Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-25 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesMINUTES PARKS & RECREATION Commission Regular meeting February 25, 2025 In-Person & Virtual Conference Palo Alto, California Page 1 of 12 Regular Meeting 1 2/25/2025 2 The Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council 3 Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 7:00 P.M. 4 Present In Person: Cribbs, Deng, Kleinhaus, Vice Chair Greenfield 5 Council Liaison: Lythcott-Haims 6 Present Remotely: Wei 7 Absent: Chair Freeman, Brown 8 9 Call To Order and Roll Call 10 Vice Chair Greenfield called the meeting to order and roll was taken. 11 Public Comment 12 1. Orit found the survey about adding a restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park biased and poorly 13 designed. She explained why she alleged the main question pushed responders to 14 provide a specific answer, the survey tracking mechanism was lacking and it should have 15 included some concerns. She asked that a well-designed survey be put together to 16 provide an opportunity for a fair, authentic and thoughtful perspective before making a 17 decision to invest in a restroom at Pardee Park. 18 2. Chris C. shared Orit’s sentiments about the survey regarding a restroom at Pardee Park. 19 He wanted to understand what the traffic implications would be and what they should 20 expect in terms of the service level agreement from the Parks Commission about how 21 the restrooms would be maintained. He talked about restrooms at other parks in the 22 community being in a state of disrepair. 23 3. Dashiell L., conservation coordinator for Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, commented 24 about Staff slashing and hedging all the vegetation around the ponds at Emily Renzel. 25 They recommended Staff use a phased approach to manage those areas so they would 26 not all be managed at the same time in order to create habitat diversity so wildlife will 27 have habitat to forage, nest and find shelter. 28 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 29 None. 30 31 Approval of Minutes 32 1.Approval of December 18, 2024 and January 28, 2025 Parks and Recreation 33 Commission Draft Summary Minutes 34 Commissioner Cribbs asked for a correction on page 5, line 132 on the December 18, 2024, 35 Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Summary Minutes changing PASD to PAUSD. 36 MOTION: Commissioner Cribbs moved, seconded by Commissioner Kleinhaus to approve edits 37 to the Minutes from PASD to PAUSD on the December 18, 2024, Parks and Recreation 38 Commission Draft Summary Minutes. 39 MOTION PASSED: 5-2 40 MOTION: Commissioner Kleinhaus moved, seconded by Commissioner Cribbs to approve the January 41 28, 2025, Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Summary Minutes. 42 MOTION PASSED: 5-2 43 44 City Official Reports 45 2.Department Report 46 Assistant Community Services Director Steve Castile and Sarah Robustelli gave the department 47 report via slide presentation including the Hearts and Harmony Valentine’s Day dance, 48 upcoming special events, spring youth swim lessons at Rinconada Pool, Cubberley updates, 49 Esther Clark Park replanting, Briones Park slide replacement, capital improvements projects 50 construction at Ramos Park and completion of Cameron Park. Mr. Castile indicated they would 51 bring an action item on the Eleanor Pardee Park restroom survey the next month. 52 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired if there was a follow up on how many of the acorns and 53 buckeye seeds germinated at Esther Clark Park as squirrels could eat them. She wanted to know 54 if oak trees could also be planted along with the buckeyes and big leaf maples. She encouraged 55 not waiting to plant more trees as five trees did not replace the lost trees fast enough. She 56 discussed the outcry about the use of plastic in parks and wanted to know if there was a policy 57 to look more natural. She thought it was unfortunate that petroleum-based rubberized material 58 continued to be used. She mentioned the comments about Emily Renzel and the vegetation 59 management. She hoped there would be more coordination between the department and 60 Public Works in managing the Baylands in a way that is wildlife and habitat friendly so the 61 vegetation was not decimated again next year. 62 Mr. Castile replied that Grassroots would work with Staff to monitor the planted trees. Each 63 location was flagged and two to three acorns could be planted in anticipation of the potential 64 loss. He agreed to look into planting oaks. He indicated they had heard the concerns regarding 65 using the plastic in the parks. He said there was a study coming up with information so the 66 public could voice their concerns on March 17. 67 Commissioner Deng queried if the Cubberley Field restroom started on time and when it would 68 be completed. 69 It was Mr. Castile’s understanding that work on the Cubberley Field restroom had started and 70 would be completed in about three weeks. 71 Commissioner Cribbs wanted to know if there was an update on the First Tee agreement. 72 Mr. Castile answered they were still actively working on the First Tee agreement. Preliminary 73 work had been done looking at the heights of the netting and a trajectory study. That would 74 come into play working in collaboration with the First Tee. They intended to schedule a meeting 75 with First Tee within the next two weeks to keep that going. They were currently working on 76 the long-term agreement. 77 Commissioner Wei asked if they had the final results of the Santa Clara County report about 78 artificial turf and synthetic grass. 79 Mr. Castile answered that the next steps would be to present that to Council on March 17. They 80 would determine if a consultant could be brought on to help park staff come up with different 81 recommendations and fact finding on the health benefits and the concerns of the public. 82 Whether to convert it to natural or leave it synthetic would be yet to determined pending on 83 the study. 84 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there was an update on the Tide Gate and whether the flow to 85 the basin could be restored. She requested an update on how the Mitchell Dog Park was 86 working out. 87 Mr. Castile remarked the final application to US Fish and Wildlife had been submitted and was 88 in the phase of being under review. Once feedback from that was received, if they got a final 89 approval on that they could proceed with establishing the work to clean the gates. They were 90 already looking into a company that could do the work for them. He agreed to bring an update 91 on the Mitchell Dog Park to a future agenda. He stated the feedback indicated it had been well 92 received. 93 Vice Chair Greenfield queried if the Briones Park slide replacement was a normal lifecycle 94 budgeted item. He asked if the synthetic field study had been approved by City Council. He 95 requested Staff follow up with the Open Space Preserve liaisons with more information about 96 the Renzel Pond vegetation management issue. He suggested arranging a meeting with the 97 Commission liaisons and Public Works engineering to further discuss the issue on site. He 98 advised that Staff include information about the status of the new restrooms at other parks. 99 Mr. Castile replied it was an unanticipated, proactive repair due to defects making the slides 100 unsafe and would come out of the emergency funds. He answered the synthetic field study was 101 pulled on the January agenda. It would go back in front of Council on March 17. 102 No Action 103 104 Business Items 105 3. Information Update on Byxbee Park Western Trail Temporary Closure from 3/03/2025 106 to 11/30/2025 for Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation 107 Michael Randall, Jacobs Engineering, and Sue Cheng, project engineer, provided a slide 108 presentation giving an update on the progress of the 72-inch joint intercepting sewer 109 rehabilitation project including existing pipe conditions, map of the portion of the sewer line 110 being rehabilitated, condition assessment video of the inside of the pipe, example of a large 111 diameter CIPP installation, Utilities Department experience with cured pipe in place, City of 112 Mountain View CIPP at Shoreline Park in March 2022, 72-inch joint intercepting sewer phase 113 (3/3/25 to 11/30/25), protection of public and environment, construction at park land, signage, 114 6 to 8-inch gap below fencing, site photos, light and noise level design guidelines, temporary 115 illumination locations inside the plant and at the trail (5/5/25 to 7/30/25) and trail closure 116 3/3/25 to 11/30/25. 117 Ms. Cheng commented that the project was scheduled to be complete by the end of October 118 but they requested to have the closure to November in case there was any construction delay. 119 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted explanation about the 24/7 lighting. 120 Ms. Cheng clarified the lighting would not be on 24/7. Each station would have an on/off switch 121 and would only be turned on as needed. 122 Public Comments: 123 1. Dashiell L. reported that this project might potentially happen at the same time as the 124 construction of the Tide Gate structure by Valley Water, the Horizontal Levee project 125 and there may be additional projects that could overlap with this. He queried how these 126 projects were coordinated for the protection of natural resources and access. 127 Commissioner Kleinhaus explained how locations of manholes 3 and 6 were important for 128 wildlife connectivity. She advised any pipes that were lying around should be inaccessible to 129 wildlife or be inspected for wildlife use before they were used. She wanted to be sure they 130 were paying attention to where manhole 3 went and make sure the pipes did not perforate one 131 another. She asked for explanation about the timing with other projects. She wanted an update 132 on what was happening with the Horizontal Levee. 133 Mr. Randall pointed out they would be below manhole 3 and would not physically excavate 134 down to the pipeline. He stated the Tide Gate project would commence in September and 135 proceed until March. There would be park rangers supervising to coordinate trail access with 136 each individual project. There would be ample notification. They intended to minimize the 137 inconvenience as much as possible with bypasses. He agreed to look at bringing an update on 138 the Horizontal Levee. 139 Ms. Cheng advised that to their knowledge the Horizontal Levee project had been postponed 140 and would not be concurrent with the sewer rehab project. The pipelining would be complete 141 by the end of July and site restorations and manhole rehab would occur between July and 142 October. 143 Vice Chair Greenfield questioned if a park improvement ordinance was required for the work to 144 be done. He said it would be good to understand what set the criteria for when a PIO was 145 required. He advised the Horizontal Levee update could be agendized for a future meeting. 146 Ms. Robustelli agreed to look into that and get back to the Commission on it but she did not 147 believe a park improvement ordinance went to City Council. 148 Commissioner Cribbs wanted a summary about the communication with the residents about 149 when and how things would be closed and what access there would be. She inquired how many 150 people would be working at the site at one time. 151 Ms. Cheng explained there would be signage posted at specific locations with a QR code and a 152 URL to the City website proving information and updates. They would coordinate with the park 153 rangers doing a walkthrough when fencing was installed to ensure site security. 154 Mr. Randall remarked there would be two people maintaining the bypass 24/7 the majority of 155 the time. Throughout the day when they were preparing for the work, there would be two 156 crews of about three individuals. When they get to the actual wetout, there would be five 157 people from SAK in addition to those watching the bypass depending on their staffing levels, 158 natures of their crews and who would be available. City staff would also be there while the 159 work activities were being performed. 160 Commissioner Wei expressed approval of the project. 161 Commissioner Deng wanted to understand the rationale behind the estimated percentage of 162 the cost to share between the six agencies and why Palo Alto accounts for that percentage. 163 Ms. Cheng explained the sewer line flows from the City of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Altos 164 and Los Altos Hill. The percentage is based on the flow that is contributed by each of the cities 165 sewersheds. She stated flow meters tracked each partner’s flow. 166 Mr. Castile added it was a cost share between the different cities. 167 Vice Chair Greenfield wanted a review of the primary trail closure periods. He wanted 168 explanation of the service life. 169 Ms. Cheng replied it would be March 3 until October 30 of this year and potentially into 170 November to account for any potential delay. 171 Mr. Randall explained the rehabilitation of the pipeline itself would have a design life of 50 to 172 100 years. There would be other infrastructure along with it that would have a 20 to 50 year 173 range. 174 No Action 175 176 4. Informational Update from Canopy (45 Minutes) 177 JP Renaud, executive director of Canopy, and Evany Wang, community forestry coordinator for 178 Canopy, provided an informational update from Canopy via slide presentation including a 179 history, scope of services for this FY, tree walks and volunteer tree care workshops, FY24 180 Mayor’s Tree Planting and Arbor week celebrations and Palo Alto planting events. 181 Mr. Renaud provided context about Canopy’s services. He remarked that Canopy would plant 182 anywhere there was a spot for a tree and invited anyone to contact them at canopy.org if they 183 would like to have a tree planted. 184 Commissioner Wei wanted to know how they spread the word for the youth survey and if they 185 would be interested in presenting to the Youth Leadership Council possibly in March. She 186 queried on behalf of Neighbor’s Abroad who they would contact if they wanted to plant more 187 trees with different cities. 188 Ms. Wang explained their volunteer engagement manager had a great connection to a lot of 189 the school community. She reaches out to the school groups individually. They do a table at 190 some of the schools when invited. They start advertising opportunities for the Young Tree Care 191 Survey around early spring. She would be interested in further advertising for the Young Tree 192 Care Survey at any opportunity she was presented. She stated they would provide an email 193 where she could be contacted for that. 194 Mr. Castile agreed to look into who to contact to plant more trees with different cities. If they 195 had placed, they would work directly with Urban Forestry and potentially also collaborate with 196 Canopy depending on where they wanted to put trees. 197 Vice Chair Greenfield described a Living Skills class in high school that requires volunteer hours 198 and advised Canopy was an organization that the high school youth could fulfill that 199 requirement. He asked for a description of a tree planting event. 200 Commissioner Deng asked if they had considered partnering with elementary schools. She 201 offered to pass along the information to all the PTA presidents if they reach out to her. 202 Ms. Wang remarked they had planted a few trees at Ohlone Elementary School in the last 203 couple of years and were scheduled to plant two more this year. She tried to work with 204 administration to see how many students they could get involved. They have a curriculum that 205 could be adapted to teach children how to plant. She described the events in the day of a tree 206 planting event. 207 Mr. Renaud talked about how schools are full of asphalt that absorb and emit heat. Planting 208 trees at schools allow mitigation for that. He described the process for planting trees at a 209 school. 210 Commissioner Kleinhaus inquired what tree care questions they got most frequently. She 211 queried if there were specific directions on how to water mature oak trees. She talked about 212 the importance of native oaks and providing instruction on caring for them. She asked what 213 species they plant, what percentage were locally native trees and how many of those were 214 locally native oaks. She wondered if any education was being provided about biodiversity in 215 general and habitat value of different trees. She thought native trees could belong everywhere. 216 Ms. Wang replied they got a lot of questions about watering and having the tree stakes 217 checked. They get questions about mature trees not planted by Canopy. Canopy does not have 218 the facilities to care for large trees past the five-year mark but they have an arborist list they 219 send to anyone who needs tree care help. Questions regarding mature trees include if they are 220 in danger of falling over in a wind storm. The water instructions for oak trees would depend on 221 the type of oak tree and the amount of water different oaks required. She advised their tree 222 library had a list of watering and care requirements for specific trees and could be accessed by 223 anyone on their website. She remarked the most common oaks they plant were the valley and 224 the coast live oak. She put more emphasis this year on offering locally native tree species. They 225 tried to focus more on trees, species that could become trees or that were available at the local 226 nurseries in tree form. She indicated that many of California’s native trees were not suitable for 227 urban spaces. 228 Mr. Renaud stated they were aligned with Commissioner Kleinhaus’ concerns. He explained 229 community forestry coordinators shared those values with residents but they needed 230 everyone’s partnership in making sure a tree survives. If a resident did not want the tree that 231 was native to that area prehistorically, they had to provide them with a climate resilient tree 232 appropriate to their environment and climate adaptive. Trees that survived there 100 years ago 233 struggle now with the changing climate and they had to think ahead about what trees would be 234 able to survive the unpredictability of the future. They do their best to educate people on the 235 value of native trees, what they bring as biodiversity and what they do to our environment and 236 try to convince people to accept one of those trees. 237 Vice Chair Greenfield thought it might be worthwhile to look at the specific instructions 238 between what Canopy has and what is on the City website in terms of the care guidelines for 239 the protected species. He suggested the urban forester, Peter Gollinger, could look into that 240 along with Canopy and figure out the best way to have this information available and 241 discoverable for the local community. He wanted to hear more about the South Palo Alto Tree 242 Initiative. He asked what the Commission could do to help. 243 Ms. Wang described the process of the South Palo Alto Tree Initiative. When someone requests 244 a tree, she meets them where they want a tree. The purpose of the tree, personal preferences 245 and site conditions are taken into consideration in making suggestions. The resident is free to 246 choose their tree. They take care of the trees for threeish years. The planting date depends on 247 whether they can be put into a larger community planting and if not they get volunteers to 248 work on it on an off Wednesday or Thursday. 249 Mr. Renaud instructed saying yes to a tree was all that was needed and Canopy would do the 250 rest or look at their website or calendar for volunteer opportunities. 251 Commissioner Cribbs expressed appreciation for the efforts of Canopy. 252 253 5. FY2024 Urban Forestry Annual Report and Discussion of Draft Tree and Landscape 254 Technical Manual 255 Arborist Peter Gollinger provided the Urban Forestry annual update via a slide presentation 256 including key responsibilities of the section, Urban Forestry section staff, trees maintained, staff 257 development, Urban Forestry FY24 data, Urban Forestry FY24 accomplishments, Urban Forestry 258 program outputs, number of trees pruned (street and park) target 5218, FY24 Urban Forestry 259 challenges, Tree & Landscape Technical Manual, timeline of the TLTM, TLTM improvements, 260 new components in the TLTM, early TLTM feedback and how to provide feedback on the TLTM. 261 Vice Chair Greenfield noted the Parks and Rec Commission had been designated in the 262 Municipal Code with along with the major changes to the tree ordinance in 2023 as the official 263 community form for the Urban Forestry section. 264 Public Comment: 265 1. Winter D. expressed her approval of the updates to the TLTM. 266 2. Dashiell L., conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, stated the 267 organization believed the draft TLTM needed work to meet goal number two. They 268 hoped to see more attention to ecology and biodiversity. The right tree in the right place 269 principles needed to include habitat value or recommendations for plants specifically. 270 They wanted to see more information on native plants. He advised that the Mountain 271 View North Bayshore Precise Plant Palette might be useful as a model for how to direct 272 the right kinds of plantings for enhancing ecological value and biodiversity. 273 3. Doria S., Planning and Transportation Commission, expressed her appreciation of the 274 updates to the TLTM. 275 4. Karen H. agreed with the other public comments made. She mentioned that the 276 underlay for artificial turf could be impermeable and not support plants that provide 277 cooling as well as habitat for animals critical to the ecosystem. She hoped to have some 278 attention given to the issue during the meeting. 279 Commissioner Cribbs questioned how many people take advantage of the opportunity to 280 communicate with Urban Forestry on the online forms. 281 Mr. Gollinger commented most of the arborist online forms were not live yet. They have had 282 actual field arborists test them out and give feedback. One issue they noticed was that while 283 the comments and conditions in a development plan may require a project arborist, oftentimes 284 the applicant was not actually contracting with an arborist. Regarding the TLTM, they had 285 received 10 or 12 comments via the form and approximately 20 comments via email. 286 Commissioner Kleinhaus queried if the data on how many trees were removed included 287 projects that did not go through the entire permitting process and if they knew how many 288 private trees were being lost. She urged them to add the ecology requirements to the training. 289 She wondered if they knew where there was saltwater intrusion and stated it was important in 290 determining which trees needed irrigation. She asked if a tree that just dies gets calculated into 291 a tree replacement requirement. She asked them to note there were a lot of trees that died on 292 the golf course in the past 10 years that did not get replaced. 293 Mr. Gollinger replied those trees listed were public trees. He explained they began tracking the 294 lost private trees about a year ago. They had not compiled any comprehensive data. They 295 planned to start reporting on it annually once they get it figured out. The ability to monitor the 296 private trees on private property long term was limited. A behind-the-scenes process had been 297 implemented where when one of the staff reviewed a project with a protected tree removal, a 298 tree permit was made behind the scenes to provide a record for it. He stated they had it 299 mapped where saltwater intrusion was most likely to occur based on groundwater intrusion 300 due to sea level rise. He did not know if there was actual date of any intrusion currently. He 301 explained if a protected tree dies, they would only have a requirement for replacement if they 302 were letting them know they were removing and replacing it. For commercial properties, it 303 would be a part of a landscape plan and they would need to submit a replacement because it 304 was part of an approved landscape plan. If it was in the open space, unless it was a hazard to a 305 trail or road or was a fire hazard, it would be left alone. If it was a City tree, they would remove 306 it as a hazard and replace if, if possible. If a resident or a property had a tree fall over from 307 storm damage, they would not be penalized. They would recommend replacement. If it was a 308 commercial landscape, they may require a one-to-one to keep the landscape plan current. City 309 trees would get replaced if there was not a conflict with utilities. 310 Commissioner Deng inquired how many of the City Staff were working on the TLTM for the next 311 four months. 312 Mr. Gollinger answered it was mostly him. He was going to assign portions to a couple of the 313 project managers. They had a limited amount of funds available with the consultant that would 314 mostly be for final copy editing and printing preparation. 315 Vice Chair Greenfield queried if they had a breakdown on how many of the 151 tree permits 316 were for removal versus for just work. He advised tracking them in a separate bucket going 317 forward. He thought it would be helpful to add some scenario examples when talking about 318 going through the permitting process. He appreciated the comment about synthetic turf and its 319 place in the TLTM. 320 Mr. Gollinger did not have that information readily available. He stated they did issue permits 321 for private citizens to work on City trees in front of their homes. He thought out of those, 322 maybe 10 or less would be tree care permits. 323 Commissioner Wei asked if they would be doing in-person workshops in addition to the online 324 sessions and how they would distribute those menus. She also wanted to know if there was any 325 additional information about fire prevention. She suggested using the Enjoy! catalog for 326 outreach. 327 Vice Chair Greenfield suggested getting feedback from the staff on how the Enjoy! catalog could 328 be used in the future for a variety of different applications. He asked who the TLTM was written 329 for. 330 Mr. Gollinger replied once the document was finalized and approved by the city manager, the 331 intention was to hold both online and in-person. The document would be available prominently 332 on the website for download as a PDF. They were looking to secure a budget for printing paper 333 copies and have them available for purchase at the development center. He agreed to look into 334 the use of the Enjoy! catalog. He explained the fundamental purpose of the original tree 335 technical manual was for landscape and building professionals on how to preserve trees during 336 construction projects in addition to supporting the original Title VIII. The new document was 337 intended to follow in those footsteps but also try and provide information for the general public 338 and tree owners to help them comply with all the various regulations regarding water 339 efficiency. 340 Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested looking to explore if there would be a way to reduce the use 341 of petroleum-based materials to cover the earth in both the Urban Forest Master Plan and the 342 ordinance. She opined fire regulation was a moving target to try to capture. She advised 343 keeping some of the things that were dynamic as placeholders as an update but not necessarily 344 as part of the document because they could change so quickly. She opined examples of things 345 could be in the appendix. She agreed the issue of biodiversity was lacking and needed to be 346 embedded everywhere. She thought the species list from the North Bayshore Precise Plan 347 would be a good document to review and incorporate into the document. She mentioned the 348 ordinance to implement the Urban Forest Master Plan and inquired what the relationship was 349 between the three documents. She asked how they decided when to trim street trees. 350 Mr. Gollinger explained the Tree Protection Ordinance governed what trees would be 351 protected. The Tree Ordinance came first and then the Master Plan happened. The ordinance 352 was updated to more reflect the Master Plan. The ordinance predated the Master Plan. During 353 the ordinance update, they looked at what could be done to put it more in line with the Master 354 Plan. They incorporated some of the ideas from the Master Plan into the updated ordinance. 355 This intention of this document was to help inform and fill in the regulation surrounding the 356 municipal code in the ordinance. The comments about making sure the document followed in 357 line with the priorities from the Master Plan were well received. He acknowledged there was 358 room for improvement. The timing of trimming street trees depended on the species. They 359 were scheduled to go through a geographic area every five to seven years for a major prune. If 360 a call was received for dead wood or a fallen limb, the tree would be inspected when they went 361 out and if dead limbs were seen on the interior, they would be removed which could present 362 the appearance of fewer branches. A lot of times, limbs will be removed down low to facilitate 363 vehicle access. He advised urban trees tend to interact more directly with their built 364 environment so there was often a need for some variety of maintenance. 365 No Action 366 367 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 368 AGENDA ITEMS 369 Commissioner Cribbs was interested in the official role the Parks and Recreation Commission 370 would have with the Cubberley development. She stressed the importance for the Commission 371 to have good communication with Concordia and moving forward. She stated the ad hoc 372 continued to meet and talk about different opportunities to extend the life of the tennis and 373 pickleball courts. The skate park would be meeting with a group of the Skate Park Advisory 374 Committee the following week. There was interest if the unallocated budget item in the new 375 finance report would have anything to do with the skate park but they did not think it did. She 376 asked if there was somebody that could step into the role of providing the design piece for the 377 skate park. 378 Ms. Robustelli reported a Cubberley update was tentatively taking place at the upcoming April 379 agenda. She said that filling the role of providing the design piece for the skate park would need 380 to go through the public process. The skate community was looking for a contractor and 381 specialized designer who had done skate parks before. Once funding was raised to go through 382 that purchasing process, they would make sure the scope of work highlighted that specialty. 383 Commissioner Kleinhaus reiterated that she would love to hear an update about what was 384 happening with funding for sea level rise. 385 Vice Chair Greenfield thought it would be good to add getting an update on sea level rise and 386 the Horizontal Levee projects to the list of potential future agenda items. He reported that the 387 Nature Preserve Access Policy ad hoc had a site tour the previous week at the Pearson-388 Arastradero Preserve. They looked to report back to the full Commission next month to present 389 the findings and recommendations. The Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan ad hoc had 390 been working on a long project and looked to report back to the Commission soon. Future 391 agenda items for next month included the Eleanor Pardee Park survey results and next steps, 392 the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update, discussion items on Arastradero Creek 393 Restoration Project and the Nature Preserve Access Policy update. He announced Staff sent out 394 Doodle polls regarding scheduling the annual retreat. They were looking to get confirmation on 395 where they were going with the Work Plan and when it needed to be updated. 396 Commissioner Cribbs thought the Work Plan was going to Council soon. 397 Mr. Castile agreed to check on that. 398 399 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. 400