HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1746City of Palo Alto (ID # 1746)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Summary Title: El Camino Park
Title: Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at
El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El
Camino Park Resevoir Project
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council:
1.Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff’s suggested use of
$1,420,500 of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the
Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommended list of improvements to
El Camino Park (Attachment A); and
2.Direct staff to pursue a long-term lease with Stanford for EL Camino Park
beyond the current June 2033 expiration date.
Executive Summary
Since June 2010, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission)
have discussed possible park improvements at El Camino Park that could coincide
with construction of the Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Reservoir Project
(CIP WS-08002) (Project). With the Commission’s guidance, staff created a list of
improvements (e.g., synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field, expanded parking, and
new pathways) that can be funded by impact fees. Staff is recommending that
Council approve the use of impact fees to fund the list of improvements at El
Camino Park.
Background
The Project, which is currently in its final stage of design for the reservoir and
ancillary buildings, has created a unique opportunity for the City to leverage time
and resources to improve several areas of the popular park. Since June 2010, the
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Commission has discussed park design improvements at six regular meetings and
one special on-site meeting at the park.
•June 22, 2010-The Utilities Department presented to the Commission an
update on the El Camino Park Reservoir Project. The Commission decided this was
an opportunity to improve the park.
•June 29, 2010-A special Commission meeting was held at the park. Staff,
Commissioners, and members of the public brain-stormed ideas for possible
improvements for the park which included synthetic turf fields, new public
bathroom, improved pathways among many other creative ideas such as an
outdoor volleyball court or BMX track.
•July 27, 2010-The Commission made a motion to have its list of improvement
ideas forwarded to Siegfried Engineering Inc., the landscape architect firm
designing the Project, to evaluate feasibility and possible costs.
•September 28, 2010-Many of the Commission’s suggested park improvements
were included in the draft park project design. The Commission decided to move
forward with making a recommendation to Council.
•October 26, 2010-Siegfried presented the Commission with an update on the
design of the Project. The Commission provided additional input on the design.
•January 25, 2011-Siegfried presented the Commission with five design options
for their consideration. The Commission asked to see a combination of three of
the designs, and highlighted the importance of expanding public parking to
accommodate expanded field use.
•February 22, 2011-Staff presented a conceptual design incorporating the
Commission’s feedback, and presented two options for the use of impact fee to
fund the improvements (discussed below).
Throughout these meetings the Commission raised questions and made
comments about pedestrian/bike access to the park, restroom location
(specifically related to safety and access), tree protection efforts, maximizing
parking spaces, fencing possibilities for joint dog exercise area, and lighting
improvements. In addition to the Commission’s guidance on design features,
Recreation staff has collected insight from various field user groups regarding
preferred field design features such as synthetic turf, field size, and multi-use
designs to accommodate growing sports such as lacrosse. This input provided
direction for the current conceptual design of park improvements.
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 11
(ID # 1746)
The Commission believes improvements to current fields and the addition of new
multi-use sports facilities will attract downtown residents to the park and make it
a vibrant part of the City’s park system. Renovations to the park would increase
usability of current park assets, meet some well-understood recreational needs in
our community, and make effective use of space within the park that is currently
undeveloped. The Commission has urged the Council (October 20, 2010,
memorandum, Attachment B) to seek or provide supplemental funding to make
park improvements at the park in conjunction with the Utilities reservoir project.
Regarding funding alternatives, the Utilities Department is limited by the terms of
Proposition 218, in that the City's Water Fund may pay only for the water project
and in-kind replacement of the park and related park amenities directly impacted
by the Project, and not other new park improvements or enhancements. In
appreciation of the funding limitations, staff and the Commission recommend
using impact fees to augment the Utilities Department’s in-kind park
replacement.
Park Development Impact Fees
On March 25, 2002, the Council adopted Ordinance 4742, creating Chapter 16.48
of the PAMC, to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers,
and libraries. The impact fees are legally required to be expended to augment
recreational opportunities through the improvement of parks in order to
compensate for increased demand for City facilities and services brought about by
new residential and commercial development and the associated increase in
population.
In order to validly impose fees on new development, the City had to establish a
“nexus” between the development and the public facilities or services that would
be funded by the fee, and the City also had to establish a connection between the
development and the amount of the fee that is being imposed on the
development.
The City retained the services of DMG-MAXIMUS (DMG) to create a “nexus”
report (Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee Study, September 2001) to
provide the legal framework for the imposition of development fees. According to
the report, impact fees for parks are intended to cover the cost of land acquisition
and park improvements for neighborhood and district parks. The report goes on
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 11
(ID # 1746)
to say, “Because of the difficulty of acquiring desirable park sites in Palo Alto, the
City may choose to expend impact fee revenue for improvements that enhance
the capacity of existing parks to serve additional demand, rather than to acquire
more land.” Impact fees cannot be used for maintenance or operating costs, and
should be used on capital projects that significantly enhance capacity.
After the Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff
worked with community groups, recreation clubs, and the Parks and Recreation
Commission to study strategies for enhancing park and recreational facilities
throughout the City in order to mitigate for increased usage caused by new
development. A Commission-recommended prioritized list of ten park
improvement projects (Top Ten List, Attachment C) to be funded by impact fees
was approved by the Council on March 12, 2007 (CMR:168:07). This list includes
adding restrooms to parks with large sports fields, replacing natural turf with
synthetic turf on four popular sport fields to expand play capacity, adding lights
for tennis court and field facilities to expand play capacity into the evening, and
the addition of a children’s playground at Heritage Park.
The Commission’s Recommendation for Impact Fee Use at El Camino Park
On February 22, 2011, staff presented the Commission with two possible options
for using impact fees to fund improvements at El Camino Park (Attachment D).
Staff provided context for the recommended options by explaining the various
sources of funding for capital improvement projects (CIPs) in parks: the general
fund infrastructure reserve, grants, donations, and impact fees. The Commission
and staff carefully reviewed and analyzed the incomplete projects on the Top Ten
List, as well as other park projects that could potentially be funded by Park Impact
Fees. The Commission thoughtfully debated the two options for impact fee use at
El Camino Park.
Staff recommended “Option A,” which included the following features: a
synthetic turf north soccer/lacrosse playing field; a synthetic turf south
softball/multi use playing field; a new storage building for maintenance
equipment; expanded parking lot; lighting conduit for future lighting of north
field; mulch for non turf areas; soccer catchment fencing; and funding for limited
tree removal and design fees. This option would have used $2,360,500 of the
current impact fee balance of $2.8 million.
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 11
(ID # 1746)
The Commission voted 4-2 to instead recommend “Option B” (Minutes for
Commission Meeting, Attachment E), which included a synthetic turf north
soccer/lacrosse playing field; a natural turf south softball/multi use playing field; a
new storage building for maintenance equipment; expanded parking lot; lighting
conduit for future lighting of north field; mulch for non turf areas; soccer
catchment fencing; and funding for limited tree removal and design fees.; as well
as a new decomposed granite pathway with lighting, and four picnic tables.
Option B will use $1,420,500 of the current impact fee balance. The difference
between the two options is that Option B is $940,000 less expensive than Option
A; includes only one synthetic turf field instead of the two proposed in Option A;
and includes a decomposed granite path with lighting and four picnic tables that
were not included in Option A.
The Commission expressed the importance of retaining funding in the impact fee
account for future projects and possible land acquisition. The Commission
pointed out that having two artificial turf fields would likely draw high numbers of
field users to the park. They also noted that even with the additional 13 parking
stalls that will be added from expanding the parking lot, there would likely be
insufficient parking to accommodate the high volume of field users from two
multi-use synthetic turf fields. The current field use levels often exceed the
capacity of the existing parking lot. Staff had initially thought the close proximity
to public transit and the parking lot at the Stanford Shopping Center across El
Camino Real from the park would provide alternatives for park users to get to the
park. Several Commissioners pointed out that in their experience field users
typically do not use public transit to get to playing fields, and would be unlikely to
park far from the fields. The Commissioners also highlighted the high
replacement costs and relative short life spans of the synthetic turf fields
(synthetic turf has a typical life span of eight to ten years, and cost approximately
$550,000 to replace). Some Commission members felt that the City could add
synthetic turf to the south field at a future date if it is deemed prudent; while two
Commissioners felt there would be a cost savings from installing a south synthetic
turf as part of this project. After lengthy discussion, staff agreed with the 4-2
Commission vote that Option B represents the best use of impact fees at El
Camino Park. The majority of Commissioners supported Option B because they
felt that even with additional parking spaces created by the new design the park
would create too much user demand if there were two synthetic turf fields at this
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 11
(ID # 1746)
one facility. Two Commissioners voted against the motion because they felt that
Option B only provided for the conversion of one field (the soccer field) to
synthetic turf. They expressed their concern that because of the demonstrated
need for more playing fields in Palo Alto. The two Commissioners were, however,
in favor of all other aspects of the conceptual design of Option B, including picnic
areas, parking, and pathways.
Archtectural Review Board (ARB) Study Session
On May 5, 2011, Siegfried presented the proposed improvements to the ARB for a
study session. The Board stated that they appreciated the decomposed pathways
and the tree preservation efforts. They were pleased with the clustering of
restroom, scorekeepers booth, and storage facility; and liked that the design of
these structures match the design of the proposed Utilities pump station building.
The Board suggested joining the storage building and scorekeepers building into
one structure. They also asked staff to return with a species list for the trees to be
planted, and a sample of the proposed rubber mulch. The Board commented that
they would like to see the bike path connect with Alma Street. Staff explained
that this is a future design element, however it is currently unfunded and requires
additional study. Staff will return to seek final ARB approval in July or August.
Discussion
Conceptual Site Design and Staff’s Recommendation for Remaining Impact Fee
Use ($1,420,500) at El Camino Park
Siegfried incorporated the Commission’s and staff’s recommendations regarding
site features to create a conceptual site design (Attachment F). The design
includes a synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field on the north-end of the park, and a
natural turf softball/multi-use field on the south-end near the transit station. The
benefits of this option are increased capacity for the park to accommodate field
users, increased revenue from field brokering fees, and an improved and safer
playing surface. The 2002 Parks and Recreation Commission report “Got Space”,
identified field space as one of the most critical recreation needs of our
community. The report suggested that Palo Alto would benefit from having a
synthetic playing field in the north, south, east, and west regions of the City. The
City has synthetic playing fields in the south and west (Cubberley Community
Center and Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields). A synthetic field at El Camino Park
would provide a field for the northern region of Palo Alto. At some point in the
June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 11
(ID # 1746)
future, a synthetic turf field can be added to Greer Park, which serves the eastern
region of the City.
The recommended design also includes an expanded parking lot (13 additional
parking stalls), a new decomposed granite exercise pathway with security lighting,
mulch for the non-turf areas, soccer catchment fencing, four picnic tables, a
maintenance equipment storage shed, and electric conduit and footings, which
will allow for adding soccer field lighting at a future time without damaging the
artificial turf. It should be noted that future lighting for the soccer field has not yet
been thoroughly vetted with the community or residents who might be affected
by the lights. Attachment A lists the features that would be funded by impact fees
and their associated costs.
Many of the Commission’s and staff’s Park improvement wish-list items (new
restrooms, score keeper building, dog run, and replacement of existing asphalt
pathways) do not meet the “increase park capacity” requirement for legal use of
impact fee funds. Staff will continue to research funding sources for these park
improvements including future capital improvement projects with an attempt to
have the additional projects completed while the park is under renovation.
Dog Run
The Commission requested that Siegfried look at opportunities to incorporate an
off-leash dog exercise area into the park design. Siegfried’s design allows for a
fenced dog run located just north of the north-end playing field. The decomposed
granite path has been configured in such a way that a dog run could conceptually
be placed inside the pathway loop.
A fenced dog run would require more maintenance than the proposed passive
recreation multi-use lawn area, which would serve as an area where people could
recreate near the surrounding picnic tables. The size for the dog run would be
approximately .5 acres. Though the City has small dog runs at Greer Park and
Hoover Park that are less than .5 acres. A study on off-leash dog exercise areas by
the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis finds a correlation between the
size of the dog run and its success, with larger dog runs being ranked as more
successful. The City of Boulder Colorado has a minimum size of 1 acre for fenced
dog runs.
June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Given the size limitations and increased maintenance costs associated with dog
runs, staff does not recommend an exclusive-use dog exercise area in this
location.
El Camino Park Lease
Owned by Stanford University, El Camino Park is under long-term lease to the City
of Palo Alto. On January 12, 2009 Council approved the recommendations in CMR
104:09 to sign an agreement with Stanford University on the terms and conditions
for the easement rights to place the reservoir in the park. Five permanent
easements were established to permit the construction, maintenance and
operation of the reservoir, pump station, well and water supply pipelines. These
easements are permanent and will only terminate upon the abandonment or
non-use of the facilities for a period of two consecutive years. The north section
of the park, where the synthetic turf is proposed, does not have a permanent
easement. It is under lease through June 2033. Due to the significant investment
the City of Palo Alto may make in improving El Camino Park, the Parks and
Recreation Commission made a motion that was unanimously approved at their
April 26, 2011 meeting to request that Council pursue a long-term lease with
Stanford for El Camino Park beyond the June 2033 expiration date.
Tree Protection Efforts
An Arborist’s Pre-construction Tree Protection Report was performed Ray
Morneau in 2008 for this project. Early in the design process, Siegfried estimated
that 16 trees would be removed for the reservoir project. The City Planning
Arborist, Dave Dockter, worked with Siegfried, Parks, and Utilities staff to devise
options for preserving additional trees. The current proposed park design requires
the removal of two sweetgum trees (size of the two trees: 17.4’’ and 20.4’’
diameter at breast height -dbh) for the project, and the removal of one Monterey
Pine tree for health and safety reasons. The project also requires relocating two
small coastal redwood trees (size of trees 2.2’’ and 2.3’’ dbh) in the park. Thirty-
six new trees will be planted in the park as part of the conceptual design. The cost
for the tree removals and relocations is estimated to be approximately $2,500.
Olympic Grove
The southwestern border of the park is occupied by four trees planted in the
1980s in honor Palo Alto Olympic medalists. The four Coast Redwoods were
June 13, 2011 Page 9 of 11
(ID # 1746)
planted to honor their notable achievements. As part of the proposed project, an
honorary plaque will be installed to commemorate the Olympic Redwood Grove.
Future park projects that could utilize impact fee money
Staff has identified several other projects at other City parks that meet the impact
fee funding requirements of significantly expanding user capacity. After funding
the suggested improvements for El Camino Park, the remaining impact fee
balance would be $1,379,500. These potential impact fee-funded projects might
include:
1.Magical Bridge (universal access) Playground at Mitchell Park. This project
is projected to cost approximately $1.6 million. The City will allocate the
land necessary for the playground and $300,000 (recommended in the
2012 Capital Budget recommendation) for the project. The remainder of
the funding is expected to come entirely from fundraising and grants from
the Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground.
2.Phase II Byxbee Park Trails (once the landfill is closed and capped in 2012).
There has been no formal cost analysis for trail design and construction,
though staff estimates that a simplified version of the Hargreave’s 1991
Byxbee Park Plan trail design (listed in the Baylands Master Plan) would
cost approximately $275,000 for trail developments, signage and visitor
amenities.
3.Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost
$220,000. However, because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff
recommends deferring a decision on this project until a new lease that
ensures long-term community access is in place.
4.Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000.
However, because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff
recommends deferring a decision on this project until a new lease that
ensures long-term community access is in place.
June 13, 2011 Page 10 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Staff suggests that these projects, and any additional park projects that could be
funded by impact fees, should be further discussed at a future Commission
meeting where the Commission will consider creating an updated Top Ten list of
projects to be funded by impact fees that will be brought to Council for review
and adoption.
Park Project Timeline
•May 5, 2011 Architectural Review Board Study Session
•November 2012 Complete Phase 1 (e.g., reservoir and pump station)
•November 2012 Begin Phase 2 Construction (e.g., park restoration, synthetic
and natural turf, and pathways)
•May 2013 Complete Phase 2. Park re-opens to the public
Resource Impact
The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as recommended to Council by staff
and the Parks and Recreation Commission, would utilize $1,420,500 million of the
total $2.8 million in the impact fee account. This would leave a balance of $1.435
million for future projects. The Nexus report had projected $1.3 million annual
revenue from the Park Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts of population and
employment). Below are the actual impact fees collected since 2006:
FY 2006 $470,000
FY 2007 $1,041,000
FY 2008 $1,316,000
FY 2009 $218,000
FY 2010 $352,000
FY 2011 thru Jan’11 $112,000
Policy Implications
The proposed park improvements are consistent with Policy C-26 of the
Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages
maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22
that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure
adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 11
(ID # 1746)
The proposed project is consistent with the Park and Recreation Commission’s
review of the design of the project and is consistent with the goals of the 2002
Athletic Fields Report.
Environmental Review
This project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the CEQA requirements.
Attachments:
·Attachement A -Impact Fee Improvements (PDF)
·Attachement B -Memo to Council (PDF)
·Attachment C-Park and Recreation Commission Top Ten List 2007 (PDF)
·Attachment D-Park and Rec Commission Staff Report El Camino Park (PDF)
·Attachment E -Feb 22, 2011 PARC Minutes (PDF)
·Attachment F-Conceptual Design (PDF)
Prepared By:Daren Anderson,
Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Staff and Commission Recommended Impact Fee Use
at El Camino Park
Attachment A
Improvements Impact Fee Costs
Design and Construction Management 200,000$
Remove Existing Trees 2,500$
Soccer Catchment Fence $ 175,000
Synthetic Turf Soccer Field $ 809,000
New Storage Building $ 19,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway $ 11,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway Lighting $ 23,000
Electric Conduit for Soccer Field Lighting $ 72,000
Additional Parking $ 73,000
Picnic Areas $ 24,000
Rubber Mulch Areas $ 12,000
Total:1,420,500$
Park Development Impact Fee Fund 2,800,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Balance 1,379,500$
ATTACHMENT B
Parks and Recreation Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission
DATE: October 20, 2010
SUBJECT: Recommendation to invest in El Camino Park design
improvements in conjunction with the El Camino Park Reservoir
Project
The Parks and Recreation Commission considers El Camino Park an underused
asset. The El Camino Park Reservoir Project creates a unique opportunity for the
City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the park for active
use. Improvements to current fields and the addition of new facilities will attract
residents and make El Camino Park a vibrant part of the City’s Park System.
Renovations to El Camino Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet
some well-understood recreational needs in our community and make use of space
within the park that is currently undeveloped. The Parks and Recreation
Commission urges City Council to seek or provide supplemental funding to make
park improvements at El Camino Park in conjunction with the Reservoir Project.
Following a briefing about the Reservoir Project in June, 2010, site visits on June
29, 2010 and July 7, 2010, and discussion at the July 27, 2010 meeting of the Palo
Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission approved a memo outlining
potential improvements to El Camino Park. Staff member de Geus discussed the
memo with the City's Utilities Department. The Utilities Department is supportive of
improving El Camino Park and has shown a willingness to work with the
Community Services Department on this project. However, the Utilities Department
is limited by the terms of Proposition 218 allowing the City's Water Fund to pay only
for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park and related park amenities
impacted by the project and not park improvements.
The Parks and Recreation Commissioners understand that while some incremental,
in-kind improvements may be allowable, many park improvements cannot be
funded through the Reservoir Project. Nonetheless, we see a timely opportunity to
upgrade the park while construction-related disruptions are already underway.
Thanks to the thoughtful work of the Utilities Department planners, several of the
Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations to support increased usage,
access and efficiencies, are included in the project's latest design:
Include the Parks and Recreation Commission in the review of the park
design at 45%, 75% and 90% (the current design status is 65% complete);
1
ATTACHMENT B
Add lacrosse striping in addition to soccer striping on athletic fields to
accommodate increasing demands and allow for more flexible usage;
Design the south softball field for multi-use, with no permanent fence
defining the softball field, to allow flexible use for softball and soccer;
Allow walking/biking access point to the park from the south end near the
bus station drop off point, expanding access to and from the transportation
depot and the downtown area;
Install necessary underground infrastructure, including electrical conduit
and water lines to the northern and southern ends of the park, for efficient
installation of future park improvements.
In addition to the items above, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends
the following improvements:
Building capacity of current park assets
Add lights to the soccer/lacrosse field to allow for night games. This new
usage would relieve scheduling pressure for athletic fields and also
encourage a more organized public presence in the park after dark;
Replace or remodel bathroom (this should include timed locks) due to its
poor condition. Better maintained facilities will welcome new users to the
park and improve users’ park experience;
Add an access point by the rail crossing north/east of the park to
encourage and facilitate more neighborhood usage by the downtown north
community;
Install a scoreboard on the softball field and possibly a new
storage/scorekeeper shed;
Provide a backstop for the softball field that will not interfere with Little
League play.
Satisfy unmet needs for recreation in Palo Alto
Design a dog exercise area at the undeveloped north or south end of the
park: Northern end of the park was preferred for a dog exercise area over
the southern end due to easier access for nearby neighborhoods. This area
is already fenced on three sides, so construction would be minimal, (fence
the north end of the park, past the soccer field, right of the walking path),
while meeting a well established community need. There are currently no
off-leash dog recreation alternatives in north Palo Alto.
Add a walking track around one or both fields, non-asphalt, i.e.
decomposed granite to encourage more neighborhood use of the park.
2
ATTACHMENT B
3
Use all of the available park space
Improve the southwest end of the park by adding a passive grassy area for
BBQs and picnics. This would be useful for teams to use after games or
for other users of the park to enjoy;
Commemorate the Olympic Grove of Redwood Trees at the north end of the
park;
Improve the southern unused area of the park for other recreation uses
such as outdoor volleyball courts or a BMX track.
These preliminary recommendations are based on discussions at multiple Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings, but lack the benefit of a public outreach meeting
dedicated to discussing improvements to El Camino Park. We believe such a public
meeting is an important step that should precede any final recommendations or
decisions about specific park renovations. Because the design process is moving
forward apace, however, the Commission recommends that public outreach proceed
in parallel to investigation of supplemental funding opportunities.
The Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission understands that improving El
Camino Park is just one of many infrastructure projects facing the City.
Nonetheless, the planned Reservoir Project construction at El Camino Park creates
an unusual opportunity to optimize resources and minimize disruption by making
park improvements in conjunction with reservoir upgrades. The Commission’s
above recommendations include a variety of improvements, both small and large,
that will build capacity by maximizing park assets, serve ongoing unmet recreational
needs, and improve park access and usage. It makes sense to fund park
improvements now. The Commission strongly encourages the City to capitalize on
this opportunity.
ATTACHMENT C
Green or * means in process or completed
Park Developmental Impact Fees Prioritization - from 2007
Co
m
m
i
s
si
n P
o
rio
r
i
t
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
Nee
d
Ex
t
e
r
nal
Fu
n
ding
He
a
l
t
h &
Sa
f
et y
Co
u
n
cil
Dir
e
ctio
n
Le
g
ally
Re
q
uire
d
Impact Fe
e
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n/E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Notes
Parks
*Stanford / Palo Alto Playing
Fields X X X X X 212,000$
*Heritage Park Play Structure XX X
*Greer Park Phase IV XXX X
*Seale Park Restroom X X X X 440,000$
Eleanor Park Restroom X X X X
Cubberley Field Snack Shack /
Restrooms X X X X 440,000$
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting XXX
*Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf X X X X 850,000$
Greer Soccer Field Synthetic
Turf X X X X TBD
El Camino Park - Soccer Field X X X X TBD
Other Potential Future
Projects
Dog Parks: Expand Mitchell &
Hoover, New at Greer
BMX Track
Life Trail: Cubberley & Greer
New Land Purchase
Cubberley Fitness Center
Byxbee Park: Dog Park, Soccer
Fields, Covered Picnic Areas,
Enhanced Water Recreation
Facilities
Recreation Facilities:
Gymnasium, Skate Bowl
Improvements, Additional
Tennis Courts at Greer, Bocce
Ball courts at Mitchell
Community outreach concluded restrooms at this park was not desired.
$440,000 is for all park restroom installations, not just at Cubberley.
Needs further community outreach
Complete. Total project budget of $850,000 was to be funded by Impact Fees.
Complete. Total project budget $800,000
Complete
Complete. Total project budget $1,450,000
In process. $440,000 is for all park restroom installations, not just at Seale Park.
Notes
ATTACHMENT D
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2011
SUBJECT: El CAMINO PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding staff’s suggested use
of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the prioritized list of improvements to El
Camino Park (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The El Camino Park Reservoir Project, which is currently in its final stage of design, has created a
unique opportunity for the City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the park
for active use. Since June 2010, the Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed El Camino
Park design improvements at four regular meetings and one special meeting at El Camino Park. The
Commission believes improvements to current fields and the addition of new sports facilities will
attract residents and make El Camino Park a vibrant part of the City’s park system. Renovations to
El Camino Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet some well-understood
recreational needs in our community, and make use of space within the park that is currently
undeveloped. The Parks and Recreation Commission has urged the City Council (October 10, 2010,
memorandum, Attachment B) to seek or provide supplemental funding to make park improvements
at El Camino Park in conjunction with the Reservoir Project.
Regarding funding alternatives, the Utilities Department is limited by the terms of Proposition 218
allowing the City's Water Fund to pay only for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park
and related park amenities directly impacted by the project, and not park improvements or
enhancements. Appreciating the funding limitations, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission
will look to impact fees to augment the Utilities Departments in-kind park replacement.
Capital Improvement Projects
In order to provide context for a discussion about improvements at El Camino Park, it is helpful to
view the big picture of capital improvement projects (CIPs) for Open Space, Parks, and Recreation.
Staff has provided a spreadsheet (Attachment C) that highlights these CIPs, and separates them into
the following categories: existing CIPs FY 2011-2015; new proposed CIPs FY 2012-2016; and CIPs
that need to be addressed. The existing CIPs are projects that have already been approved and
ATTACHMENT D
funded for FY 2011. The new proposed CIPs have been submitted for review to the CIP Committee
and once reviewed will go to Council for funding approval. CIPs can be funded by the City’s
general fund infrastructure reserve, grants, donations, or by park development impact fees.
Park Development Impact Fees
On March 25, 2002, Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 4742 creating Chapter 16.48 of the
PAMC) to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries. The
impact fees are legally required to be expended to augment recreational opportunities through the
improvement of parks in order to compensate for increased demand for City facilities and services
brought about by new residential and commercial development and the associated increase in
population.
In order to impose fees on new development, the City had to establish a “nexus” between the
development and the public facilities or services that would be funded by the fee, and also had to
establish a connection between the development and the amount of the fee that is being imposed on
the development.
The City retained the services of DMG-MAXIMUS (DMG) to create a “nexus” report (Parks and
Community Facilities Impact Fee Study, September 2001) to provide the legal framework for the
imposition of development fees. The report states that impact fees for Parks are intended to cover the
cost of land acquisition and park improvements for neighborhood and district parks. The report goes
on to say, “Because of the difficulty of acquiring desirable park sites in Palo Alto, the City may
choose to expend impact fee revenue for improvements that enhance the capacity of existing parks to
serve additional demand, rather than to acquire more land.” Impact fees cannot be used for
maintenance or operating costs, and should be used on capital projects that enhance capacity.
Approved 2006-2011Top Ten Park Improvement Projects to be funded by the Park
Development Impact Fees (Top Ten List)
After the Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff worked with
community groups, recreation clubs, and the Parks and Recreation Commission to study strategies
for enhancing park and recreational facilities in order to mitigate for increased usage caused by new
development. A Commission-recommended prioritized list of ten park improvement projects
(Attachment C) to be funded by impact fees was approved by Council on March 12, 2007.
-Four of the ten projects have been completed:
Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields
Heritage Park Children’s Playground Structure
Greer Park Phase IV Expansion Project
Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf.
-One project is in the process of being constructed:
ATTACHMENT D
Seale Park Restroom.
-Four projects are still to be completed:
El Camino Park Synthetic Soccer Field (conceptually scheduled for 2013)
Cubberley Field Snack Shack/Restroom (CIP project PE-06007; scheduled for 2013)
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting (not scheduled)
Greer Soccer Field SyntheticTurf (not scheduled)
-One project was removed from the list due to safety concerns from the park neighbors:
Eleanor Pardee Park Restroom (part of CIP PE-06007; scheduled for 2009).
DISCUSSION
As of February 22, 2011, the balance of accumulated development impact fees for parks is $2.8
million. In deciding how much of this fund should be utilized on the El Camino Park Project, staff
analyzed the remaining projects on the Top Ten List, as well as other park projects that could
potentially be funded by Park Impact Fees.
Top Ten List projects to be funded by impact fee money:
1. El Camino Park Soccer (north) Field Synthetic Turf. This project is projected to cost
$809,000. User group demand for a synthetic turf soccer field is high. Artificial turf offers
significant increased capacity compared to natural grass turf. Staff recommends funding for
this project to be encumbered from the current balance of impact fees. (Please note this
project is for only one synthetic field for soccer and does not include the softball/lacrosse
field in artificial turf.)
2. Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost $220,000. Park visitor
and user group demand for a field restroom at Cubberley is high. Staff recommends that the
funding for this project be encumbered from the current balance of impact fees.
3. Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000. User group
demand for lighting isn’t as high as the demand for a Cubberley field restroom. Staff
recommends deferring this project until the impact fee account acquires supplemental
necessary funds in the future.
4. Greer Park Soccer Field Synthetic Turf. This project is projected to cost $900,000. Greer
Park soccer fields were renovated in 2010. Palo Alto and Gunn High School both now have
synthetic turf soccer fields. Staff believes these fields address South Palo Alto’s need for a
synthetic turf soccer field. Staff recommends deferring or eliminating this project.
Other Park projects that could utilize impact fee money:
1. Magical Bridge (universal access) Playground at Mitchell Park. This project is projected
to cost $1.6 million. Funding is expected to come from the Friends of the Magical Bridge
Playground. The City is contributing the land. Staff recommends that the Friends group fund
this project through grants and other donations.
ATTACHMENT D
2. Phase II Byxbee Park Trails (once the landfill is closed and capped in 2012). There has
been no cost analysis on this project. While this project is not on the Top Ten List,
completion of the trail system at Byxbee Park is a Council directive called out in the
Baylands Master Plan. Park visitor demand for providing trails once the landfill closes is
extremely high. Staff recommends that funding for this project (place holder of $275,000) be
encumbered from the current balance of impact fees.
3. Additional projects are listed as a subheading on the attached Top Ten List. Due to
limited funds and other projects with higher demand, staff does not recommend encumbering
any money from the current balance of impact fees for these projects. These projects, and
any additional park projects that could be funded by impact fees, should be discussed at a
future Park and Recreation Commission meeting where the Commission could consider
creating a revised Top Ten List.
Staff recommendations for projects to be funded by impact fees (Please note the costs of
improvements for El Camino Park are estimates)
:
1. El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Soccer (north) Field $809,000 (this cost incorporates
the Utilities Dept. contribution that would have paid for natural grass)
2. Cubberly Snack Shack/ Restrooms $220,000
3. Phase II Byxbee Park Trails $275,000
Total Cost: $1,304,000
The remaining impact fee balance would be $1,496,000.
Conceptual Site Design
Siegfried, the landscape architect firm designing the El Camino Park Project, has incorporated the
Commission’s and staff’s recommendations regarding site features to create a conceptual site design
(Attachment D). This design illustrates the expanded parking lot, and the new decomposed granite
pathway with security lighting and four picnic tables. The decomposed granite pathway was
designed to allow for the possibility of fencing-off an approximately .5 acre dog park in the area
north of the soccer field. However, staff does not recommend a dog run for this area given the
limited amount of available space and the associated maintenance challenges. Also illustrated on this
final design is a new northern access point into the park. In order to install this access point, the
ATTACHMENT D
Transportation Department suggests using an enhanced mid-block crosswalk system with flashing
beacons in this area. The cost of these beacons is approximately $10,000. A beacon will need to be
installed on the median, which will need to be widened to 4’. The associated costs of installing this
access point would include the cost of two Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access ramps,
new pedestrian pathway, 4’ wide concrete landings, widened median, demolition, crosswalk striping,
flashing beacons and any grading that will be required to accommodate the ramps, landings and
pedestrian pathway. A cost analysis isn’t available at this time, however Siegfried will provide the
design and cost estimate so that this feature can be considered again at a future time. Due to funding
limitations and constraints on the use of impact fees, not all the design features illustrated in final
site design are possible at this time.
Staff’s Recommendation for Remaining Impact Fee Use ($1,496,000) at El Camino Park
Attachment A illustrates staff’s suggested use of the remaining impact fee balance at El Camino
Park. (The artificial soccer field was separated from this section because it was part of the Top-Ten
List. The recommended features in Attachment A are in addition to the artificial soccer field.) Staff’s
recommendation allows for both an artificial turf soccer (north) field and an artificial turf
softball/multi-use (south) field. The benefits of this option are increased capacity for the park to
accommodate field users, provide a better and safer playing surface, as well as a corresponding
increase in field brokering revenue. The 2002 Parks and Recreation Commission report “Got Space”,
identified field space as one of the most critical recreation needs of our community.
Other recommended features include expanding the parking lot, new decomposed granite paths,
picnic tables, storage shed, and electric conduit and footings which will allow for adding soccer field
lighting at a future time (once impact fees have replenished) without damaging the turf. It should be
noted that lighting for the soccer field has not yet been vetted with the community or residents who
might be affected by the lights.
Many of the Commission’s and staff’s El Camino Park improvement wish-list items (restroom/score
keeper building, replacement of existing asphalt pathways, additional northern access to the park,
and additional trees) do not meet the “increase park capacity” requirement for impact fee funds.
Staff will continue to research funding sources for these park improvements including future capital
improvement projects or bond measure-funded projects with an attempt to have the projects
completed while the park is under renovation.
Staff anticipates having more refined project costs to share with the Commission at the February 22,
2011 meeting.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as proposed by staff, would utilize $2,305,000 of the
total $2.8 million in the Park Development Impact Fee account. Staff recommends reserving
$495,000 in the Park Development Impact fund account to fund the Cubberly Restrooms ($220,000
in 2012/2013) and the Byxbee Trails ($275,000 in 2012/2013) projects. This would leave a balance
of zero for uncommitted in impact fee funds. The Nexus report projected $1.3 million annual
ATTACHMENT D
revenue from the Park Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts of population and employment). Here
are the actual impact fees collected since 2006:
FY 2006 $470,000
FY 2007 $1,041,000
FY 2008 $1,316,000
FY 2009 $218,000
FY 2010 $352,000
FY 2011 thru Jan’11 $112,000
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Suggested Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the prioritized list of
improvements to El Camino Park
Attachment B: October 20, 2010, memorandum from Commission to Council
Attachment C: Capital Improvement Project List for Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
And approved 2006-2009 Top Ten Park Improvement Projects to be funded by the
Park Development Impact Fees
Attachment D: Final Site Design
PREPARED BY: Rob DeGeus and Daren Anderson_________________________
Park and Recreation Commission
El Camino Park Impact Fee Options
ATTACHMENT D
Improvements Costs Option A Option B
Design and Construction Management 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Remove Existing Trees 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$
Soccer Catchment Fence and Netting $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000
Rubber Mulch Areas $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000
New Storage Building $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,000
Additional Parking $ 73,000 $ 73,000 $ 73,000
Artificial Turf Soccer/Lacrosse Field
(north field)
$ 809,000 $ 809,000 $ 809,000
Artificial Turf Softball/Multi-Use Field
(south field)
$ 998,000 $ 998,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway (around soccer
field)
$ 11,000 $ 11,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway Lighting $ 23,000 $ 23,000
Soccer Field Lights (Option - Electric
Conduit Footings Only = $72,000)
$ 266,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000
Picnic Areas $ 24,000 $ 24,000
Total:2,612,500$ 2,360,500$ 1,420,500$
Park Development Impact Fee Fund 2,800,000$ 2,800,000$ 2,800,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Balance
187,500$ 439,500$ 1,379,500$
*Note: Edited to reflect updated costs as
of 5/11/11
Existing Trails CIP and
Benches and Signs CIP could
possibly fund pathways and
picnic tables
ATTACHMENT D
COSTS FOR EL CAMINO PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Green and * = improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use
PARK LANDSCAPE COMPONENT
PARK IMPROVEMENT
INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCE
SOUTH FIELD
SOFTBALL FIELD AREA
* - SYNTHETIC SOFTBALL FIELD & SUB DRAIN 998,000$
CENTRAL AREA
NEW RESTROOM, PRE-ENGINEERED (INCLUDES DEMO OF EXISTING) 298,000$
SCOREKEEPER'S BUILDING, PRE-ENGINEERED 22,000$
* STORAGE BUILDING, PRE-ENGINEERED 19,000$
* EXPANDED PARKING LOT W/ ISLANDS, TREES, TRASH ENCLOSURE 73,000$
NORTH FIELD
SOCCER FIELD AREA
* - SYNTHETIC SOCCER FIELD & SUB DRAIN 809,000$
* - REMOVE EXISTING TREES (REQUIRED WITH SYNTHETIC FIELD) 72,000$
* - SOCCER BALL CATCHMENT FENCE (8' CHAIN LINK & 42' NETTING) 175,000$
*RUBBER MULCH AREAS 12,000$
TREES 15,000$
DOG PARK 96,000$
PATHWAYS
*- EXTEND D.G. PATH AROUND SOCCER FIELD (DOES NOT INCLUDE LIGHTING) 11,000$
- D.G. PATH FROM D.G. LOOP TO CROSSWALK 4,000$
- CONCRETE PATH EXTENSION TO CROSSWALK 29,000$
- CROSSWALK 96,000$
LIGHTING
* - EXTEND D.G. PATHWAY LIGHTING AROUND SOCCER FIELD 23,000$
- D.G. PATHWAY LIGHTING FROM D.G. LOOP TO CROSSWALK 15,000$
- CONCRETE PATHWAY LIGHTING - EXTENSION TO CROSSWALK 31,000$
* - SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING (ALL CONDUITS, FOOTINGS, WIRE, & POLES), 4 LOCATIONS 266,000$
* PICNIC AREAS 24,000$
* Design Fees 75,000$
TOTAL 3,160,000$
Total Cost of the El Camino Park Improvements 3,160,000$
Improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use 2,557,000$
Cost of Soccer Field Synthetic Turf - already on Top Ten List for Park Impact Fee Use (809,000)$
Remaining improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use 1,748,000$
Park Developmental Impact Fee Fund Balance 1,496,000$
Park Impact Fee shortfall to fund all impact fee related improvements (252,000)$
Cost of Improvements not fundable by impact Fees (603,000)$
SUMMARY
WORKING DRAFT
ATTACHMENT D
Green and * means in process or completed
Existing CIP's FY 2011- 2015
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
F
Y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Top
T
e
n
200
7
Ess
e
n
t
ial
Main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Leg
a
l
Man
d
a
te
Esti
m
a
t
e
d
Cost
Pot
e
n
t
ial
Fun
d
i
n
g
Sou
r
c
e
Existing CIP's Notes
Buildings & Facilities
Baylands Interpretive Center
Improvements 2012 X X 267,000$ General Fund
*Cubberley Gym Activity Room 2011 65,000$ General Fund
Completed - CIP
accommodated a
displaced tenant w/
revenue to offset
expenditure
Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical
Upgrades (Gyms & Auditorium)2013 X X X 1,300,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Restrooms 2011 X 300,000$ General Fund
*Foothills Park Interpretive Center
Improvements 2011 X X 210,000$ General Fund
Lucie Stern Mechanical Systems 2013-14 X X X 500,000$ General Fund
Rinconada Pool Locker Room 2015 X X 300,000$ Partnership
Ventura Building Improvements 2011-2012 X X X 690,000$ General Fund
Only $90,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Parks & Open Space
Benches, Signage, Fencing,
Walkways, and Landscaping 2011-2015 X 700,000$ General Fund
Only $100,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
City Park Improvements 2012-2015 X X 1,170,000$ General Fund
*Cogswell Plaza Improvements 2011 X 150,000$ General Fund Irrigation
Foothills Park Road Improvements 2012 X 150,000$ General Fund
Hopkins Park Improvements 2012 X 95,000$ General Fund Irrigation
*Monroe Park Improvements 2011 X 250,000$ General Fund
*Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and
Repair 2011-2015 X X 500,000$ General Fund
Trail System. Only
$100,000 for FY 2011
has been approved
ATTACHMENT D
Open Space Lakes & Ponds
Maintenance 2012, 2014 X X X 110,000$ General Fund
*Open Space Trails & Amenities 2011-2015 X X 741,000$ General Fund
May also be augmented
w/ grants. Only $116,000
for FY 2011 has been
approved
*Park & Open Space Emergency
Repairs 2011-2015 X X 375,000$ General Fund
Only $75,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
*Park Restroom Installation 2011, 2013 X 440,000$ Impact Fees
Only $220,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Rinconada Park Improvements 2012 X 775,000$ General Fund
Project deferred pending
Master Plan
Scott Park Improvements 2012 X 100,000$ General Fund
Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf
Replacement 2014 X 500,000$ General Fund
*Tennis and Basketball Court
Resurfacing 2011-2015 X 150,000$ General Fund
Only $30,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
*Ventura Community Center and
Park 2011 X 135,000$ General Fund
ATTACHMENT D
New Proposed CIP's FY 2012- 2016
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
F
Y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Top
T
e
n
200
7
Ess
e
n
t
ial
Main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Leg
a
l
Man
d
a
te
Esti
m
a
t
e
d
Cost
Pot
e
n
t
ial
Fun
d
i
n
g
Sou
r
c
e
New Proposed / For
Consideration Notes
Buildings & Facilities
Parks Maintenance and Public
Works Tree Maintenance Building
Improvements 2012 X X X 375,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Auditorium Roof 2015 X 151,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Site Wide Electrical
Replacement 2015-2016 X X X 1,150,000$ General Fund
Parks & Open Space
Magical Bridge Playground 2012 X 1,300,000$ Partnership Friends of PA Parks
Tree Well Irrigation 2013-2014 1,200,000$ General Fund
Pardee and Wallis Parks Safety and
Accessibility 2012 X 740,000$ General Fund
Backflow Device Installation
Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields
Netting 2012 50,000$ General Fund
Golf Course Tree Maintenance 2012-2016 X X 225,000$ General Fund
Rinconada Park Master Plan 2012-2013 40,000$ General Fund
Golf Course Cart Paths 2012, 2014 292,000$ General Fund
ATTACHMENT D
CIP Needs to be Addressed
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
F
Y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Top
T
e
n
200
7
Ess
e
n
t
ial
Main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Leg
a
l
Man
d
a
te
Esti
m
a
t
e
d
Cost
Pot
e
n
t
ial
Fun
d
i
n
g
Sou
r
c
e
Needs to be Addressed Notes
Land & Land Improvements
Buildings & Facilities
Mitchell Park Community Center
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 2012 X
Private &
Impact Fees
Parks & Open Space
El Camino Park 2012 X X
Synthetic Turf on Soccer
Filed on the Impact Fee
Top Ten list
Byxbee Park Phase II - Trails 2012-2013 X 275,000$ Impact Fees
Miscellaneous
ATTACHMENT D
Park Developmental Impact Fees Prioritization - from 2007
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Pub
l
i
c
N
e
e
d
Exte
r
n
a
l
Fun
d
i
n
g
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Leg
a
l
l
y
Req
u
i
r
e
d
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Con
t
r
i
b
uti
o
n
/
Est
i
m
a
t
e
Notes
Parks
*Stanford / Palo Alto Playing Fields X X X X X 212,000$
*Heritage Park Play Structure XX X
*Greer Park Phase IV XXX X
*Seale Park Restroom X X X X 440,000$
Eleanor Park Restroom X X X X
Cubberley Field Snack Shack /
Restrooms X X X X 440,000$
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting XXX
*Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf X X X X 850,000$
Greer Soccer Field Synthetic Turf X X X X TBD
El Camino Park - Soccer Field X X X X TBD
Other Potential Future Projects
Dog Parks: Expand Mitchell &
Hoover, New at Greer
BMX Track
Life Trail: Cubberley & Greer
New Land Purchase
Cubberley Fitness Center
Byxbee Park: Dog Park, Soccer
Fields, Covered Picnic Areas,
Enhanced Water Recreation
Facilities
Recreation Facilities: Gymnasium,
Skate Bowl Improvements, Additional
Tennis Courts at Greer, Bocce Ball
courts at Mitchell
Community outreach concluded restrooms at this park
was not desired.
$440,000 is for all park restroom installations, not just at
Cubberley.
Needs further community outreach
Complete. Total project budget of $850,000 was to be
funded by Impact Fees.
Complete. Total project budget $800,000
Complete
Complete. Total project budget $1,450,000
In process. $440,000 is for all park restroom
installations, not just at Seale Park.
Notes
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 1
MINUTES
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 22, 2011
City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave
Commissioners Present: Deidre Crommie, Sunny Dykwel, Jennifer Hetterly, Ed Lauing, Pat
Markevitch, Daria Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Paul Losch
Others Present: Council Karen Holman
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Catherine Bourquin, Lam Do, Rob de
Geus
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: Chair Walsh was absent at the
beginning of the meeting and Vice-Chair Crommie filled in for her until her arrival.
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Burt Liebert spoke on adding a Community Garden in the
South area of Palo Alto. He would like to see an effort made to find an area to create garden
space in south Palo Alto.
Paul Heft spoke in support of the idea of creating garden space in South Palo Alto further
helping with climate change.
Annette Isaacson spoke in support of creating more garden space, specifically in the
Southern part of Palo Alto.
IV. BUSINESS:
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from January 25, 2011 regular meeting – The draft
minutes for the January 25, 2011 regular meeting were approved as amended.
Approved 5:0
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 2
2. Recommendation to approve an update to the Parks Rules and Regulations– Staff
Betts requested that Commissioner Hetterly report on this topic as the lead for the sub-
committee which consisted of staff Betts, Commissioners Markevitch, Hetterly and
Dykwel. Commissioner Hetterly discussed the main changes that were made consisting
of some clarifying language and edits to specific areas. Changes were made in the
section of R1-10A Lytton, Cogswell and King Plaza – allowing for 4 tables at Cogswell,
10 tables at Lytton, and 20 tables at King Plaza; clarified the language on R1-28
Smoking to read “any public places or any area”. Revised section R1-32 Dog Exercise
Area to conform to the hours of Park opening and closing hours. The committee also
discussed the need for the Commission to review the Community Garden rules for
future revisions at a later date, noting that it will need adequate time for Community
outreach and special considerations.
Commissioner Dykwel brought up a concern that came up in the Business Approvement
District Parking Committee meeting today. The issue was on the electrical control box
located at Lytton Plaza and how it is being utilized. Staff Betts referred to section R1-
34 Use of Utilities that would remedy the concern that the Parking Committee had. He
said that a policy would be set up through the Lucie Stern Community Center for the
check out of a key for the box. Commissioner Dykwel also mentioned that the
Parking Committee would also like some signage be placed at the site and on the City’s
web site with this information. Staff Betts felt that this request wouldn’t be a problem
to put in place.
Council Holman directed a question on the section of R1-26 Littering, wanting to know
if gum, cigarette butts, and spitting were considered littering under this section. Staff
Betts referring to Title 22 in the Municipal Code which provides a broad explanation on
what is constituted as littering. He also added that this violation held the largest fine
associated with it. Staff Anderson also provided feedback noting that he or any other
Ranger would not cite someone in an open space or park setting for spitting.
Motion made by Commissioner Lauing and seconded by Commissioner Dykwel.
The Parks and Recreation Commission approve the update to the Park Rules
and Regulations as presented. Approved 5:0
3. Presentation of the Capital Improvement Plan for Community Services Open
Space, Parks and Recreation, and consideration to recommend to Council the use
of Park Impact Fees to fund a portion of El Camino Park improvements related to
the El Camino Park Reservoir Project – Staff de Geus introduced the item and
provided a brief summary adding that the El Camino Park reservoir project has been to
the Commission five times with updates from the Utility department on the project. The
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 3
staff report provided in the Commissioners packet will be used to relay specifics to this
topic. He added that the Utility department is responsible for putting the park back to
its original condition before the project. This project provides an opportunity to possibly
make improvements using impact fees and other potential funding sources.
Staff will provide the Commissioners with possible scenarios for the use of these
impact fees using the suggestions the Commissioners provided at past meetings on this
topic. Staff Do, Business Manager for Community Services was introduced and went
over the CIP and the impact fees available with the Commission. Jennifer Cioffi,
Project Manager for Utilities went over the revised plans that included the
Commissioners changes. The Commissioners interjected questions and comments that
included questions on the pedestrian/bike path routes around and to the park, the field
sizes, parking, and when the expiration of the lease for the land was.
Staff Anderson, Division Manager for Open Space, Parks and Golf Division reviewed
the staff’s recommendation for the impact fees available for the use at El Camino Park
with the Commission. An updated cost assessment was handed out reviewing the
highlighted improvement areas that meet the criteria for Park Impact fee use. Staff
Anderson went over both option A & B, the improvements totaled $1,748,000 and
consisted of: ATTACHMENT
design fees = $75,000 *
removal of trees = $72,000 *
soccer catchment fence and netting = $175,000
rubber mulch areas = $12,000
new storage building = $19,000
additional parking = $73,000
artificial turf softball/multi-use field = $998,000
extended D.G. pathway (around soccer field) = $11,000
extended D.G. pathway lighting = $23,000
soccer field lights (option electric conduit footings only $72,000) = $266,000
picnic areas = $24,000
He explained to the Commission that staff was recommending Option A, which
consisted of adding artificial turf to the softball/multi use field, not including the DG
pathways around the soccer field, the pathway lighting, and the picnic areas. This
would use the total impact fees of $1,496,000. He added that there was the possibility of
using the existing Trails CIP and the Benches and Signs CIP to fund the pathway and
* See Attachment A for revised figures
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 4
picnic tables if the Commission wanted to. Option B included everything except the
artificial turf softball/multi-use field costing $998,000.
After staff Anderson’s discussion, oral communications was allowed from the public.
Ute Engelke spoke on her concern for the pedestrian access crossing Alma to Menlo
Park included in the presentation made by Jennifer Cioffi and would like to see this area
addressed further.
The Commissioners discussed the Options presented to them A & B and the costs
associated with these choices. The Commissioners then proceeded to make a motion.
Motion 1: Commissioner Lauing made a motion to accept Option B, seconded by
Commissioner Dykwel. Failed 2:4
Motion 2: Commissioner Hetterly made a motion to accept Option B and omit
11,000, 23,000, and 24,000 using only $882,000 of the impact fees,
seconded by Commissioner Lauing. Failed 3:3
Motion 3: Commissioner Markevitch made a motion to accept Option A, seconded by
Commissioner Walsh Failed 1:5
Motion 4: Commissioner Lauing made a motion to accept Option B, seconded by
Commissioner Crommie Passed 4:2
4. Update on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force– Commissioner Markevitch
a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force reported on what they have been working on.
She provided a handout to the Commissioners and pointed out some details from it. She
informed the Commission that the City has a backlog of infrastructure going out to 2028
for half a billion dollars. The portion related to Parks and Open Spaces is 38 million
leaving 301 million in back log with a balance of 148 million for future infrastructure
needs. The Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force separated themselves out into three
sub committees, the finance subcommittee, at ground subcommittee, and above ground
subcommittee. They are looking at how we got where we are, what we can do in the
future to prevent it. They meet every two weeks. More information can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/infrastructure_blue_ribbon_commissi
on.asp.
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 5
5. Recommend a PARC Commissioner represent the Commission at the Planning and
Transportation Commissioner Study session on the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan -
Chair Walsh reviewed with the Commission the purpose of the item tonight. It
was discussed in past meetings that the PARC wanted to have a joint meeting with the
Planning and Transportation Commission. Upon some discussion with the Chair of the
Planning and Transportations Commission he informed us that they would be only
discussing the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan at their next meeting, February 23rd. The
Planning and Transportation Commission would be up for having a joint meeting when
we could schedule something. It was decided to elect a PARC representative to attend
the meeting on the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan. Commissioner Markevitch made a
motion to elect Commissioner Crommie, seconded by Commissioner Lauing.
Passed 6:0
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Commissioner Markevitch reported that she read that the League of Women Voters had
a meeting tonight to discuss the history of the Baylands, history of the Master Plan. The
next scheduled meeting is on the same night the PRC will meet. She suggested that
maybe a Commissioner could be sent. It was agreed to wait until agenda planning to
discuss.
2. Commissioner Dykwel reported as the Liaison for the school district. Subjects at the
meeting pertained to open enrollment, zoning, and teen mental health. She informed the
Commission that there is a report that they can get called the City Efforts and
Accomplishments Report 2010.
3. Commissioner Dykwel reported on the Mitchell Park Library, the Art Center renovation.
4. Bringing up Bicyclists – Free March 8th and March 15th
5. Teen Event – first high school event of its kind – “Ignite”, March 4th, Staff de Geus will
report back on it next month. *Looking for volunteers.*
6. Commissioner Crommie reported for the Urban Trails subcommittee.
7. Commissioner Crommie reported on an unsafe condition she encountered when she was
at the Arastradero Preserve with trails being closed and unsafe off road bicyclists.
8. Council Holman asked a question related to the mitigation for the golf course and when
it would be coming to the PRC. Staff de Geus responded by providing some details to
the levy and hiring an architect.
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING ON April 26, 2011
1. Baylands update
2. Bicycle Master Plan
3. Community Garden
VII. ADJOURNMENT
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 6
Adjourned at 10:44pm