Eleanor Pardee Park so 13 they would have to work closely with Public Works to determine their bandwidth if they 14 were to do Pardee and Mitchell. It remains up in the air as to which restroom comes first 15 and where the restroom at Mitchell Park would go. 16 BUSINESS 17 3. Traffic Garden Presentation – Peter Jensen – Discussion – (20 min) 18 Nara, junior at Gunn High School, gave a slide presentation discussing a new traffic 19 garden for Palo Alto at the Ventura Community Center including the reason and 20 location, the definition of a traffic garden, video demonstrations of a traffic garden, a 21 traffic garden popup that had been hosted at Bike Palo Alto, sample traffic gardens, 22 reasons to have a traffic garden, proposed location, existing location photos, proposed 23 design, description of installation and maintenance, budget and breakdown, project 24 partners, community support, and next steps. She asked for support and invited fund 25 raising ideas. 26 Maria A., Nara’s mentor for this project, remarked that having something open to the 27 community at all times would be a great asset and spoke about the benefits of traffic 28 gardens. She commended Nara on the work she has done. 29 Elizabeth G. expressed support of the traffic garden and thought it would benefit the 30 bicyclists of the City. 31 Kevin C. thought a traffic garden would add a great deal of value to the park space it is 32 in. He added that Bike Palo Alto, Bike Rodeo, and some of the activities that happened 33 when his children were in elementary school were wonderful and this would provide a 34 APPROVED APPROVED 4 way to continue those activities more than one day a year. He urged the Commission to 1 support this. 2 Commissioner Wei asked where the pilot was carried out. She asked how long it would 3 take to install a proper one in the community center. 4 Nara replied it was at Bike Palo Alto at Fairmeadow Elementary School. They drew the 5 outlines in chalk and she borrowed some of the City’s Bike Rodeo equipment. She was 6 told it would take two to three days to install a permanent one. 7 Commissioner Oche hoped this would serve as an example for young people to develop 8 more community projects. She would touch base with her on fundraising. She was 9 curious to know the back story to this idea. She asked if she had visited any traffic 10 gardens. She queried if any risk assessment was done for example if kids fall or if it 11 rains. She questioned if there would be formal lessons scheduled all through the year. 12 Nara explained she was prompted by some negative experiences biking to high school 13 every day. She had not yet visited a traffic garden but has visited popup bike rodeos. She 14 had not heard anything about risk assessment from the traffic garden expert. She did not 15 think there were a lot of bikers or people in the park in the rain and did not think that 16 would be a problem. She replied there would be some formal lesson opportunities at the 17 traffic garden dispersed throughout the year run by the Safe Routes to School Program 18 and there also could be formal lessons from private classes. When the space was not 19 being used for that, people could just come in and teach their kids themselves. 20 Commissioner Cribbs inquired how the Commission could help her and wanted her to 21 talk more about the operations going forward. She offered to help connect them to the 22 Friends of the Palo Alto Parks regarding funding. She was interested to know what the 23 Community Service Staff thinks about this and operating it going forward. 24 Nara replied she would love support with traffic garden ideas, funding, making sure it 25 gets done in a timely manner, making sure getting it approved goes smoothly, and 26 continued programming throughout the year through Safe Routes to School. She hoped it 27 would be an option to host Bike Palo Alto at the Ventura Community Center. Another 28 idea they had was back to school biking events. 29 Assistant Director Castile spoke in support of the project and wanted to see it move 30 forward. He offered to help guide the process along. 31 Ms. Robustelli communicated that they could talk next steps about implementation. 32 Vice Chair Freeman wanted to know the proposed hours of operation for the traffic 33 garden and how the access would be managed to ensure it was used appropriately. He 34 APPROVED APPROVED 5 asked if there were any plans for structured programs or partnerships with local schools 1 to integrate the traffic garden into their curriculum beyond the initial proposal. He 2 queried how much the template aligned with traffic regulations on bike safety following 3 the California guidelines. 4 Nara had not gotten that far yet. She hoped it would be like a regular park. She hoped 5 that enough people would use it to prevent others from becoming overconfident and 6 attempting to deface the space. She stated there was currently no plans for structured 7 programs or partnerships with local schools, but she hoped to have that in the future. She 8 commented the traffic garden design included a lot of the elements they see in daily 9 riding. It is meant to function as a normal road but smaller and only for bikes. It would 10 comply with the California guidelines and include some special infrastructure that are 11 seen on the roads. 12 Chair Brown could see the project being privately funded. She queried what the space 13 was currently utilized for. She asked if there had been any push back or concerns 14 throughout the process. 15 Nara explained that there is a tricycle loop-de-loop at the preschool but other than that 16 the space is currently blank. Because the traffic garden would just be paint on pavement, 17 the space could continue being used for running around and playing. She said everyone 18 has been supportive and everyone that attended the Bike Palo Alto event signed their 19 petition. 20 Commissioner Greenfield inquired what the steps moving forward to refine the design 21 would be. He assumed that the programming she set up would be available online and 22 could be accessed via a QR code from a sign at the site. Regarding the funding, he asked 23 what the $12,500 budgeted for the contractor installation would cover. He thought there 24 was potential for outside funding and was not sure if there would be City funding 25 available but opined it could fall under Public Works, Transportation, CSD, or Public 26 Art. He wanted to know if there was one group who has ultimate responsibility for 27 driving this project forward. 28 Nara replied the steps moving forward include getting feedback from the design from 29 those organizations and the community and consulting the traffic garden expert to see 30 how this compares with other already installed traffic gardens. She confirmed the 31 programming would be available online and could be accessed via a QR code from a 32 sign at the site. She explained the $12,500 included the labor of the contractor painting, 33 prepping the surface, and finishing. He agreed to look into the funding suggestions. 34 Mr. Castile added it would include sweeping off the surfaces, making sure they are 35 suitable to have the paint adhere to it, making sure of the layout, and ensuring the correct 36 APPROVED APPROVED 6 traffic rated paints are utilized. He stated Peter Jensen had been their main contact for the 1 project but it would be a collaboration. 2 Commissioner Wei offered to connect Nara with the school district regarding their 3 involvement and wondered if they could pitch in funding. She thought City Staff could 4 help her figure out possible future maintenance costs. She offered to connect her with the 5 Youth Council leadership for their involvement. 6 Vice Chair Freeman queried if there would be multiple locations, would the City be 7 responsible for maintenance and upkeep, what the operational hours would be, and who 8 would monitor to make sure things are being safely done. He wanted to know how the 9 success and impact of the traffic garden would be measured and evaluated over time. 10 Nara replied at this time she is trying to get one but hopefully it will lead into more. She 11 had not gotten that far but hoped it would be so successful that the City would want to 12 upkeep and maintain it. She indicated they could look at how many people participate in 13 the traffic garden and how confident they feel biking before and after participation. She 14 hoped to see a reduction in collisions throughout the City. 15 Mr. Castile added they would look into operation, scheduling, outreach, and 16 programming. 17 4. Park Improvement Ordinance for the Palo Alto Floods Basin Tide Gate 18 Structure – Bhavani Yerrapotu – Discussion – (60 min) 19 Karl Neuman, Capital Engineering Manager at Valley Water, provided a slide 20 presentation covering the Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gate Structure Project, Phase 1 21 discussing a background and update of the project, background of the existing Tide Gate 22 structure, map of the project location, seismic and flood risk, project objectives, and 23 project benefits. 24 Jessica Ariani, Valley Water Engineer, resumed the presentation discussing the existing 25 Tide Gate Structure condition, phase 1 work scope including the deep foundation, the 26 polyester polymer concrete overlay, phase 1 tentative project schedule, construction 27 impact including trail closure, public outreach for trail closures, anticipated construction 28 traffic route, minimizing physical trail impacts, environmental resources, minimizing 29 environmental impacts, and environmental review and permitting. 30 Mr. Neuman continued the presentation discussing after completion of the phase 1 work 31 and project website and contacts. 32 Eileen M. wanted information regarding what might happen if the gate failed before any 33 work was done and what extent of damage could happen to the flood basin. 34 APPROVED APPROVED 7 Ms. Yerrapotu referred to the seismic and flood risk slide. She indicated the gates could 1 be stuck open allowing bay water to enter into the basin or stuck closed preventing the 2 water from backing out. 3 Ms. Ariani added the biggest risk of a large earthquake would be a damage to the 4 connection between the top of the structure and the timber piles preventing the flap gates 5 from properly opening or closing causing a flood risk. 6 Commissioner Greenfield queried if Public Works Engineering or Staff had done an 7 assessment of the risks and restoration plan. He brought up recent concerns that have 8 been raised about the operation of the sluice gate being compromised and asked if they 9 were currently in compliance with the mitigation requirements from the original Army 10 Corps construction. He asked if the biologist would be on site during all construction 11 hours. He asked if the noise exemption was common for a construction project in an 12 open space natural environment and if there were any environmental concerns. He 13 requested adding a link to the Parks and Rec website on how to subscribe for information 14 on this. 15 Ms. Yerrapotu explained the rehab scope of work is addressing the highest risks and 16 seismic vulnerability is the highest risk that was identified. The other elements of the 17 project are going to extend the life of the project. There will be annual inspections and 18 underwater inspections every five years. 19 Mr. Castile advised they had worked collaboratively with Valley Water. He looked at the 20 designs and plans and they have had multiple meetings. They have been receptive to 21 comments and input with the materials, how they will proceed to do the work with the 22 habitat sensitivity and trails, and when they will do the work. They have been amenable 23 to meeting the expectations of the project. He confirmed Public Works Engineering has 24 assessed the plan. He added a deep dive had been done and have not seen any noticeable 25 observational difference for water quality over the years. They believe they are in 26 compliance and have met the obligations from the mitigation. They are going to reach 27 out to the regulatory agencies to confirm this. They would report back on that. 28 Mr. Neuman confirmed the contractor would hire a biologist to have on site at all times 29 and the Valley Water biologist will be involved every step of the way. 30 Ms. O’Kane indicated they would talk to their Planning Department and Development 31 Services to confirm the noise exemption question. 32 Commissioner Wei wanted to learn more about the materials being used and the 33 surrounding area habitat. 34 APPROVED APPROVED 8 Ms. Ariani described how the PPC was applied and stated they were still looking into the 1 environmental impact. 2 Commissioner Oche wanted to know how often the trash rack needed cleaning. She 3 asked about the gap between January 2026 and winter 2026 shown on the schedule. She 4 had hoped to see something about idling in the best management practices. She queried 5 if the resident’s question about water quality had been answered. 6 Mr. Neuman answered it would depend on rain events stating they could expect to 7 remove debris from the trash racks around the middle of October until April. He recalled 8 it was at least two times the past year. He explained the gap on the schedule was when 9 they would stop activities that would potentially impact nesting season for birds. They 10 would be doing planting to offset the impacts of the construction near the product site. 11 Provisions had been put in their specifications that the contractor could not arrive too 12 early or stay too late. He described other BMPs being used throughout the project. 13 Mr. Castile understood from the mitigation of the sluice gate installation that there was 14 supposed to be salt water that would reestablish a salt marsh area so water quality would 15 be referencing the blending of water between water coming in and the bay. In order to 16 get that information, they need to do more research into that working with other 17 departments to get the data. 18 Commissioner Cribbs thought there was different information than what was shown and 19 wondered if it would be posted someplace or could be sent out. She wanted to know how 20 one got to be an interested party. She wanted to know if the biologist mentioned was 21 from Valley Water, a third-party contractor, or a City biologist. 22 Ms. Robustelli indicated all of the presentations would be posted after the meeting. 23 Jiana Escobar replied there were stakeholder lists from past projects. She could add 24 people to the list. 25 Mr. Neuman answered the contractors would have their own biologist. Valley Water 26 biologists would also be monitoring the contractor’s work. Before turning the site over to 27 the contractor, they would do an initial survey to find out if there are any nesting birds or 28 sensitive habitat there and transfer that information to the contractor. 29 Vice Chair Freeman wondered if they had taken into consideration the possibility of a lot 30 of rain during the proposed construction time and how it would impact their schedule. 31 He assumed there was an urgency to move forward. He asked for more detail on the 32 seismic retrofit measures being implemented in phase 1 of the project. 33 APPROVED APPROVED 9 Mr. Neuman answered they planned to have the most ground disturbing activities done 1 first from September through October 15 to minimize disturbance to water quality in the 2 area. The contractor would be required to put in any storm water controls. He confirmed 3 that there was urgency to move forward to mitigate risks. He referenced the slide 4 describing the seismic retrofit measures being implemented. He indicated their design 5 takes into account liquefaction. 6 Chair Brown wanted to know if there was a flexibility and contingency plan factored into 7 the planning. She asked if the piles were disruptive to the environment around them for 8 the installation in terms of noise and vibrations. She offered the Commissions support in 9 outreach efforts. 10 Mr. Neuman explained they are constrained by their permitting agencies and the nesting 11 season and they would not be able to do the work outside of the proposed timeframe. 12 The foundations are not driven and do not create any kind of impact, percussion or 13 vibration. He mentioned plans to do a design update public outreach meeting in the fall. 14 Commissioner Greenfield asked if the contract biologist would report to the construction 15 contractor. He opined having someone report to the agency they are trying to regulate 16 was a potential conflict. 17 Mr. Neuman stated the requirement by CDFW was that they had to approve the 18 contractor’s biologist. They would submit their resume to Valley Water who would then 19 submit them to California Department of Official Wildlife. They also have to be 20 approved by the regulatory agency that oversees that jurisdiction. He stated it was Valley 21 Water practice to have the contractor hire the biologist. Their own biologist provides 22 oversight over the contractor’s biologist. They would be willing to work with the 23 Commission regarding the conflict of interest of the biologist. 24 Mr. Castile advised they would work closely with Valley Water to ensure any concerns 25 would be addressed. 26 Vice Chair Freeman inquired how far in advance community engagement and feedback 27 would take place, how will the community be kept informed of the construction process, 28 and what opportunities would there be for providing feedback. 29 Mr. Neuman explained they would go out to the community just before construction to 30 do a preconstruction meeting to let them know the potential impacts during the project 31 and the dates. He added they would be installing project signs with QR codes providing 32 contact information for Valley Water. 33 APPROVED APPROVED 10 Ms. Escobar indicated they would have the preconstruction meeting and then throughout 1 the process any highlights would be sent out. They would also do other social media 2 posts and mailers if need be and constant contact email addresses. 3 5. Community Services FY 2025 Adopted Budget – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion – 4 (30 min) 5 Director O’Kane reviewed some of the recent Council actions related to the FY25 budget 6 with slides discussing CSD FY25 budget overview operating expenses and revenues, 7 capital projects, new budget items, and new workplan items. 8 Commissioner Cribbs expressed a concern about the inadequate restrooms at Magic 9 Bridge and felt it should get equal treatment with Pardee. 10 Director O’Kane agreed that was an important location for restrooms and thought the 11 two could occur concurrently. 12 Commissioner Wei requested information about the timeframe of 445 Bryant Street, if 13 there was a need for remodeling, and if there was budget needed to do everything. 14 Director O’Kane indicated there was budget included in the FY25 proposed budget that 15 was adopted. The next step is involvement from Public Works. She described 16 improvements that need to be done to the space. Public Works would be assigning a 17 project manager and would move forward from there. She stated they would keep the 18 Commission involved and updated as the project moves along. 19 Vice Chair Freeman questioned if they had reached out to the community for input on 20 445 Bryant Street and asked if there was a gym. He asked how long they think the study 21 will take on the soccer fields and what is the wear and tear of the existing fields. He 22 queried if the local soccer community knew what was happening with the schedule. 23 Director O’Kane explained it used to be a private commercial gym. She indicated they 24 would be reaching out when they start designing the teen center and La Comida has 25 interest in the space they will be using. The intent is to make it a flexible and adaptable 26 space. The way the soccer field projects have been reordered is appropriate in that they 27 feel the Mayfield and Stanford Palo Alto fields are in most need of replacement so they 28 are moving forward with those right away in FY25. That will be replaced with synthetic 29 turf with cork infill. At the same time, the study will be done and she hoped it would take 30 less than a year to complete. 31 Mr. Castile confirmed they are in communication with the different leagues letting them 32 know the intent. He added El Camino would be able to make it through the next year and 33 APPROVED APPROVED 11 the minute they have funds available they will get right on them and make sure they are 1 efficient with how they do this to keep it rolling. 2 Commissioner Oche was curious what the next steps would be for the recreation 3 program. She wondered if they would be carried along and if residents would know. 4 Director O’Kane remarked that as of July 1 they would have a bigger budget to contract 5 with more instructors to offer more classes. She described limits on their contracting 6 authority. There was no consultant involved and it was all internal processes and 7 conversations that would happen. She agreed to keep the Commission updated on 8 progress and how many classes they could provide. 9 Chair Brown wanted information toward new positions and what needs of the 10 department they were trying to address when making those asks. She asked if there was 11 any unmet need that was shifted or deprioritized. 12 Director O’Kane answered when looking at the proposed operating budget, the number 13 of positions would be different than what had been presented because they did get some 14 additional positions added for the junior museum and zoo. She indicated the way their 15 budget was presented was proposed budget items then other items Staff proposed but did 16 not make it into the overall proposed budget. These items are included in the Finance 17 Committee presentation. She described what was included in that. 18 Commissioner Greenfield queried if there was a ballpark timeline associated with the 19 Mayfield soccer field. He asked if construction would be targeted after the busy months 20 of September through November. He asked if it would be possible to pull it forward to 21 December and January. He asked if it would be possible to have a second restroom 22 construction in FY 26 if there were community funding available for an additional 23 restroom. 24 Ms. Robustelli answered they had already engaged with the designer and were moving 25 forward. She stated they were targeting February. 26 Mr. Castile added the thought was to minimize the impact they would have on the users 27 of the fields and work outside of their seasons if and when possible while still keeping 28 the project moving forward. He agreed to look into pulling the project forward to 29 December and January. 30 Director O’Kane would have to ask Public Works if they have the staff available for a 31 construction of a second restroom in FY 26. 32 Commissioner Cribbs agreed community funding was something to pursue for 33 construction of a second restroom in FY26. 34 APPROVED APPROVED 12 6. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Vice Chair – Discussion – (15 min) 1 Commissioner Greenfield suggested moving forward with new ad hoc members when 2 new Commission members were appointed. He talked about a park dedication meeting 3 with six or seven potentials in two different levels of priority. They are taking advantage 4 of the current environment of heightened desire to increase park dedications to offset the 5 potential loss of park space at El Camino Park regarding the Quarry Road Transit 6 Project. 7 Commissioner Wei announced she and Commissioner Oche were looking to attend a 8 Youth Council meeting in September to support the potential October Youth Mental 9 Health Summit. She talked about attending the Sibling City event. She mentioned the 10 possibility of park with the Sibling City. 11 Commissioner Oche clarified the scope for the liaison. The wording before was Youth 12 Council but when they had a meeting it was changed to Youth. She reached out to 13 confirm the scope and was told to stick to what they have so she wanted to bring it to the 14 board to be sure they were aligned with what the scope of the liaison is. She reported the 15 tab on the PYC had openings that would be ending the end of August. She believed it 16 was an opportunity for other youth members of the community to step up and take up 17 leadership positions. 18 Chair Brown understood that it would remain the same scope. 19 Ms. Robustelli remembered the workplan discussion was that they were a bit broader so 20 potentially when this is posted on the PRC website, her name would be listed for a youth 21 contact. It is a larger category so it is not just specific to teen advisory or youth council. 22 Commissioner Cribbs stated while waiting for the ad hoc Cubberley Council discussion, 23 Vice Chair Freeman, Commissioner Oche and she have been meeting and talking about 24 naming rights, fundraising, updating the school district and City on where they are, 25 question about existing infrastructure at various potential sites including what the 26 infrastructure is like at Cubberley and timing. She said there is still a lot of work to do 27 and they are working on some good and exciting things. She announced Chair Brown 28 and she are now liaison to Aquatics. She shared that Rinconada Pool is doing well with 29 an increase in attendance compared to last year and they are closer to pre-COVID 30 numbers. They are working on private adult lessons. The Friends of Palo Alto Parks sent 31 her a note asking if she would ask about the status of the Baylands signs on the trail. She 32 asked about the status of golf and First Tee agreement to move forward on the project. 33 Director O’Kane indicated the Baylands Interpretive Signage Project was partially grant 34 funded. There needs to be a deed restriction where each sign is due to the property 35 APPROVED APPROVED 13 ownership and jurisdiction. They are in the process of finalizing that piece then they can 1 go into fabrication of the signs and get them installed. 2 Mr. Castile spoke about a meeting he had with George from the First Tee program and 3 Lam. He would be joining them the following Friday to observe the golf First Tee 4 program, begin discussions, and keep that moving forward. 5 Ms. O’Kane advised that all of the liaisons are working with the clerk’s office refining 6 the timing for workplans. This year, the Commissions have the opportunity to present 7 their workplans at a Council meeting in August. Parks and Rec, Public Art, and Human 8 Relations will present on the same night. 9 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 10 ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 11 12 Chair Brown stated in July/August they would look at the Park Improvement Ordinance 13 for the Tide Gate Structure to come back as an action item, a Foothills project update, a 14 First Tee update, and striping at Terman for pickleball. The date the workplan will be 15 presented is August 19. 16 17 Commissioner Cribbs passed a document around about a new initiative the Aspen 18 Institute and Project Play has where they combined all of the major sports groups to 19 achieve a higher percentage of kids playing sports. 20 21 Commissioner Greenfield asked if there was any work effort being done to coordinate 22 with the county or neighboring cities doing similar studies. 23 24 Director O’Kane stated members of the Sierra Club local chapter have been sending her 25 a lot of information from local neighboring cities and thought they could look into turf. 26 27 ADJOURNMENT 28 29 Meeting adjourned at 10:01 P.M. 30