Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-23 City Council (2)TO." FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE:JUNE 23, 2003 CMR: 330:03 SUBJECT:PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS SYNTHETIC TURF AND LIGHTING PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council direct staff to return with an amended capital project for Athletic Field Artificial Turf and Lighting Projects (CIP PG04010) which reflects the development of a Mayfield sport complex with synthetic turf and completion of the "Greer New" field with synthetic turf. Other proposed synthetic turf and lighting projects will be initiated if required, with full public review and input, as resources become available. BACKGROUND In October 2001, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) began discussions regarding the iack of sufficient field space for sport activity and the resultant overuse of neighborhood parks. In November 2002, the PARC formed an Athletic Fields Advisory Committee (Committee) that was charged with investigating and recommending solutions to the issue. Through months of meetings, the Committee collected data, determined the need for additional athletic field space, and explored a full range of potential solutions. A report was developed and presented to the PARC, where it was approved and transmitted to Council at its December 10, 2002 meeting. Council specifically approved: e Establishment and adoption as City policy that sufficient, top quality athletic playing fields be provided to fully support the present and future needs of youth and adult sports organizations in Palo Alto. e Direct staff to develop and put in motion a Phase I action plan to implement near- term solutions on the most aggressive time line possible, consistent with budgetary and other considerations, to deal with the immediate playing field problems already facing sports organizations. CMR:330:03 Page 1 of 5 Direct staff to begin the process of developing cost and other data, time lines, issues and potential approaches for a Phase II progam which would address potential long-term playing field solutions. That resolution of the playing fields problem is a Council priority. The report spelled out a two-phase approach to the athletic field issue: Phase 1 or Near-~I-erm Solutions: This Phase focuses on leveraging use of existing fields with the use of synthetic turf and lighting. Synthetic turf is a solution that many local cities and school districts are adopting. Burlingame, Redwood City and Stanford have installations and other agencies are in the planning stages. The advantages of synthetic turf are numerous, including iow maintenance, sustainability (no irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, or weed control chemicals are required) and, most germane to this issue, it allows for more playing time because there are no field closures due to weather or maintenance. The long-term cost benefit of synthetic turf is also an advantage. When compared to ~ass fields that have to be maintained and irrigated on a strict schedule, synthetic turf pays for itself in approximately 8 years for new installations and about in 12-15 ?.’ears for ~ass replacement installations. The principle advantage to lighting is the additional useful field time it provides, up to 37 percent more time than unlit fields. However, from a maintenance standpoint, lighting synthetic turf fields is far more beneficial than lighting natural turf fields because ~ass fields could not maintain 14 hours of daily playing time without serious maintenance and closure issues. The report issued by the Committee designated four field sites that may be appropriate for synthetic turf and possibly lighting applications: "Greet 5~e~.~, Field"." This 1.5 acre dedicated park site at the southeast corner of the Greer Park site is presently vacant. Installing synthetic turf would immediately provide additional acreage to the fields inventory and, as such, will reduce some of the pressure on neighborhood parks and other athletic fields. Lighting may not be beneficial at this site since its size dictates it to be a practice field or game field for young children. The Greer Park Master Plan calls for tennis courts on the vacant acreage. Should a decision be reached to construct fields on the site, the Master Plan will have to be amended tt~rough the appropriate process. Cost estimate: Synthetic turf- $550,000 Greet Park Field #3: This is an existing field used for soccer and baseball activities. Due to this multi-sport use, it is the highest-use field in the inventory. Providing synthetic turf and lighting could increase its use by 59 percent. Cost estimate: Synthetic turf- $600,000; Lighting - $180,000 CMR:330:03 Page 2 of 5 Cubberley stadiumfieId: The second highest-use field, it supports 392 individual uses per year. Synthetic turf would increase its useful playing time by up to 26 percent. Lighting this field would also be advantageous, providing upwards of 37 percent more playing time. However, this field is bordered on two sides by residential development and lighting could be an undesirable solution to the neighborhood. Cost estimate: Synthetic turf- $750,000; Lighting - $90,000 El Camino soccer field: This field has some 331 individual uses per year and is at a site where lighting may be less controversial since the adjacent softball field is already lit. The addition of both turf and lighting could increase this field’s use potential by 59 percent. The Utilities Department has identified this site as a possible location of an undergound reservoir. Because this project will raze the existing field, Utilities staff has indicated that, should the project proceed, it wi}l rebuild the field with synthetic turf. Cost estimate: Synthetic turf- $550,000; Lighting - $150,000 Phase 2 or Long-Term Solutions: This phase focuses on the development of new athletic fields, which, in a built-out city like Palo Alto, will be accompanied by significant challenges. Increasing the inventory of new fields could involve such sites as Mayfield, Baylands open space, Stanford fields, the Baylands Athletic Center, vacant acreage adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport, and a regional approach via partnerships with other communities. DISCUSSION An opportunity has been offered by Stanford University to construct a field complex on the six-acre Mayfield site. Should a development a~eement be reached between the City and Stanford, Stanford has proposed that it will build, at its expense, two, full-size soccer fields and a practice field on the site. There is little doubt that, should the Mayfield proposal proceed, it would provide a major solution to the field space issue. The Mayfield complex would provide an additional 10,000 hours per year of playing time, more than all of the other proposed projects, combined. Stanford’s proposal is to construct natural gass fields on the Mayfieldsite. Staff believes that in order to get maximum use from these fields, considering a limited amount of maintenance funding, the fields must be built with synthetic turf. Stanford officials have verbally a~eed that they are willing to build synthetic turf fields if the City participates financially by making up the difference in cost between natural turf and synthetic turf. An extremely rough estimate of the additional cost of synthetic turf is between $500,000 - $600,000. CMR:330:03 Page 3 of 5 Staff’s plan, prior to the Mayfield announcement, was to begin the public education and input process on all four of the Phase 1 sites. Because the costs of all the potential projects far outweigh identified funding sources, staff was preparing to move ahead with whichever of the four projects that had the broadest community support. However, staff is now proposing a plan that will up~ade the Mayfield fields to synthetic turf and will convert the vacant 1.5 acres at the Greet Park site to synthetic turf. Planning efforts x~ould be initiated at the other sites upon completion of those projects and identification of funding. The importance of completing the Greer vacant field is that it is the only Phase 1 project which actually adds space to the fields inventory. Although the field is not an appropriate size for a full-size soccer field, it is an adequate size to support practice for a variety of sports, as well as game space for young children. Staff recommends completing these two projects as expeditiously as possible, and, once in use, determine how much these new fields have mitigated the athletic field issue, as well as try to identi~ funding sources. Should the Stanford proposal get delayed, staff will initiate the public process of the other identified projects. RESOURCE IMPACT -i-he following table provides an estimate of projected project costs: Site Cost Estimate Synthetic Turf Greer New Field $550,000 Mayfield Turf Upgrade 600,000 Total Cost $1,150,000 At this time, funding for these projects can from two sources: Potential Funding Source State Per Capita Bond Funding $588,000 Park Impact Fees 147,000 Total Available Funds $735,000 Due to the limited amount of available funding, staff recommends using the State grant of $588,000 to assure funding of the Mayfield synthetic turf up~ade. The Greer field cost CMR:330:03 Page 4 of 5 of $550,000 could partially come from Park Impact Fees. The balance of $403,000 could be funded through the Gene{-al Fund or, possibly, from private donations or a ~ant. Staff resources may be sig-nificantly impacted. Scheduled IMP projects that may be delayed, depending on the de~ee of participation by Stanford, are Bolware Park renovation, E1 Camino Medians Phase Two, and Boronda Lake Service Road Maintenance. POLICY IMPLICATIONS CIP PG04010, Athletic Field Artificial Turf and Lighting Projects, was approYed by Council as part of the 2003-05 budget. Should Council approve staffs recommendation, staffwill return with an amended CIP and funding plan. TIMELINE The Mayfield site project is contingent on achie¥ing an approved land use development ageement and an environmental review amendment to the original EIR. Once complete, Stanford will begin development of construction plans and initiate the construction process. An optimistic timeline could see construction complete before the end of 2004. A possible timeline for the Greer site project is as follows: September 2003- Begin process to amend the Greer Master Plan. meetings and appropriate commission meetings.) Winter 2003 - Designer hired and plans developed Spring/Summer 2004 - Construction (Neighborhood ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Each project will be reviewed individually under CEQA. PREPARED BY: JAMES ,’ector, Community Services DEPARTMENT HEAD: PAUL T. THILTGEN Director, Community Ser~;ices CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~. ~~N Assistant City Manager CMR:330:03 Page 5 of 5