HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 146-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN:FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:FEBRUARY 21, 2007 CMR: 146:07
SUBJECT:PRIORITIZATION OF POTENTIAL PARK PROJECTS UTILIZING
PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES ~
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Finance Committee:
1) Review the attached information related to the prioritization of potential park projects
including the criteria used to rank projects;
2) Recommend to Council the approval Of the use of development impact fees for the
top ten 2006-2009 park improvement projects; and
3) Consistent with the prioritized list, direct staff to proceed with the planning and
development of proposed park projects as funds are available from Park Development
Fee Fund.
BACKGROUND
On March 25, 2002, Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 4742 creating Chapter 16.58 of
the PAMC) to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries
(CMR: 188:02) under the provisions of California Assembly Bill 1600. Park, Community Center,
and Library development impact fees are legally required to be expended to augment recreational
opportunities through the improvement of parks, community centers and libraries in order to
compensate for increased demand for City facilities and services brought about by new
residential and commercial development.
The ordinance became effective April 24, 2002, and applied retroactively to those project
applications receiving final approval after January 28, 2002.
As of December 31, 2006, the balance of accumulated development impact fees for parks was
$1,628,497. [The use of development impact fees for community centers and libraries will be
discussed in a separate staff report.] In accordance with State law, funds derived from
development impact fees must be spent or encumbered within five years from when the fee was
collected by the City. Park development impact fees can only be used for park improvements or
land acquisition and can not be used for any other purpose. In Fiscal Year 2005-2006, budgeted
transfers in the amount of $367,000 was made from the Park fund to the Capital Improvement
Fund for Stanford / Palo Alto Community Playing Fields, and $100,000 for park restroom
installation.
CMR:146:07 Page 1 of 4
DISCUSSION
After Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff has worked with
community groups, recreation clubs and the Parks and Recreation Commission to investigate
strategies for enhancing and enlarging park and recreational facilities in order to mitigate for
increased usage caused by new development. In these discussions a broad range of facilities were
suggested including improved playing fields, addition of restrooms in neighborhood parks, the
expansion of off-leash dog play areas, the construction of additional tennis courts, and the
creation of other park and recreational facilities.
Evaluation Criteria
In order to evaluate the merit of the many suggestions for park and facility expansions, staff, in
consultation with the Parks and Recreation Commission (Attachment B), developed a set of
criteria to determine which projects would have the greatest benefit for the public, service the
greatest number of users, and best leverage external funding.
The criteria that were used to prioritize potential park projects are:
¯City Council Direction
¯Legal Mandate
¯Public Need
¯Health and Safety Benefits
¯Park and Recreation Commission Priority
¯External Funding Sources
¯Ability to mitigate for impacts caused by new development
¯Estimated Project Cost/Benefit Ratio
Prioritization of Proiects
Staff has developed a prioritized list of the ten projects (Attachment A) that will have the greatest
impact on expanding recreational opportunities and providing community benefit. These
projects total $2,892,000. Three of the projects (Stanford / Palo Alto Community Fields,
Heritage Park playground, and Greer Park - Phase IV), which total $687,900, have already been
approved by Council.
In evaluating the list of potential projects, the two greatest needs for facilities that were voiced
by the public were increased access to playing fields and convenient public restrooms at
neighborhood parks where field sports are played.
It is evident from user demand that there is riot adequate field playing space in Palo Alto,
especially for soccer, rugby and lacrosse. The high use of playing fields results in heavy wear of
the turf and necessitates closing fields during a six-week period each year for re-seeding. Fields
are also occasionally closed during wet weather to protect the turf from excessive damage.
By converting popular playing fields at the Cubberley Community Center, Greer Park and E1
Camino Park from natural sod to synthetic turf, the fields will endure the use of a full schedule of
play and will not require renovation every year.As a result, fields can be scheduled to
accommodate 10% to 25% more players each year.
Park use, especially at parks that have playing fields, has increased significantly over the past ten
years. This increase in park usage has prompted comments and complaints from users about the
CMR: 146:07 Page 2 of 4
lack of restroom facilities. The addition of restrooms at neighborhood parks, such as Herbert
Hoover Park, where softball, tennis and soccer are enjoyed by large crowds, has proven to be
very popular with park users and neighbors of the parks. Complaints about public urination have
been completely eliminated by the recent addition of restrooms.
Additionally, staff considered a request from the Palo Alto Tennis Club that adding lights at
selected tennis courts be made a priority. Surveys have indicated that the sport of tennis is
increasing. Tennis clubs and independent users have expressed a desire to play tennis in the
evening after work, and after dinner. By adding lighting at popular tennis courts, such as
Cubberley Community Center, prime time use of courts could increase by 30%. Tennis court use
during Winter months -when the sun sets earlier - would especially benefit from the addition of
lighting.
In accordance with the provisions of PAMC Section 16.58.020 (a) that prescribes that fees be
used for both land acquisition and park improvements, .a portion of the Park Development Fee
Fund has been allocated for future land acquisition. Specific parcels of land intended for
acquisition are not identified in these recommendations in order to avoid inadvertently escalating
the property value of desired parcels.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The development of new or expanded parks or City recreational facilities will result in some
increased operational and maintenance expense. Development impact fees may not be used for
the operation or maintenance of facilities or programs. The anticipated annual maintenance
expense required for new restroom facilities is estimated at $5,000. The maintenance expense
for the Greer Park expansion (Phase IV) is estimated at $9,000.
In contrast, however, the renovation of playing fields, replacing irrigated turf with synthetic turf,
and thereby eliminating mowing, fertilizing, de-thatching and irrigation costs, would result in an
annual savings to the City estimated at $30,000 per field. The renovation of fields with synthetic
turf also will result in a significant increase in efficiency by increasing the number of playable
days each year the fields would be accessible for field sports.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report does not represent any change to existing City policies. Improvement and
enhancement of City parks and facilities is consistent with Policy C-22 of the Community
Services element of the Comprehensive Plan: Design and construct new community facilities to
have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community; and
Policy C-24: Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the recommended prioritization of potential park projects does not constitute a
project that would require environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
CMR: 146:07 Page 3 of 4
NEXT STEPS
As part of the agreement with Stanford University for the development of the Stanford!Palo Alto
Community Playing Fields complex, in February the City will pay $212,000 from development
impact fees for the City’s share of construction cost. The City will also use $500,000 from Per
Capita State Grant funds for this obligation.
On August 7, 2006, Council has also approved the commitment of $75,000 from impact fees for
the public/private partnership with the Heritage Park LLC for the construction of playground
equipment at Heritage Park (CMR:310:06). Council also approved the allocation of $400,000
from impact fees for the expansion of Greer Park (Phase IV) (CMR:311:06).
A proposal for $200,000 for the construction of the Seale Park restroom will be included in the
2007-2009 Capital Improvement Project budget for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Prioritization of Potential Park Projects
Attachment B: Excerpt of Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission July 25, 2006,
Regular Meeting
PREPARED BY:
~oopRe n~BspacEeT&TSparks Division Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
RICHARD
Director of C
C)ty aSnOa r
Services
CMR: 146:07 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT B APPROVED
MINUTES
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 25, 2006
City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
Jeanette Marquess, Paul Losch, David Charleson, Pat
Markevitch, Anne Warner Cribbs, Judith Steiner
Beth Trailer
Others Present:Liaison Peter Drekmeier
Staff Present:Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Paul Dias
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order by Chair Marquess at 7:00 pm
Conducted by Catherine Bourquin
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Herb Borock, PO Box 632, PA would like to have
included the history of water recreation included in the City Council Colleagues Memo
dated June 25, 2006. Requesting direction to the PARC.
BUSINESS:
1.Approval of Draft Minutes of June 20~ 2006 The Commissioners unanimously
approved the June Minutes with three corrections. 6 approved:l abstention (Cribbs)
2.Golf Feasibility Study-Fields Report Discussion
Commissioner Chair Marquess opened up the discussion on the Golf Feasibility study.
Craig Allen a representative of the Golfing Community reminded the commission of
what the report recommended. "Not now, not enough money, don’t do any hanh."
He requested that the Commission recommend the same.
Commissioner Marquess thanked Commissioner Losch on writing the
draft recommendation to Council. She also apologized to the Commission for not
July 25, 2006 Approved Park and recreation Commission Minutes Page 1
ATTACHMENT B
getting it into the packet for them to review before the meeting.
minutes to review the draft recommendation.
APPROVED
They took a few
The recommendation report was discussed with input from all commissioners. It
was the consensus that there were multiple conflicting options and not enough
information to recommend anything.
Commissioner Marquess and Commissioner Losch will revise the report to include
what was discussed and hopefully come back next month as an action item.
3.Impact Fees - Staff prioritization - ACTION ITEM
Staff Dias reminded the Commission that at the last PARC commission meeting in
June, the commissioners reviewed a potential list of projects to be funded through the
use of Impact fees. It was requested of Staff to prioritize a list of potential short term
projects that could be implemented during the City Capital Improvement Program as
funding becomes available. This list was provided to the Commissioners in their July
packets.
Commissioner Losch asked the question of artificial turf on PAUSD owned lands.
Staff Dias replied that the city would enter into discussion with PAUSD under the
’Cooperative Maintenance Agreement’ and could conceivably share on a 50/50
basis. More opportunities in the future for interest in this.
Commissioner Charleson inquired on the budgeted dollars and it seems as though
the city will be overspending in 07/08. Staff Dias replied that we are anticipating
the amount and that we are counting on grant money to fund some projects.
Commissioner Losch asked a policy question "With the anticipated artificial turf
sites, can we consider putting lights on them?" Staff Dias replied that we will
have discussions on this issue. PARC will review potential sites as they come up
and do outreach to the community for feedback.
Motion: To approve the prioritization of impact fees as submitted. Motioned by
Commissioner Markevitch and seconded by Commissioner Charleson. Approved:
6:0
July 25, 2006 Approved Park and recreation~ommission Minutes Page 2