Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Skate Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission clarifies minutes to recommend a feasibility study for skate facilities including the bowl
Summary
After debate over wording in the draft minutes, the commission approved an edit to make clear its recommendation is for a feasibility study of skate facilities citywide — explicitly including the skatebowl and other potential city locations — and directed the ad hoc to finalize memo language with staff ahead of the budget cycle.
The Parks and Recreation Commission on Oct. 21 debated the phrasing of a draft memo tied to a work-plan item on skate facilities and the skatebowl. Vice Chair Evers said her recollection of the prior meeting’s motion emphasized skating broadly — not just the bowl — and asked that the minutes reflect that intent.
Commissioners reviewed Exhibit B (a list of example sites) and Brown Act constraints about sharing draft memos between commissioners. Several members proposed language clarifying that the ad hoc committee’s recommendation, as outlined in Exhibit B, should not be exclusive to skate bowls and that the city should "explore additional skate facilities and city locations." Commissioner Quinn and others urged framing the outcome as a feasibility study: consultants would review all city facilities, solicit community input and recommend best-fit sites to City Council.
Manager Norgaard said staff had provided redlines to ensure Brown Act compliance and that the ad hoc could work with staff to finalize consistent language. Chair Ross Ritter moved to approve the Sept. 16 minutes with an edit to replace wording under the action to read that the commission recommends a feasibility study for skating facilities and, in particular, the skateboard bowl while also exploring other skate facilities and city locations. The motion was seconded and the September 16 minutes were approved with Commissioner Kimball absent.
Commissioners directed the ad hoc to work with staff and return a finalized memo that can enter the budget process in time for February–March consideration. No new funding was authorized at the meeting; the action was limited to clarifying the commission’s recommendation language and approving minutes with the edited wording.
