Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 217-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER JUNE 18, 2007 6 DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES CMR: 217:07 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING GOLF COURSE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the Council: 1) Take no further action relating to the municipal golf course and its possible re- configuration at this time; 2)Direct the Park and Recreation Commission to continue the process to better understand and quantify community needs for playing fields and recreational areas and project those needs as demographics change; 3)Direct the Park and Recreation Commission to actively participate in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority/Army Corps of Engineers process to identify options for combined flood control and recreational use solutions in the Baylands; 4)Direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to actively participate in the San Francisco Bay Water Trail project to identify options to develop a comprehensive water recreation program in keeping with the character of the Baylands; and 5)At an appropriate time, Council should reevaluate the Baylands Master Plan to ensure the future use of the Baylands best reflects the wishes of the community in terms of balancing conservation of environmental assets with expanding recreational opportunities. BACKGROUND Responding to a March 7, 2005, Colleagues Memorandum (Attachment C), the City Council directed staff to conduct a preliminary feasibility study regarding a possible re-configuration of the 18-hole Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course to incorporate sports playing fields and to consider private financing strategies for such a reconfiguration. The objectives to be achieved by such a redesign were: creation of 20 to 40 acres of new sports playing field space in order to meet community demand for playing fields; improvement of the golfing experience and provision of additional golfing amenities; expansion and enhancement of the natural habitat; and helping to address San Francisquito Creek flood control needs. The Council was also interested in determining whether these changes could facilitate redevelopment of nearby private properties consistent with upcoming changes in the Zoning Ordinance. CMR:217:07 Page 1 of 3 After conducting a thorough analysis of the golf course operation, meeting with representatives of golf course user groups and golf course design consultants, staff returned to Council on March 20, 2006 and recommended that Council take no immediate action on reconfiguring the golf course. It was further recommended that Council seek funding for design of a golf course/recreation component of the flood control project if the San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority/Army Corps of Engineers flood control study identifies feasible multi-use flood control/recreation options. In the report, staff concluded there are opportunities to investigate the alternatives for modifications to the golf course layout in conjunction with the development of flood control strategies as part of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Study. However, considering the uncertainty as to what the Army Corps of Engineer Study may suggest in terms of modifications to the alignment of San Francisquito Creek, and the estimated cost of $18,000,000 to reconfigure the golf course to accommodate four new playing fields, staff did not recommend that Council take any action until the flood control study could identify feasible multi-use flood control/recreation options. Council referred the staff report to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and comment. Since then, the Commission invited public comment from recreation groups, golf. clubs and park visitors. The Commission also reviewed additional data from staff on the current use of fields in Palo Alto, and how the demand for field playing space may potentially be addressed by the Stanford / Palo Alto Community Playing Fields and the renovation of Greer, E1 Camino and Cubberley playing fields with synthetic turf. PARK AND RECREATION COlVlMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On October 24, 2006, the Park and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to accept a sub ...... committee report concerning the feasibility of re-configuring the municipal golf course in order to add playing fields. The sub-committee report, which included the five recommendations listed above, acknowledged that although there is a demonstrated City-wide need for additional recreational playing fields, the impacts on the golf course usage, together with the cost and labor necessary to re-configure the golf course, did not justify altering the current design of the golf course to add sports fields. The Parks and Recreation Commission would like to further investigate recreational opportunities at the Palo Alto Baylands in conjunction with the study of the possible realignment of San Francisquito Creek for flood control and the opportunities for enhancement of low-impact recreational opportunities that might be compatible with the new San Francisco Bay Water Trail trailhead at the Baylands. The Commission would also like to further study the community-wide demand for a wide range of recreational facilities and create projections for those needs as demographics change, Finally, the Commission would like to continue to study and quantify how the renovation of playing fields (at E1 Camino Park, Greer Park and Cubberley Community Center) with night lighting and the installation of synthetic turf expands the number of hours of field play each year, meets the community demand for playing fields. CMR:217:07 Page 2 of 3 Previously, in its review of the draft Santa Clara County Palo Alto Airport Master Plan, the Park and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend the investigation of additional playing fields on the property used by the airport if the airport lease is abandoned by the County. RESOURCE IMPACT No additional costs are associated with the recommended actions. If the City Council were to pursue other options that are discussed in the Commission’s report, some staff costs would be incurred, depending on the scope of work of the staff assignment. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommended actions do not represent any changes to City policy. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation, October 24, 2006 CMR: 168:06 Golf Course Preliminary Study - Report To Council on Golf Course Redesign Options To Include Fields City Council Memorandum, March 7, 2005 PREPARED BY:- DEPARTMENT HEAD: FTS Open Space and Parks Division manager RI( Director Services CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: N Assistant City Manager CMR:217:07 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Menlo to: From: Honorable City Council Parks and Recreation Commission Date: Re: October 24, 2006 CMR 168:06, ’Golf Course Preliminary Feasibility Study- Report to Council in Response to Colleagues Memo on Golf Course Redesign Options to Include Sports Fields and Recommendation for Future Action’ Recommendation After presentations by Staff, initial input frolll the public and extensive discussion at two Commission meetings, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) has a great appreciation of the criticality of this recommendation and the numerous issues that must be taken into consideration. Additionally, regardless of the action taken, there will be a ’domino effect’ on the emire Baylands and this, too, must be studied. As a result, the PARC recomlnends further study before ally recommendation is generated. Our recommendations include: Don"t act in haste. Take no further action relating to the golf course and its possible re-configuration at this time. Continue the process to better understand and quantify community needs for playing / recreational areas and project those needs as our population ages and demographics change. Direct the PARC to participate actively in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority / Army Corps of Engineers process to identify options to explore a flood control / recreational use solution to reduce flooding along the Creek. Direct the PARC to participate actively in the San Francisco Bay Water Trail project to identify options to develop a comprehensive water recreation program in keeping with the character of the B aylands. Reevaluate the B aylands Master Plan to ensure the future of this valuable community asset best reflects the wishes of the community Background Responding to a March 20, 2006 request from City Council, the PARC was directed to evaluate CMR 168:06, ’Golf Course Preliminary Feasibility Study- Report to Council in Response to Colleagues Memo on Golf Course Redesign Options to Include Sports Fields and Recommendation for Future Action’. CMR 168:06 was developed in response to a colleagues’ memo from Mayor Burch, Vice Mayor Kleinberg and Council Member Kishimoto dated March 7, 2005 requesting Staff to evaluate the option of redesigning the Approved 10/24/06 ATTACHMENT A golf course to accominodate athletic playing fields. PARC was asked to provide a detailed review of the report and provide recommendations on how best to proceed. attempt to respond in a timely maimer, we are providing this update on our progress. Discussion There is no question that Palo Alto has a shortage of athletic playing fields. This has been quantified by the Fields Advisory Committee Report adopted by Council in 2002. With the opening of the new °Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields’, Palo Alto will have its first ’real world’ opportunity to test sports turf and lights as an option to increase playing time at existing fields. Because it is anticipated that the reaction will be positive, some of the recoInmendations included in that report to increase utilization of existing fields are actively being pursued by Staff and the PARC. However, PARC believes that, before any consideration to modify the golf course to add playing fields is made, nuinerous other challenges and priorities must be considered. Specifically, while the need for additional playing fields has been well quantified, PARC believes that other recreational needs have not been as studied. There may be underse~wed recreational needs in Palo Alto, or we may have an abundance of desig?aated resources for activities that are no longer pursued. One of the 2006 PARC priorities includes developing a process to better understand and quantify community needs for playing / recreational areas and project those needs as demographics change and our population ages. Once we have this information, we will be better able to make sound decisions based on data and be less apt to react to special interests that may not reflect the greater needs of the community. In addition, the projected cost of this or any project must be evaluated against alternative options that will selwe the same end. In its memo to Council in 2005, the PARC outlined short, medium and long term solutions to address the need for additional athletic playing fields in Palo Alto. One of those recommendations included adding sports turf and lights to existing fields. This solution would increase both playing hours and days of play at considerable less cost than the proposed golf course redesign. Ill October, the Sail Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and The Army Corps of Engineers began a 5- 7 year study to identify potential options to reduce flooding along the creek. Because the creek is adjacent to the ,golf com’se and, at one time, ran right through the land the occupied by the course, some of the recommendations that come out of that study may necessitate modification ofatl or significant portions of the golf course. Once this plan is adopted, there will be flood control funds available and the City should participate early and effectively in exploring a possible flood control / recreational use solution via this process. Also, as an outcome of the Sail Francisco Bay Plan and the advent of the Sail Francisco Bay Water Trail, the PARC has been directed to look at water recreation opportunities in the Baylands. This, too, could have a major impact on the configuration and use of the Baylands and must be investigated thoroughly before any recommendations are made. Approved 10/24/06 ATTACHMENT A And finally, the Baylands is a unique community resource. Any decision that affects a section of the land calmot be made without consideration of its effect on the entire area. In the near future, Council will need to make decisions on the future of the area currently occupied by the landfill. At a point further down the road, the future of the airport will be an area for discussion. Palo Alto has a timely opportunity to reevaluate the best use of this entire asset that would support its location abutting the Bay, maintain its ecology and park character yet better serve our modern community needs and lifestyles. We want to thanl~ Staff for their support in helping PARC appreciate the myriad issues iuvolved in modifying the golf course to accommodate athletic fields. We also want to acknowledge Staff in outlining the San Francisquito Creek flood control project and the San Francisco Bay Water Trail project, and their potential effect on the Baylands and land occupied by the golf course. And finally, we want to thank those members of the public who appeared before the PARC to express their opinion on the future of the golf course property. Approved 10/24/06 ATTACHMENT A Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Staff Present: CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPR 0 VED MINUTES PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 24, 2006 City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave Dave Charleson, Aline Warner Cribbs, Paul Losch, Jeanette Marquess, Pat Markevitch, Judith Steiner, Beth Trailer Liaison Peter Drelcmeier Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Paul Dias Meeting called to order by Jeanette Marquess Conducted by Catherine Bourquin AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: Postpone Item 2 fronl Conaments and Anlaouncements. Move Item 3 - Halloween Haunt to beginning of meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None ANNOUNCEMENT: Rich Bickmell made an Halloween Haunt happening out at Foothills Park. 29th from 6 - 9pm. Tickets are sold in advance for $7 for residents and $8 for non- residents. At the door the tickets will be $10 and $12(non residents) BUSINESS: announcement on the 14th Almual It will be held on October 27, 28, and 1. Approval of Draft Minutes of July 25, 2006 Unanimously approved the Draft Minutes for the July 25, 2006 meeting 7:0 Oct 06 Minutes ATTACHMENT A APPR O VED Mitchell Park Library/Community Center Presentation The Group 4 Architect made a presentation on the Project Overview of the Mitchell Park Library recommendations. The Comlnissioners were provided with a primout of the slide presemation. There was a question and answer session immediately following the presentation. The PARC Commission produced a list of nine concems/comlnents they wanted expressed to the Library Advisory Commission in their consideration of the proposal the Group 4 Architect was submitting. 1. Joint use - site option 3A preferred 2. Potential to expand facility due to the possible future loss of space at Cubberley Community Center. 3. Limit parking at facility 4. Seek joint space with school district facilities, i.e. parking 5. Park further away and walk or utilize alternative transportation 6. Share space/programs with library 7. Pay attention to school children’s access from school to library/community center. 8. Preselwe trees 9. Create-civic presence The Library Advisory Commission will be meeting this Thursday to hear the presemation. The PARC commission would like to have a joint meeting to discuss the proposal further. Sanford Forte was present to suggest that the commission wait until after the Library’s Thursday meeting but before the November 30tl~ meeting. A possible joint meeting would be scheduled for November 16. Golf Feasibility Study/Fields - ACTION Colnlnissioner Marquess reminded the commission on the rewrite of the memo to council regarding the Golf Feasibility Study. There were no comments and a motion was made by Comlnissioner Steiner and seconded by Commissioner Charleson. 3lotion: To approve memo to Council regarding the Golf Feasibility Study recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Approved 7:0 COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Council Challenge - Commissioner Cribbs updated the commission on the status of the Challenge. She informed the commission that she was approached by Council member Kishimoto for the Council, requesting to extend the Challenge. The official end date is December 1, 2006. Commissioner Cribbs agreed to find out where the current challenge is and email her findings to everyone. She will also contact Council and ask how much longer they want to extend the challenge for, and if they are interested in expanding it. Oct 06 Minutes ATTACHMENT A APPROVED 2. Jordan Middle School - Staff de Geus informed the commission on the issues affecting Jordan Middle School activities affecting the neighbors surrounding the school and the solutions that have been taken. Ideas were suggested by Comanissioner Charleson. Staff de Geus also added that they are looking into natural sound barrier options and also shifting where the spectators are positioned on the field. Manu Kmnar - 837 Garland Drive, PA 94303 added his comments on the noise issues pertaining to his neighborhood at Jordan. Commissioner Losch also added comments relating to these issues. Voice of People Award - The Parks Department received the Voice of People Award honored for the parks in Palo Alto. We rank in the 97% nationwide. The parks staff is very proud for receiving this award. 4. Commissioner Markevitch announced an event called "Mix it up day" at Addison school on November 8th froln 11:30 -- lpm. The school is divided up and put into different classrooms to listen to community leaders. AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 28~ 2006 MEETING 1. 2007 Priority-& Goal setting 2. Heritage Park Playground Presentation - Action (Tentative) 3. Baby Boomer Task Force 4. Recreation Revenue/cost recovery Auditor Report 5. Communications: Council Challenge and Commission upcoming vacancies ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 9pm Oct 06 Minutes TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONS~ENT DATE:M~ARCH 20, 2006 CMR: 168:06 SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY - REPORT TO COUNCIL IN RESPONSE TO COLLEAGUES MEMO ON GOLF COURSE REDESIGN OPTIONS TO INCLUDE SPORTS FIELDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION. REPORT IN BRIEF Tiffs preliminary feasibility study provides important information about adding playing fields at the golf course. The information will be useful in helping the City participate more effectively in exploring possible multi-use recreation/flood control options in the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Study now underway. Several of the flood control options that will be evaluated in the study include modifications to the golf course; flood control solutions incorporating multi- use flood control/recreation facilities will be considered. If a feasible multi-use option is identified, public funds may be available to help offset the cost of a golf course o1" other recreation facilities that also serve a flood control purpose. The preliminary design studies indicate that there may be room tO add up to two playing fields while retaining the existing championsl~ip golf course*. However, the costs resulting fi’om the need to reconfigure as lnany as eight golf holes reduce the desirability of this option. The golf course site does not appear to be large enough to accomlnodate several playing fields as well as a public regulation/championship golf course, due to the special requirements of a public golf course. The golf course site would be large enough to accommodate a new, smaller non- championship golf course or golf practice facility as well as several sports playing fields. These types of golf facilities provide a different golfing experience and serve a different market segment than the existing championship golf course. The marketability of a smaller non- championship golf course and/or golf practice facility on the Palo Alto golf course site and the level of community suppol"~ for such a change is unl<nown. The cost of a new smaller golf course/golf practice facility with 4 or 5 sports playing fields is estimated to be over eighteen million dollars. Private development scenarios that would pay all or most of the cost of a new smaller golf course and sports playing fields were not formally evaluated, but input was solicited fi’om golf course developers and other real estate developers. *Championship course is used to describe a course with a length greater than 6000 yards from the forward (white) tees and a par between 70 - 72. It does not imply that the course would likely hold major championship tournaments CMR:168:06 Page 1 of 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive and file this report. 2) Participate in locating funding for the golf course/recreation component of the flood control project if the San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority/Army Corps of Engineers flood control study identifies feasible multiuse flood control/recreation options. BACKGROUND Responding to a March 7, 2005 memorandum from City Council members Burch, Kleinberg and Kishimoto, the City Council directed staff to conduct a preliminary feasibility review of possible redesign of the 18-hole championship municipal golf course with the goal of freeing up substantial, acreage for sports fields. The objectives to be achieved by such a redesign are: creation of 20-40 acres of new playing field space; improvement of the golfing experience and provision of additional golfing amenities; expansion and enhancement of the natural habitat; and helping to address San Francisquito Creek flood control needs. The Council was also interested in determining whether these changes could facilitate redevelopment of nearby private prope~Ocies, and identifying possible private funding strategies that could help cover the costs of the golf course redesign and construction of playing fields. See attached City Council memorandum, Golf Course redesign and Playing Fields Creation, dated March 7, 2005. (Attachment A). DISCUSSION- Assessment process A working group consisting of City staff from the Public Works, Colnmunity Services, Planning, and Administrative Services Departments, as well as a representative from the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and consultants from the land use planning firm, Ken Kay Associates (KKA), reviewed City Council direction and comments fi’om the public on this topic and the status of the flood control project; identified key issues to be explored; and developed a fi’amework for examining the potential for locating playing fields on the golf course. For special golf course design expertise, the team included a golf course architect provided pro bono to the City by the golf course design firm, Robert Trent Jones II (RTJII). Through research and site visits to the Palo Alto municipal golf course and a number of other local golf courses, staff assembled information about size and other characteristics typical of different types of golf courses, including public and private regulation/championship courses and non-regulation courses and golf practice facilities. According to the US Golf Association, the average total land area for 18 hole golf facilities is 150 to 200 acres, making the Palo Alto golf course at 169.8 acres a little less than average size. In general, golf courses that are built on fewer acres are either private clubs, such as the Olympic Club, Sharon Heights and Los Altos Hills, that typically play about one-third to one-half as many rounds per year as Palo Alto and other municipal courses, or they are non-regulation courses, such as Poplar Creek, Sunnyvale and Los Lagos, that do not have the par or yardage of a "championship" course. See Attachment B for more information about comparative sizes of different types of golf courses, and Attachment C for the size of current facilities at the Palo Alto municipal golf course. The "championship" designation does not mean that golf championships are played on a course but rather indicates that the cdurse meets the minimum accepted standards of a full size golf CMR: 168:06 Page 2 of 10 course. According to the RTJII representing architect advising the working group, while the standard is somewhat ambiguous there is general consensus that a regulation/championship course will be a minimum par 70 and have a minilnum length of 6000 yards from the forward white tees. The Palo Alto golf course is par 72 and 6200 yards, the length having been slightly reduced during the most recent renovation completed in 1999. Par and yardage influence a golfer’s decision to play a course and the fee he/she is willing to pay. A non-championship course provides a different golfing experience and serves a different market seglnent than a regulation/championship course. Based on the City Council memorandum, the following five goals were identified to guide development of schematic alternatives for adding sports fields to the golf course: ¯Provide from one to five sports fields. ¯Maintain viability of the 18 hole regulation/championship golf course. ¯Provide sufficient parking. ¯Preserve and lnaintain opportunities for flood control solutions. ¯Protect existing wetlands located on or near the golf course, including incorporating wetlands into the playing area. Several staff!consultant work sessions culminated in an all-day workshop at the golf course on September 14, 2005, attended by working group staff members, the KKA consultants, the RTJII golf course architect and two members of the City’s Golf Advisory Committee. Members of the Golf Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission were invited to attend. Prior to the workshop, KKA staff developed exhibits illustrating possible locations for one to five sports fields on the golf course site. In all options, the sports fields are located in the south and west part of the golf course to minimize impacts on the course, take advantage of unused space and make efficient use of nearby parking areas. See attached layout diagrams A, B, C, and D showing the conceptual location of playing fields on an aerial map of the golf course and the Baylands Athletic Center (Attachment D). Evaluation of Four Alternative Sports Field Layouts The purpose of the workshop was to assess the impact to the golf course as increasing numbers of sports fields are added, in terms of the number of golf holes that would require modification or complete redesign; as well as possible impacts to the regulation/championship status of the golf course; playability; and possible impacts on economic viability, operations and safety. The golf course architect described to the working group the key principles of golf course design and other factors to be considered in redesigning the golf course in response to the addition of sports fields. In addition to the rules of golf and the need to design for an interesting, challenging and enjoyable golf game, the following influencing factors were identified by the golf course architect:¯¯ There is a"domino effect" when any part of the golf course is displaced. Change to one hole can ripple through several other holes, increasing the risk that yardage and par of the course will be affected by the change. ¯Differences between public and private golf courses translate into additional space requirements for public courses. The principal difference is that public courses typically have two or three times the volume of play compared to private clubs. Public courses CMR:168:06 Page 3 of 10 must be designed to accolnmodate 80,000 to 90,000 rounds per year while avoiding crowding and delay. Also, more people are on the course at the same time, and players have a wider range of skill levels, both of which increase risk; however, the general public has a lower tolerance for risk than would be the case at a private club. The cominually changing technology of golf clubs and golf balls requires greater distances between players to provide an acceptable level of safety. ¯On a flat site with no significant high vertical elements such as groves of mature trees, the safety buffer between fairways, green and tees is provided by distance. Due to salt water intrusion in the Baylands area, establishment of large stands of mature trees for buffering would be difficult to achieve, and redesign of the existing course would result in removal of many of the existing trees. ¯Golf is incompatible with close adjacency to most other uses due to the risk of bystanders being struck by golf balls. Golf customers knowingly assulne that risk when they enter the golf course, but users of adjacent sites do not assume that risk. The risk can be managed through design by providing distance or physical barriers. ¯The wetlands areas located throughout the golf course are a design constraint. While the wetland areas could be incorporated into the course design, the need to design around them will restrict design choices. Following is a description of the four schematic layouts developed and studied in the workshop, including the number of sports fields added, the number of golf holes impacted, and how additional parking is provided under each option: Layout A. One soccer field is provided in the southwest corner of the golf course. This requires the redesign of four holes on the golf course. Existing paved areas are restriped to provide 50 additional parldng spaces at the Baylands Athletic Center parking lot and along one side of Geng Road. Layout B. Two soccer fields are located in the southwest corner of the golf course. One of the fields would displace the existing lake. Eight g01f holes would have to be redesigned and reconstructed. In addition to the 50 parking spaces added at the existing Athletic Center parking lot and along Geng Road, a new parking lot with 50 spaces is constructed on the golf course. Layout C. Two soccer fields and on~ baseball diamond are added in the southwest corner of the golf course and along Embarcadero Road. Ten holes on the golf course would have to be redesigned and reconstructed. In addition to the parking provided in the two previous options, Embarcadero Road would be restriped to provide 32 curbside parking spaces along the north side of the street, and a second new parking lot with 25 spaces would be constructed on the golf course, providing a total of 157 new spaces. Layout D. Four soccer fields and one baseball diamond are added in the southwest corner of the golf course and along Embarcadero Road. This would impact all 18 holes, requiring a complete redesign and reconstruction of the emire golf course. Parking would be provided as in Option C, plus 25 additional spaces constructed on the golf course for a total of 182 new parldng spaces. CMR:168:06 Page 4 of 10 Layout Sports Added A 1 B 2 C 3 D 4or5 FOUR SCHEMATIC LAYOUTS STUDIED Fields Golf Holes hnpacted 4 8 10 Entire Course New Parking Provided Restripe paving 50 50 82 82 existing New paving 0 50 75 !00 Total new spaces 5O 100 157 182 Results of the Analysis of Four Alternative Sports Field Layouts The results of the design exercise indicate that if the golf course is to remain a public 18 hole championship golf course serving current or similar user groups, there is limited space that could be dedicated for active recreation uses without compromising the playability, economic viability, and safety of the golf course. See the attached letter from RTJII dated February 28, 2006 for a more detailed description of its analysis and conclusions (Attachment E). Layout A: One spo~ls field could be added to the existing 18 hole course while retaining the championship status; at least four golf holes would need to be redesigned and reconstructed. Layouts B and C. Adding two or three sports field to the existing golf course would require ~:edesign / reconstruction of a large part of the golf course and may not maintain 18 hole regulation category par and course distance. More detailed design study would be required to determine the precise impact of these changes on the championship status of the golf course. Layout D." Adding 4 or 5 sports fields and the additional required parking would require a total redesign and reconstruction of the golf course. While this provides an opportunity to design a completely different course, the area available for the new golf course would be significantly smaller than the existing course. The area may not be sufficient to provide the regulation length and par of a championship course and also meet the special requirements of a public golf course: accommodate a high volume of play and a wide range of skill levels while lninimizing risk of injury from errant golf balls. The addition of four or more playing fields presents a decision point between maintaining ~hampionship par mad yardage or adding playing fields. The golf course par and yardage could be reduced to provide a smaller non-championship golf course that would meet the volume and safety standards of a public golf course and also provide space for additional playing fields. IMPACT OF SPORTS FIELDS ON CHAMPIONSHIP STATUS OF GOLF COURSE Layout A B and C D Sports Fields Added Impact on chalnpionship status of Golf Course 1 Unchanged 2 or 3 May be Compromised 4or5 Unlikely to provide an 18 hole championship golf course serving the golfing public without compromising playability and safety CMR:168:06 Page 5 of 10 Costs and Financial Feasibilty of the Four Golf Course/Sports Field Alternatives The cost of adding sports fields to the golf course would include the cost of designing and reconstructing the impacted portions of the golf course, the cost of constructing the sports fields and any related parking improvements, golf tenant contract changes (revenue reductions) or buyout of existing leases and contracts, and lost revenue for a period during and following construction when it may take several years to regain the existing customer base. During construction some players will go elsewhere and some may not return when the construction is completed, resulting in lost revenue. The number of golf rounds played at the course is still down from the previous golf course renovation completed in 1999. ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES (millions) Layout A B (2 D Revised Revenue $2.0 $1.3 $0.7 $0.01 Costs Golf Course $3.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 Redesign Sports Fields $1.5 $3.0 $4.5 $7.5 ($1.5 million/field) Continuing $2.6 $1.5 $1.5 $0.5 Operating Costs- Tenant Contract $10 $10 $10 Pay Off (High Estimate) Total Financial - $5.1 million - $19.2 million - $23.3 million -$28.0 million Impact Total Assuming -$3.6 million -$16.2 million -$18.8 million -$20.5 million Donated Sports Field Construction Included in the above costs is the City’s Golf Course Corporation’s obligation to pay debt service on the outstanding golf course bonds, about $560,000 annually, which will continue regardless of chmages that nlay be made to the golf course. Certificates of Participation were issued in 1998 with the understanding that the debt would be paid from golf course revenues. Reduction or elimination of revenues during reconstruction of the golf course would shift some or all of this cost to the General Fund. Deciding to fund any of the alternatives would have a significant impact on the City’s budget. The City’s ability to fund current service levels and other priorities would be significantly impacted. Potential Flood control Solutions In October, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) initiated a feasibility study for a potential flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project on San Francisquito Creek. The study is expected to take five to seven years and will identify and analyze potential options to reduce flooding along the creek. The study products will include a preferred flood control project alternative, an environmental CMR:168:06 Page 6 of 10 impact report prepared in conformance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a cost/benefit analysis that will determine whether future federal funding is warranted for the project. Some of the flood control options that the study will evaluate include modifications to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course while others do not. The preferred San Francisquito Creek flood control option identified in the study may be one on the following list or a combination of one or more of the listed options: ¯Upstream storage reservoir ¯Series of upstream storm water detention basins ¯Parallel bypass channel or pipeline to convey excess flood flows ¯Downstream overflow basin ¯Channel widening ¯Construction of higher levees or floodwalls ¯Bridge modifications hnplementation of the bypass channel, overflow basin, and to a lesser extent the channel widening options will require a redesign of at least a portion of the golf course. This introduces the possibility of investigating the potential for a flood control solution incorporating a mt~lti-use flood control/ recreation facility. Public funds may be available to help offset the cost of multiuse recreat-ion facilities, and the City should pm~icipate in identifying funding sources if a multiuse flood control option appears feasible. The information gained in this golf course preliminary feasibility study has helped position the City to participate more effe(tively in exploring a golf!recreation component in a possible multi-use flood control facility. For additional information about possible flood control project impacts on the golf course see Attachment F, Public Works Department memorandum. Private Finmacing Strategies The City Council memorandum directed staff to consider possible private financing strategies that could help cover the costs of designing and constructing a new golf course and playing fields, and also whether changes to the golf course could encourage redevelopment of nearby private properties. Private commercial or residential development scenarios that would contribute substantially to the cost of redesigning and constructing a new golf course and playing fields do not appear promising at this time. City staff spoke with several golf course developers and with representatives of the owners of the Harbor office park about factors influencing possible golf course!commercial/residential development options. There was consensus among the experts consulted that the Baylands is not a good location for developing a resort hotel with golf course. Residential development was described as potentially feasible only with substantial City involvement that would eliminate the upfront cost and risk for the developer, requiring the City to conduct all development studies and environmental review and provide the developer with a "ready to build" site, and at a scale involving several hundred units on 30 to 50 acres of land. Airport noise and the costs associated with meeting flood zone requirements were also considered impediments to residential development in the Baylands. There is some evidence that the current golf course or an improved golf course may support existing and new private development in the Baylands. The Harbor office complex markets the location amenities of the CMR: 168:06 Page 7 of 10 Baylands, airport and golf course; however, while.some of its tenants use these facilities, they do not consider them to be a really big draw. The owners of Ming’s restaurant are now exploring the feasibility of converting the property they own at the corner of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road from a restaurant to a hotel; they have indicated that the presence of the Palo Alto golf course is seen as an asset, pm"dcularly for business visitors. VillaSport Athletic Club and ’Spa, a health club developer, has expressed an interest in exploring the possibility of leasing land on the golf course to construct a private, family-oriented, full service health club. While usually a private membership club, Villasport is willing to provide for some use of the health club by the public. VillaSport constructs and retains ownership of its facilities and lnanages the facilities. If the City were to develop a new profit-making golf course, Villasport would pay the City for the right to operate the golf course. These payments to the City, which could be substamive, to lease land for the health club and for the right to operate the golf course could be used to help offset the cost of a new golf course. During preliminary discussions with VillaSport, some of the issues that have been identified that would need to be resolved are use of dedicated parkland, access by the general public, and policy implications of the size of the typical Villasport facility - an 85,000 square feet building with a height of 3 8 feet located on 8 acres, and related parking and traffic issues. While some golf course developers could be interested in developing a new 18 hole championship ~olf course on the Palo Alto golf course property, as discussed previously there does not appear to be room on the site for both a public 18 hole championship golf course as well as several playing fields. According to the golf course developers and golf course designers who talked with staff, a golf course developer would want the site as unconstrained as possible. Golf course designer Gary Linn described a scenario that might accommodate both a championship golf course and several sports fields if all constraints were removed from the site by eliminating a major portion of the Bay Trail that runs along the golf course so that the golf holes could be raised and extended out to the levies, and eliminating the wetlands on the golf course and mitigating them on or off site. These changes are possible, but tlley would involve substantial environmental challenges and increased costs. Some golf course developers also may be interested in developing a smaller non-championship golf course and/or golf practice facilities, such as a nine hole golf course and double deck driving range, and providing sports playing fields, as these facilities can be very profitable. However, some of the golf experts who spoke with staff stated that they believe the market for golf practice facilities is saturated in this area. RESOURCE IMPACT No additional costs are associated with the recommended actions. If the City Council were to pursue other options that are discussed in the report, costs would be incurred, and these are discussed in the report on page 6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommended actions do not represent any change to City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. Studies for possible future actions which are CMR:168:06 Page 8 ofl0 not approved, adopted or funded do not require preparation of an EIR or negative declaration. Environlnental review will be required for any future project on the golf course. All of the options discussed in this report would result in a more intense use of the site than the existing golf course use. Some of the environmental issues that would need to be addressed for a future project include the following: Special status species. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the 1994 Golf Course Master Plan found that at that time suitable habitat existed on the golf course to support at least eight special status species, several of which were thought likely to be using the site. Wetlands and riparian habitat. The 1994 MND identified jurisdictional wetlands in eleven locations on the golf course, totaling 2.5 t acres. These wetland areas are required to be protected, or mitigated on or off site if they are removed. While some of the wetland areas were of low habitat value, several were considered potential habitat for special status species. The riparian area of San Francisquito Creek is adjacent to the golf course on the north and west. Artificial night lighting. Artificial night light in the vicinity of natural areas, particularly coastal .environments, is considered a potentially significant environmental impact because of its detrimental affect on basic biological and ecological systems. See Attachment G for the article, "Degraded Darkness", Conservation in Practice, Spring 2004, and additional reference sources on this topic). Parking and traffic. Some potential future changes to the golf course would require construction of additional paved parking areas and would result in increased traffic. The intersection at Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road currently operates with PM level of service D. ¯Aesthetics. Construction of buildings and tall fences could impact views and the visual character of the Baylands. Flooding and seismic risk. The golf course elevation is approximately at sea level with site elevations varying from -4.4 feet in drainage channels to + 7.5 feet at the tops of several greens. The one hundred year (1%) high tide event is 8 feet above sea level. The golf course site has high susceptibility for earthquake liquefaction and ground shaldng. ¯Consistency with relevant plans and policies. Some of the concepts discussed in this report could presem possible conflicts with adopted land use and environmental policies in the Comprehensive Plma and the Baylands Master Plan. CMR:168:06 Page 9 of 10 PREPARED BY: VIRGINIA WARHEIT Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Colnnmnity Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: -City Council melnorandum, March 7, 2005 Attachment B: Size Comparison of different types of golf courses with photos Attachment C: Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course: Size by subarea Attachment D: Golf Course/Sports Field Schematic Layouts A, B, C, and D and Impact/Benefit Assessment Table Attachment E: Letter from Robert Trent Jones II Attachment F: Public Works Department memorandum Attachment G: Artificial Night Light Reference Sources Parks and Recreation Commission Palo Alto Golf Course Advisory Colmnittee Patrycja Bossak, San Frmmisco Bay Trails Robert Trent Jones II Gary Linn Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Walter Altholz, VillaSport Timothy Cahill,UBS Realty Investors LLC CMR:168:06 Page 10 of 10 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM TO:City Council FROM:Mayor Burch, Vice Mayor Kleinberg and Council Member Kishimoto DATE:March 7, 2005 SUBJECT:GOLF COURSE REDESIGN and PLAYING FIELDS CREATION "The citizens of Palo Alto are suffering from a serious lack of field space to conduct recreational activities .... [A]ny solution must include...securing additional space." From the Sub- committee Fields Advisory Report, presented to and adopted by the Parks and Recreation Commission on December 14, 2004. The quest to find adequate playing fields for our community’s growing demand has been championed in recent years by our Parks and Recreation Commission, by recreational sports groups serving our community’s youth, and through the efforts of the City and Stanford University to partner in the creation of a new Mayfield playing field. These efforts have focused the Council and the community on the critical shortage of recreational field space, the scarcity of available public land and the overwhelming expense of purchasing appropriately sized and located private land. As a result of reviewing the east Embarcadero area of the Baylands during our Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU), a significant opportunity to address this problem has been identified through the possible reconfiguration of our current golf course complex. Experts on golf course architecture state a championship 18-hole golf course can be created on far less acreage than the 180 acres currently being used at the Palo Alto Golf Course. In fact, a better golfing experience could be created at this site using140 to 160 acres, thereby freeing up 20 to 40 acres that could be redesigned as recreational and playing fields contiguous to the existing fields on Geng Road. It should be emphasized that all of the 180 acres of dedicated parkland would remain as parkland, but be better utilized to help meet the increasing needs of our community for playing fields. Redesign of the golf course could afford, both direct and complementary benefits, including but not necessarily limited to: 1.leveraging an existing but underutilized City resource through creation of 20-40 acres of new playing field space without the expenditure of City funds to buy new acreage; 2.improvement of the recreational golfing experience through a remodeled golf course with additional golfing amenities (e.g., 9 hole executive course, expanded practice area) to bring it up to modern playing standards and more closely targeted to changing market conditions; 3.an environmentally planned course that includes expansion and enhancement of the natural habitat; and 4.helping to address San Francisquito Creek flood control needs. Such a redesign of the park acreage may lead to other indirect benefits as well. For example, a successful course improvement and new field space may facilitate positive changes to adjacent private lands across Embarcadero Road from the course, where aging office buildings and light commercial uses now exist. Additionally, new fields would help to reduce the current overuse and congestion around neighborhood parks and schools for organized sports. Overall this project could address numerous Comprehensive Plan and community goals, as well as being in compliance with and helping fulfill the objectives of the Baylands Master Plan. Several strategies for financing these improvements have been successfully used for municipal golf course redesign, including some that exist outside of City resources. These funding methods would be explored as part of the project evaluation. We have before us an unusual and timely opportunity for a creative re-evaluation of the best use of this valuable community asset that would maintain its park character and enhance the ecological and recreational assets of our Baylands, while leveraging its resources to better serve our community’s modern needs and lifestyles. It is appropriate that we initiate this evaluation in as timely a manner as possible to not miss the planning and funding opportunities that may not exist in the future. Not only is there currently a critical shortage of field space, but also such an evaluation should be done concurrently with the ZOU to be most effective. In addition, the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) may consider some of this acreage for dual use as a floodplain and it is important that this plan be coordinated with any such efforts. Being cognizant of limited staff resources, it is our recommendation that staff should follow a staged review process, b_eginning with a preliminary feasibility study to be reviewed by Council. If the preliminary review demonstrates a promising level of feasibility, Council may then direct staff to develop a more detailed plan and timeline for further evaluation and implementation strategies, and engage the Parks and Recreation Commission in reviewing the recommendations. We therefore ask our colleagues to join us in supporting our recommendation that staff be directed to conduct a preliminary feasibility review of this proposal, including an emphasis on private financing strategies, and return to Council with its initial evaluation within the next three to four months.