[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6175210,"mediaKeyId","5360458-ebede949f6250dfba9d8532719fb34a5","parentId",5360458,"title","Pleasanton parks commissioners review draft two‑year work plan, ask staff to refine priorities for council","audioSeconds",1827,"startMs",232000,"endMs",2059000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5360458-ebede949f6250dfba9d8532719fb34a5&start=232&end=2059","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5360458-ebede949f6250dfba9d8532719fb34a5/thumbnail_232000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6175210/Pleasanton/Alameda-County/California/Pleasanton-parks-commissioners-review-draft-twoyear-work-plan-ask-staff-to-refine-priorities-for-council","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6175210-1dcc92defac6ee1d0d5a901c477d4ef0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140095&Signature=c4flhKq8YNBzg7MPAsAFgyLuXZAGvRNBv0DlNGxn9goNOVyYIFCWKftVcNMv8ORHH2wJ1lnDzI5VfvmGa15be~cRwjIJHOjxnhx8Gv1HcYRDHLkkr2X7IqoWkqF9c9bP3BwO7pIt7iTbzg8SdahIi~T64MOUnP6FzR0lVKDs~y4QG-eS~TPkYWCKcdCvkSwJ-4YqVngFfsIdolzsvm7z~jPKRfDY8PADeGtRLWx0AVvFL8g7yvZ37P8f3vrJV~cNUVrCxrcA-aNhyObX~~ft57aTBg-XSIC5UPLnghweuBEfRfF-0jnI5q3Ga2arPITLXjIvbX-PcHyYCaFheQ3ttg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pleasanton, CA","date","2025-07-11T01:35:06Z","article","Pleasanton Parks and Recreation Department staff presented a draft two‑year work plan and asked the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 10 to rank priorities before staff refines the list for city council review.

Heidi, a Parks and Recreation Department staff member, told commissioners the list was developed by staff in consultation with the department’s landscape architect and park superintendent and aligned with the city’s One Pleasanton strategic plan. “We actually completed all of the items on our work plan, which I think is quite impressive,” Heidi said.

The draft covers the two fiscal years 2025–26 and 2026–27 and groups projects under council priorities such as long‑term fiscal sustainability, protecting core services, community engagement and equity, and infrastructure investment. Staff identified potential work items including updates from the parks and landscape architecture division, trail and pathway resurfacing, review of the facilities master plan, regular review of cemetery operations and fees, and market reviews of golf course rates.

Commissioners suggested additional or higher‑priority items during discussion. Recommendations and requests included expanding the park ambassador and volunteer programs, exploring recreational programming that could become more self‑sustaining, adding nonpotable/recycled water planning for parks, and asking for a concise overview of budget impacts on parks and recreation operations. Commissioners also asked staff to expect projects that will come out of the ongoing facilities master plan update.

Staff said the draft list came from department work plans, the capital improvement program and the One Pleasanton strategic plan; it has not yet been submitted to council. Heidi said staff will take the commission’s ranked priorities, refine schedule and resource needs, and return a shaped work plan for the commission to approve before sending it to council.

The commission also approved the consent calendar at the start of the meeting, a single motion covering the May 8 meeting minutes and a staff review of Assembly Bill 1572’s impacts on the city; the consent motion passed on roll call.

Commissioners asked that informational items be tailored to their needs: several suggested shorter executive summaries or photo highlights rather than long presentations, while others said they value detail about maintenance work that is not visible to residents. Commissioners asked staff to bring back a refined list and, for a number of items, a more detailed agenda report when the commission assigns a high priority.

Less urgent or informational items flagged for continued monitoring include Zippy (the department’s outreach vehicle) scheduling for community events, routine library and recreation annual reports, and quarterly or biannual parks/landscape updates. Staff noted volunteers are already supplementing operations and said volunteer programs will be part of the refined work plan for commission review.

What’s next: commissioners will each provide top‑three priorities to staff; staff will return a prioritized work plan and, for the highest priorities, fuller agenda reports that outline scope, timing and resource implications before Council consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","7/10/25 - Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Pleasanton Parks and Recreation Department staff presented a draft two‑year work plan and asked the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 10 to rank priorities before staff refines the list for city council review.","taxTitle","Pleasanton , Alameda County, California","taxId",2911,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6175200,"Commission asks staff for informational briefing on nonpotable water andcapacity limits affecting park projects",158,1159000,1317000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5360458-ebede949f6250dfba9d8532719fb34a5&start=1159&end=1317","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5360458-ebede949f6250dfba9d8532719fb34a5/thumbnail_1159000.jpg","/articles/6175200/Pleasanton/Alameda-County/California/Commission-asks-staff-for-informational-briefing-on-nonpotable-water-andcapacity-limits-affecting-park-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6175200-c9be35e8342cff8b1bedf7061f35b72b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140095&Signature=ASJ5eZXu8pjTxzBvMbUVIC9HymppHPI8Cvl6qG8jPUmAue3sZaL8IL751LMLiiWv8iEs-bRKVWpUzR6LisG5VZsb8y901zmbXGUzhB7hCdFbHGjEbAS3suorvYYkjC3QOmldT0XO86c2G2Gsm1zfKhusb4L0ByVl4O6V4H4aBFZsjlUX9sH6p6zK924KXIoN6cr2RisJCh~K5BRrfq8KDWtz1GJQKsxfsfo0pytG~tLv9o6X8pTE-jOGR6Vnm3K84cpxxpUwD1Do86tmFtWImKGf~jgWJpL777SU1djVs33GdS3z8yBcL4Ed4oG1XU~103aWE3c~esXMfoyz5sni2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners asked staff on July 10 to prepare an informational briefing about nonpotable (recycled) water and the city’s current capacity after staff and commissioners raised questions about whether the city can convert park irrigation to nonpotable supplies.

During discussion a commissioner referred to an email from staff that said “the city doesn't have the capacity to do that,” prompting commissioners to seek clarity. Heidi said staff could prepare an informational item explaining how potable and nonpotable water are supplied and allocated and how that relates to the parks system, but cautioned: “it’s not our system. Right? So we don't have a lot of control over expanding capacity and doing things like that.”

Commissioners identified a few specific points they want addressed in the briefing: what capacity the city currently has for recycled water, whether the city’s inactive wells could be used for park irrigation, how allocations are split (a staff speaker referenced allocation split among three entities managed by “DSRC” in the email discussion), and how future housing growth referenced in the housing element might affect water availability for parks.

Staff agreed to return a refined informational item that explains the potable versus nonpotable systems, identifies where capacity constraints lie, and outlines what is within the city’s authority to change versus what would require coordination with external water agencies.

What’s next: staff to consult with water‑system colleagues and return an informational agenda item describing current nonpotable supply, constraints and options for parks, including whether inactive wells could be repurposed for irrigation.","Commissioners asked staff to return an informational item about nonpotable/recycled water capacity, inactive wells and how water supply constraints affect park projects and future park construction in Pleasanton.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6175205,"Commissioners press for details after possible closure of Laurel Creek Park is raised",13,587000,600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5360458-ebede949f6250dfba9d8532719fb34a5&start=587&end=600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5360458-ebede949f6250dfba9d8532719fb34a5/thumbnail_587000.jpg","/articles/6175205/Pleasanton/Alameda-County/California/Commissioners-press-for-details-after-possible-closure-of-Laurel-Creek-Park-is-raised","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6175205-9be5ac25558e035a5f70ec2c571840db/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140095&Signature=DTzNf0~W471hND95XGuwrKR8l~wkDzRQONQMeboqmrME1mMyu9B90vVMMV4wr~rNJyOLppmoS-~W~rtYsTJlCmwvcwxRyEkUlTxydFtdU1lnqhECcDbh5gG~~eQ6PiZS5zi~34f~8qRn~LcC6lw6IZqvqzkmSmEKXGrH-S7N1hTnbD9CuEWG0Lxq6YzCMhr0AkgANUa6LvruRtJMRRhTE1O8W5EpkriXG3KJQ15hg6TIoM-0tAwewOUDnA-iaWI0RWZWvHR80o5JErGJvB7EQn1xEtyuNBWOPgMlSTjbypqymYYNoEUqb6XPGd7igeAxCvjquBg8HNo8Il8N~US2fg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A commissioner asked about a reported possible closure of Laurel Creek Park during the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on July 10, and staff said they did not have the background needed to answer why the park had been singled out.

The question — raised during the work plan discussion — prompted multiple commissioners to say the issue should be a top priority for the commission until staff can report back with facts. One commissioner called the park’s possible closure “a big one” and urged that the commission “almost put that as a very top priority” to understand the background and reasons for the potential closure.

Commissioners noted Laurel Creek Park’s location: off Foothill Road across from Stoneridge Mall and near Mueller Park. Several commissioners asked staff to determine how far Laurel Creek is from other community parks and to report on potential community impacts if the park were removed from the system.

Heidi, Parks and Recreation Department staff, said she did not know the background on the possible closure and that adding the item to the commission’s work plan would prompt staff to research and return a report.

What’s next: commissioners directed staff to research the circumstances behind the reported potential closure of Laurel Creek Park and return with a factual briefing that includes location context and likely service impacts before the commission assigns a final priority or recommendation to council.","At the July 10 meeting, a commissioner asked about a reported possible closure of Laurel Creek Park. Staff said they did not have background information and commissioners asked that the topic be added as a high priority so staff can provide the history, rationale and community impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Pleasanton parks commissioners review draft two‑year work plan, ask staff to refine priorities for council

Commission asks staff for informational briefing on nonpotable water andcapacity limits affecting park projects

Commissioners press for details after possible closure of Laurel Creek Park is raised