HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-09 PSC Agenda PacketPage 1 of 2
Public Spaces Commission
Regular Meeting
AGENDA
Civic Center Annex ♦ 411 W. Clay St., Conf. RM #5 ♦ Ukiah, CA 95482
July 9, 2024 - 5:30 PM
1. ROLL CALL
2. INTRODUCTIONS
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.a. Approval of Minutes from May 14th 2024 - Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes from May 14th 2024 - Regular Meeting
Attachments:
1. 2024-05-14 Minutes
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Public Spaces Commission (PSC) welcomes input from the audience that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
PSC. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more the (10)
minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments.
5. STAFF MEMBER PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
5.a. Community Services Director Report
6. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.a. Discussion of 2025 Parks Needs Assessment (Gap Analysis) Draft Outline
Recommended Action: Recieve report and provide comment
Attachments:
1. AOI and Nodes Map
2. 2024 Parks Gap Analysis Outline
3. 6_7 Goals and LOS
4. Gantt Timeline_Gap Analysis7_24
9. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 17
Page 2 of 2
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter
services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate
individuals with disabilities upon request. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Public Spaces Commission after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah Annex, located at 411 W.
Clay St., Ukiah, CA 95482, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda.
Page 2 of 17
AGENDA ITEM 3a
Page 1 of 2
Public Spaces Commission
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Civic Center Annex ♦ 411 W. Clay St., Conf. RM #5 ♦ Ukiah, CA 95482
Virtual Meeting Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81764322746
May 14, 2024 - 5:30 PM
1. ROLL CALL
Public Spaces Commission met at a Regular Meeting on May 14, 2024, having been legally
noticed on May 10th, 2024. The meeting was held virtually at the following link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81764322746 and in person in Conference Room #5 at 411 W. Clay St.,
Ukiah, CA 95482. Commissioner Babbini called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Commissioners
Present: Elora Babbini, Vicki Bitonti-Brown, Megan Parker, Steven Ratley, and Joe Scriven.
Commissioners Absent by Prearrangement: Casey Thompson. Staff Present: Neil Davis,
Community Services Director and Araceli Sandoval, Community Services Administrative Assistant.
2. INTRODUCTIONS
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Approval of the Minutes for the March 12th 2024 – Community Forum.
Bitonti-Brown/Parker to approve the Minutes of March 12th, 2024, a Community Forum, as
submitted. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Babbini, Bitonti-Brown, Parker, and
Ratley. NOES: None. ABSENT: Thompson. ABSTAIN: Scriven.
4. STAFF MEMBER PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
a. Director’s Report.
Presenter: Neil Davis, Community Services Director.
Report was received.
5. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS
Presenters: Commissioners Scriven and Ratley.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion of the Parks Gaps Analysis Requirement of the 2040 General Plan
Presenter: Neil Davis, Community Services Director.
Direction given to staff.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 of 17
Public Spaces Commission Minutes for May 14, 2024, Continued:
Page 2 of 2
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
____________________________________________
Araceli Sandoval, Public Spaces Commission Clerk
Page 4 of 17
Page 1 of 2
Agenda Item No: 8.a.
MEETING DATE/TIME: 7/9/2024
ITEM NO: 2024-341
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Discussion of 2025 Parks Needs Assessment (Gap Analysis) Draft Outline
DEPARTMENT: Community Services PREPARED BY: Neil Davis, Community Services Director
PRESENTER:
ATTACHMENTS:
1.AOI and Nodes Map
2.2024 Parks Gap Analysis Outline
3.6_7 Goals and LOS
4.Gantt Timeline_Gap Analysis7_24
Summary: Director of Community Services Neil Davis will provide an overview of the plan to conduct a Parks
Gap Analysis and accept comment from commissioners.
Background: The 2040 General Plan's section 5.10 (Implementation Programs; page 5-16) identifies the
need for a Parks Gap Analysis. Section 5.10 B (Parks Gap Analysis) states, “The City shall prepare a parks
gap analysis identifying areas of the city underserved by parks and recreation facilities access. The analysis
shall, at a minimum, establish equitable access standards, including the minimum distance between parks
every residence, and potential funding mechanisms.” The complete 2040 General Plan can be found at
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cityofukiah.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/Ukiah-2040-General-Plan_reduced.pdf
The Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element is divided into 8 subsections. Subsection PFS-12.1
and PFS 12.3 are both identified to be completed by Community Services by December 2025. Subsection12.1
references a "Connected Park System," 12.2 references "Expansion of Recreational Amenities and
Programs," and 12.3 references "Equitable Access to Parks."
While PFS-12.2 is not specified as part of the Gaps Analysis, due to proposed annexations, it will likely be
included in the analysis.
Discussion: The Community Services team is beginning the process of planning a Parks and Recreation
gaps analysis. In coordination with planning team members, Community Services staff suggest the use of City
limits, Sphere of Influence (SOI), Area of interest and population nodes (to be described as part of the analysis
(attachment 1) as additional areas to be included and assessed. It may be desirable to identify areas that are
anticipated to be annexed, however these areas have not yet been identified or mapped.
A draft outline for the document (attachment 2) is included here for review. The outline provides a map for the
work to be done in developing the report including line item 8 which covers community input.
Attachment 3 outlines the initial draft of “Goals” and “Level of Service.” Level(s) of Service (LOS) are the
measures that will be used to evaluate the adequacy of facilities. For example, “parks per 1000 residents,” and
“percentage of residents living within a quarter of a mile of a park” will likely be two measures of LOS.
Attachment 3 also includes a table outlining the proposed park/facility categories. Assigning each park to a
subcategory such as “pocket park” or neighborhood park” will allow for apple-to-apple comparisons as well as
Neil Davis, Community Services Director
Page 5 of 17
Page 2 of 2
assess if there is an appropriate distribution of park “types” throughout the area. Finally, Attachment 3 includes
a table with proposed LOS for each park type.
A Gantt timeline is included as Attachment 4 with a proposed date of completion of May of 2025. It is possible
that the analysis could be completed sooner.
Staff will present an overview of these documents and lead discussion of the analysis plan and accept
comments from commissioners.
Recommended Action: Recieve report and provide comment
Page 6 of 17
W
A
T
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
VI
C
H
Y
H
I
L
L
S
D
R
I
V
E
K
N
O
B
H
I
L
L
R
O
A
D
MC CLURE SUBDIVISION
GU
I
D
I
V
I
L
L
E
R
E
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
R
D
MILL CREEK RD
TINDALL RANCH ROAD
RU
D
D
I
C
K
C
U
N
N
I
N
G
H
A
M
R
D
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
O
L
D
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
VICH
Y
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
O
A
D
RE
D
E
M
E
Y
E
R
R
O
A
D
LOW GA
P
R
D
ORR SPRIN
G
S
R
D
FORD ROAD
S
O
U
T
H
D
O
R
A
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
B
U
S
H
S
T
LAKE M
E
N
D
O
C
I
N
O
D
R
EAST GOBBI ST
GIELOW LANE
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
DE
S
P
I
N
A
D
R
H
E
L
E
N
A
V
E
W
A
U
G
H
L
N
B
A
B
C
O
C
K
L
A
N
E
LOVERS LANE
EMPIRE DRIVE
N
O
R
T
H
O
A
K
S
T
WEST STANDLEY ST
EAST PERKINS ST
BRUSH ST
WEST CLAY ST
PARD
U
C
C
I
ROAD
TA
Y
L
O
R
D
R
S
O
U
T
H
O
A
K
S
T
TALMAGEROAD
WEST MILL S
T
FORD ST
CLARA AVE
HENSLEY CREEK ROAD
L
E
S
L
I
E
S
T
STIPP LN
PINOL
E
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
DEERWOOD DR
CAPPS LN
LAWS AVE
WALNUT AVE
BEACON LN
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S
F
R
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
D
MED
I
C
I
N
E
W
A
Y
Q
U
A
I
L
D
R
I
V
E
DORA AVE
S
O
U
T
H
M
A
I
N
S
T
TO
L
L
I
N
I
L
N
EL DORADO RD
NORGARD
L
N
LUCE AVE
W
O
O
D
L
A
K
E
D
R
MENDOCINO DRIVE
YOSEMITE DR
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
P
A
R
K
B
L
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
A
HOWELL CREEK RD
ANTONI LN
FERN CANYON DR
LakeMendocino
Ukiah
Talmage
£¤101
£¤101
|ÿ222
|ÿ253
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
Calpella |ÿ20
o0.5 0 0.50.25
Miles
City of UkiahArea of Interest
Source: This map was created by theMendocino County Information Services GIS Program, November 30, 2022.
Note: This map is not a survey product and should not be used to determine legal boundaries.
Parcels
Highways
Roads
Area of Interest
Sphere of Influence
City of Ukiah
EXIBIT "A"Attachment 1
Page 7 of 17
W
A
T
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
VI
C
H
Y
H
I
L
L
S
D
R
I
V
E
K
N
O
B
H
I
L
L
R
O
A
D
MC CLURE SUBDIVISION
GU
I
D
I
V
I
L
L
E
R
E
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
R
D
MILL CREEK RD
TINDALL RANCH ROAD
RU
D
D
I
C
K
C
U
N
N
I
N
G
H
A
M
R
D
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
O
L
D
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
VICH
Y
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
O
A
D
RE
D
E
M
E
Y
E
R
R
O
A
D
LOW GA
P
R
D
ORR SPRIN
G
S
R
D
FORD ROAD
S
O
U
T
H
D
O
R
A
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
B
U
S
H
S
T
LAKE M
E
N
D
O
C
I
N
O
D
R
EAST GOBBI ST
GIELOW LANE
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
DE
S
P
I
N
A
D
R
H
E
L
E
N
A
V
E
W
A
U
G
H
L
N
B
A
B
C
O
C
K
L
A
N
E
LOVERS LANE
EMPIRE DRIVE
N
O
R
T
H
O
A
K
S
T
WEST STANDLEY ST
EAST PERKINS ST
BRUSH ST
WEST CLAY ST
PARD
U
C
C
I
ROAD
TA
Y
L
O
R
D
R
S
O
U
T
H
O
A
K
S
T
TALMAGEROAD
WEST MILL S
T
FORD ST
CLARA AVE
HENSLEY CREEK ROAD
L
E
S
L
I
E
S
T
STIPP LN
PINOL
E
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
DEERWOOD DR
CAPPS LN
LAWS AVE
WALNUT AVE
BEACON LN
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S
F
R
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
D
MED
I
C
I
N
E
W
A
Y
Q
U
A
I
L
D
R
I
V
E
DORA AVE
S
O
U
T
H
M
A
I
N
S
T
TO
L
L
I
N
I
L
N
EL DORADO RD
NORGARD
L
N
LUCE AVE
W
O
O
D
L
A
K
E
D
R
MENDOCINO DRIVE
YOSEMITE DR
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
P
A
R
K
B
L
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
A
HOWELL CREEK RD
ANTONI LN
FERN CANYON DR
LakeMendocino
Ukiah
Talmage
£¤101
£¤101
|ÿ222
|ÿ253
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
Calpella |ÿ20
o0.5 0 0.50.25
Miles
City of UkiahArea of Interest
Source: This map was created by theMendocino County Information Services GIS Program, November 30, 2022.
Note: This map is not a survey product and should not be used to determine legal boundaries.
Parcels
Highways
Roads
Area of Interest
Sphere of Influence
City of Ukiah
EXIBIT "A"
1 = Greater Ukiah2 = Talmage/Nob Hill3 = Vichy Springs4 = Deerwood/Eldorado5 = Lake Mendo6 = Calpella
Page 8 of 17
Attachment 2
City of Ukiah
Parks Gap Analysis 2024
Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element –( Include Recreation and Culture?)
B – Parks Gap Analysis (PFS-12.1, 12.3): The City shall prepare a parks gap analysis identifying areas
of the city underserved by parks and recreation facilities access. The analysis shall, at a minimum,
establish equitable access standards, including the minimum distance between parks every
residence, and potential funding mechanisms.
1. Introduction
2. Land Acknowledgement
3. Executive Summary
4. Demographics (Can this be copped from an existing doc, or just reference one?)
5. Geographic Areas of Analysis
a. Area of Interest
b. Sphere of Influence
c. Current City Limits
i. Likely Southern Annexation
ii. Likely Northern Annexation
d. Population Nodes – It might help to have a census number for each of the tracts
i. Greater Ukiah Node
ii. Talmage
iii. Nob Hill Node
iv. Vichy Springs Node
v. Deerwood/Eldorado Node
vi. Pinoleville/Orr Springs Node – Will this become part of the Greater Ukiah
Node?
vii. Lake Mendo / Oaky Flats Node
viii. Calpella Node
6. Level of Service
a. Quantity
b. Quality
c. Diversity of Facilities
d. Accessibility
e. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion
f. Climate Readiness
g. Native American Access / accommodations / Tribal considerations?
h. Addressing Homelessness?
i. Gentrification?
7. Parks Goals
a. Combine and edit UVAP and Seattle Plan Goals
Page 9 of 17
Attachment 2
8. Community Input- (Mostly Focus Groups, plus a survey and at least one Community
Forum)
a. Stakeholders
i. County
ii. Fed – BLM & USACE
iii. Schools (UUSD)
iv. Sports Leagues
v. ARRC
vi. Public Spaces Commission
vii. DEI Committee
viii. Vecinos en Accion
ix. Tribes
x. Mendo College
xi. Dharma Realm
9. Current State
a. First & Second Tier Facilities (Parks Matrix)
b. Walkability of population nodes
10. Identified Gaps
a. Area of Interest
b. Sphere of Influence
c. Current City Limits
i. Southern Annexation
ii. Northern Annexation
11. How we Compare with Other Agencies
a. chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nrpa.org/content
assets/3ae6ba685dbf47a1b537af2f15c615d9/2023-agency-performance-
review.pdf
12. Priority Projects
13. Next Steps
a. Funding?
b. Special District
c. Short term, mid-term long-term?
14. Recreation
a. Analysis of program registrations, waitlists, cancellations, and filled classes,
Review of the Events Guide
b. Survey results addressing community expctations and gals
15. Conclusions
16. References
Tables
1) Existing Facilities Table (Pocket Park, Neighborhood Park, Special Use Park,
School Park, Regional Park, Sports Fields, Indoor Facilities) vs UVAP approach
Page 10 of 17
Attachment 2
Federal (Lake Mendo and Cow, Regional Parks, Russian River Mendo College, 12th
District Fairgrounds, Ukiah Park and Rec) trails
2) Planning Area
3) Parks per planning area?
4)
Maps
1) Planning Areas
2) Population Density and parks distribution
3) UVAP/SOI with overlay of “urban Cluster Areas” (PBS Onemap)
4) Are there any sovereign tribal lands inside sphere of influence? Area of Interest.
UVAP Map is same as the Area of Interest. Sphere of Influence is inside Area of Interest
Analysis of program registrations, waitlists, cancellations, and filled classes Review of the Events
Guide
Quimby Act standard of 3 acres per 1,000
Park/Facility Categories
Pocket Park PP Very small park, may have a bench.
Mini Park MP Small, single-purpose improved area generally equipped for use by small
children. Usually less than one acre.
Neighborhood Park NP Combined playground and park area generally for non-organized
activities. May include a restroom.
Community Park CP Designed for organized activity with users traveling from some distance.
Includes parking, sports fields and restrooms.
Special Use Park SUP Specialized use recreational areas that do not fit another category, such
as dog parks and skate parks.
Linear Park LP A park along a travel corridor, generally narrow and long.
School Park SP School-owned facilities with limited availability. Only active sport and
recreational use areas contribute to school park acreage in this
assessment.
Regional Park RP Larger park which may be more isolated from population nodes.
May be limited to trails and outdoor recreation, but may have
additional facilities.
Open Space OS An undeveloped or minimally developed large area conserved for
habitat and general conservation value.
Access LOS per Park Category
Page 11 of 17
Attachment 2
Accessible Distance LOS
Pocket Park PP What is the standard here? Should there be a gazillion PPs?
Creatures of opportunity?
Mini Park MP Half mile
Neighborhood Park NP Half mile
Community Park CP Half mile
Special Use Park SUP Depends on Special Use?!
Linear Park LP NA
School Park SP NA; This is based on school district standards.
Regional Park RP We have three in our Area of Interest which seems adequate
Open Space OS We have one in our Area of Interest which seems adequate.
Page 12 of 17
Attachment 3
Goals (coordinated with Level of Service)
1 Quantity
1.1 Assure a minimum of 3 acres of parks per 1000 residents (CA Parks and Rec
recommendation) in all areas with a population density greater than Y
1.2 Assure a minimum of X facilities per 1000 residents in all areas with a population density
greater than Y
1.3 Evaluate “park pressure” and ….
2 Quality and Diversity of Facilities
2.1 Maintain and enhance the area’s natural resources by balancing protection, conservation,
replenishment, and sustainable use. (UVAP Goal 9OC-1)
2.2 Conserve Open Space, hillsides, and indigenous habitats fore the enjoyment of future
generations. (UVAP Goal 9OC-2)
2.3 Preserve historical buildings and spaces that create a sense of place. (UVAP Goal 10 HA-1)
2.4 Work with other entities to ensure there are a variety of parks, recreational facilities, and
points of river access. (UVAP Goal PR-2)
3 Accessibility
3.1 Assure there is a park within a half mile of all residents living inside a designated population
density node.
4 Commitment
4.1 Complete a NPRA survey at least once every ten years and improve area’s competitiveness
with other municipalities in terms of staffing and committed funding.
5 Community and Social Capital
5.1 Meet the community’s need for recreation, cultural resources, and on-going education. (UVAP
Goal PR-1)
5.2 Promote a greater sense of community through events, gathering places, and shared
facilities. (UVAP Goal PR-3)
5.3 Utilize best practices in new park development including CA State Parks “Designing Parks
Using Community-Based Planning Methods” with an emphasis on inclusive practices.
5.4 Prioritize funding projects that increase park access for low-income communities and
communities of color in terms of park proximity and the quantity of parks space available per
person.
6 Climate Readiness
6.1 Assure all parks are accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists.
6.2 Work with Mendocino Transit authority to improve bus access to parks.
6.3 Assure a minimum of X% of park area is under tree canopy or other shade structure.
6.4 Use 100% climate adapted trees for any new tree planting in parks.
6.5 Explore opportunities to include cooling, misting or similar stations in parks.
Page 13 of 17
Attachment 3
6.6 Convert all parks irrigation to achieve 100% compliance with the City’s Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance.
7 Native American Co-Stewardship
7.1 Protect Native American cultural and archaeological resources. (UVAP Goal 10 HA-2)
7.2 Explore options for developing co -stewardship opportunities in parks.
7.3 Include and compensate indigenous people for their time and expertise during planning.
8 Addressing Homelessness
8.1 Continue to work with Mendocino County HHSA and Sheriff to compassionately assure the
health, safety, and security of parks.
8.2 Utilize the Mendocino County HHSA Homeless Encampment Coordination Protocol to
manage collaboration between organizations and provide compassionate approach to
homelessness in parks.
8.3 Convene minimum one meeting per year with HHSA to discuss management of
Homelessness in Parks.
9 Addressing Gentrification
9.1 Consider a “just green enough” strategy in low-income neighborhoods to improve conditions,
livability, and health without pricing out current residents.
9.2 Partner with planning and development departments to assure adequate stock of affordable
housing in areas where park improvements are planned.
9.3 Strive to address deep rooted inequities in accessible park acreage by adding substantial
amounts of new green space in park-poor, low-income communities of color, while also
providing and protecting nearby affordable housing.
Page 14 of 17
Attachment 3
Level of Service Measures (Potential)
National Recreation and Park Association Tracks the following;
https://www.nrpa.org/publications-research/ParkMetrics/
1. Level of Service
a. Quantity
i. Acres of Parkland per 1000
ii. Facilities per 1000
b. Quality & Diversity of Facilities
i. Existing conditions analysis
c. Accessibility
i. Residents less than a half mile from MP, NP, CP
1. Map of areas outside half mile of MP, NP, CP ?
d. Commitment
i. Percentage of Full Time Staff dedicated to operations/maintenance.
ii. Operating expenditure per acre/ per capita
e. Community and Social Capital
i. User satisfaction survey
1. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion
2. Perception of Safety
f. Climate Readiness
g. Native American Co-Stewardship
i. Policies in place to address Tribal considerations.
1. Engagement
2. Co-Stewardship
h. Addressing Homelessness?
i. Policies in place to address homelessness.
i. Gentrification?
i. Policies in place to address gentrification.
Each of the below to be calculated for AOI, SOI, nodes, Current City limits, anticipated north
development, anticipated south development.
1 Residents per park
2. Acres of parkland per 1000 residents
3. Facilities per 1000 residents
4. FTE employees per 10000 residents
5. Percentage of full time staff dedicated to operations/maintenance
6. Residents less than half mile from Mini Park, Neighborhood park, or community park.
Page 15 of 17
Attachment 3
7. Operating expenditure per acre/ per capita
8.
NRPA
General Park Use
User Satisfaction
Community and Social Capital
Built Environment
Perceived Safety
Economic Impact
Page 16 of 17
Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25
Draft LOS Definitions
Define Areas of Study
First Draft Goals
Above to Community Devo
Public Spaces Commission July 9th Forum Final Draft
Stakeholder Input Meetings Individual and Focus Groups
Facility Evals on Site
Pop Up On-site Surveys?
Incorporate Stakeholder Input
Incorporate Parks Eval Input
Executive Summary
PSC Forum Final Draft
Final Draft Final Revisions
City Council for Adoption
Stakeholders Stakeholder Rep
County Mo Mulheren
Fed – BLM & USACE Call Poppy and BLM
Schools (UUSD)Katie Sommer
Sports Leagues Ask Jake, Kyle
ARRC Ask Jake, Kyle
Public Spaces Commission Presentation
DEI Standing Committee Presentation
Vecinos en Accion Juan Orozco
Dharma Realm ??
Attachment 4
Page 17 of 17