Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3937 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3937) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/24/2013 June 24, 2013 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 3937) Title: El Camino Park Design Update Subject: El Camino Park Design Status Report And Decision Points From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services This report is provided to the Council as an informational update on the design of park and playing field restoration at El Camino Park associated with the construction of the El Camino Park emergency reservoir and pump station (CIP WS-08002 and CIP PG-13002) and provides recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the creation of a dog park and the relocation of the Julia Morgan Hostess House. If Council desires to accommodate a dog exercise area and the Julia Morgan building at El Camino Park, staff needs specific direction from Council by August 12, 2013. Executive Summary El Camino Park has been closed to the public since October 12, 2011, for the thirty- month construction of an emergency water reservoir. Construction of the reservoir is scheduled to be completed by January 2014. Without further delay, the park is tentatively scheduled to re-open to the public in July 2015. Staff from the Utilities and Community Services Departments have worked on the conceptual design of the restored park and playing fields since August 2010. The Parks and Recreation Commission has been closely involved with design of the park and has facilitated twelve public meetings between June 2010 and April 2012 to receive input from the public, field users, neighbors and other stakeholders on the design of fields, parking, a dog exercise area and other amenities of the park. City Council has reviewed the conceptual design of the park June 13, 2011 (Staff Report #1746), and April 16, 2012 (Staff report #2411). Concurrent to the El Camino Park design process, Planning staff has worked with a design team to consider development options for the adjoining Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) Master Plan, and how this development could integrate with the park in terms of trails, circulation, parking, open space, and possible accommodation of the Julia Morgan Hostess House (currently leased to Mac Arthur Park Restaurant). Park landscape architects from Siegfried Engineering, Inc. have consulted extensively with the design team for the Arts and Innovation District Master Plan to June 24, 2013 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 3937) consider alternatives for the Morgan building, and have vetted these conceptual designs with the Parks and Recreation Commission at their May 22, 2012 and July 24, 2012 meetings, and reviewed alternatives with the Chief Planning Official at the November 27, 2012 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. After additional discussion on the alternative designs for El Camino Park at their April 23, 2013 and May 28, 2013 regular meetings, the Parks and Recreation Commission has concluded, that because of its large size and the impacts the building would have on needed field playing space, the Morgan building is incompatible with the conceptual designs of El Camino Park and should not be accommodated within the park (June 3, 2013 Staff Report #3610, Attachment H; included here as Attachment C). The Commission has also concluded that the placement of a dog exercise area in the park instead of the originally considered creekside area, would eliminate needed picnic areas and open space, and is not recommended. In order for staff to proceed with the preparation of final design documents for Site and Design review, and maintain a construction schedule that would reopen the park to the public by July 2015, staff will utilize the conceptual designs approved by Council on April 23, 2012, which does not include a dog exercise area within the park or the accommodation of Julia Morgan building, unless Council directs the City Manager by August 12, 2013 to pursue other alternatives. Background On March 5, 2007, Council held a public hearing to certify the adequacy of the Final EIR for a range of emergency water projects and authorized staff to proceed. At this meeting Council decided to place an advisory measure on the November ballot asking voters whether they would approve of locating the new reservoir, pump station (Lytton Station) and well in El Camino Park. In November 2007, Palo Alto voters were asked to consider an advisory measure regarding whether an area under El Camino Park should be used for an underground water storage reservoir and well to supply the City of Palo Alto with water during an emergency. Ballot Measure N stated: “Should an area under El Camino Park be used for an underground water storage reservoir and well to supply the City of Palo Alto with water during an emergency, the existing pump station replaced with modern equipment in its same location, and all existing park facilities fully restored upon completion of construction?” Nine-two percent of voters voted in favor of the advisory measure. On August 1, 2011, Council approved the contract for the El Camino Park Reservoir, Pump Station and Well Project (CMR 424:09). Groundbreaking was conducted on October 12, 2011 and it was initially anticipated the reservoir, well and pump station would be completed by summer 2013. Staff anticipated it would take an additional twelve months to reconstruct the park, playing fields and parking lot for a summer 2014 park opening. June 24, 2013 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 3937) Beginning in June 2010, the Parks and Recreation Commission began thoroughly evaluating the needs of park users in north Palo Alto, the recommendations of the 2002 City-wide playing fields report, and the recommendations of a subsequent field use report prepared by the Parks and Recreation Commission in 2004. After twelve Commission meetings and two public site visits, the Parks and Recreation Commission concluded in 2011 that the design for an enhanced El Camino Park should include a large (65 by 110 yards) artificial-turf playing field - preferably lighted - that could accommodate day and evening adult league sports; a multi-use combination softball and soccer/lacrosse practice field; a new, enlarged public restroom; a multi- purpose lawn area with picnic tables at the north end of the park; a perimeter jogging/walking path that would connect to pathways leading to Alma Street; and an expanded parking lot (42 standard spaces and 2 ADA spaces) that could accommodate the expanded capacity of the park. The first iteration of the recommended park design was vetted with Council on June 13, 2011 (Staff Report #1746). At this meeting Council directed staff, in consultation with the Commission, to consider a dog exercise area; further expansion of public parking; better connectivity to north-south bicycle routes; the incorporation of public art; and a plan that would protect as many trees as possible. Council also directed staff to negotiate with Stanford University the extension of the lease of the park to beyond the lease expiration of June 30, 2033. Staff subsequently returned to Council on April 16, 2012 (Staff report #2687) with a negotiated nine-year extension of the park lease to June 30, 2042. Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission continued discussion of the aforementioned topics, considered multiple alternatives for dog exercise, parking and circulation configurations, and in April 2012 recommended a revised plan to Council that would further expand the public parking within the park to 65 standard and 3 ADA parking spaces, add a quarter-acre fenced dog exercise area at the northern end of the park along San Francisquito Creek, would provide connectivity to existing bike paths near the University Avenue Train Station and Alma Street, and would provide maximum protection of trees in the park (including the Olympic Memorial grove of redwood trees). At their April 23, 2012, Council approved the revised conceptual design of the revised park design and approved the allocation of $2,275,796 of Park Development Impact fees to fund the components of the project that were beyond the Utilities budget for simply restoring the park as-is (Staff report #2411). (Attachment A, Park Plans; Attachment B, Council Minutes April 23, 2012) Beginning concurrently in 2012, the City Council, boards and commissions received presentations and provided comments on the Conceptual Master Plan (Plan) for an Arts and Innovation District on property adjoining El Camino Park at 27 University Avenue June 24, 2013 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 3937) and that might include a section of El Camino Park at its northern end near University Avenue. A revised Conceptual Master Plan for the Arts and Innovation District was reviewed by the Council on December 3, 2012. The proposal included over 200,000 sq. ft. of new office space, an 800-seat performing arts theater, an expanded and improved transit center, and numerous other improvements. The Plan included three conceptual designs for how the Julia Morgan-designed 1918 Hostess House/Veteran’s Memorial at 27 University Avenue might be incorporated into El Camino Park near the entrance to the park at Quarry Road. In addition to reviewing the revised concepts, the Council considered whether this Plan should be placed on the June 2013 ballot as an advisory measure. After careful consideration and an extensive public discussion, the Council declined to move forward with a June ballot measure. The Council directed planning staff to return with a proposed outreach process and concept plan options for the Arts and Innovation District. Information gathered and community feedback received during the initial phase would be used as the foundation of any process moving forward. On June 3, 2013, Council directed staff to return to Council with a scope of work for a consultant-facilitated community engagement process related the Arts and Innovation Master Plan. It is expected that this process will take approximately one year (Staff Report #3610). Discussion & Update Although Planning, Utilities and Community Services staff have worked diligently with design consultants from Siegfried Engineering, Bruce Fukuji of Fukuji Planning and Dan Garber of Fergus, Garber & Young Architects to devise viable alternatives for situating the 6,500-square foot former community building in the park, none of the three possible locations studied could adequately mitigate impacts to the size of playing fields, the size and configurations of the parking lot, and north-south bicycle/pedestrian connector routes. As the Parks and Recreation Commission began evaluating design options for the accommodation of the Morgan building in May 2012, concerns were also expressed by Commissioners about park integration and connectivity, safe drop-off points for children, no well-defined concepts for programs using the building, together with serious financial implications for accommodating the building in the park in terms of utility services and additional parking. The Commission continued to study the design alternatives at their July 24th, October 23rd and November 27, 2012 meetings. The Commission told Planning staff at the November 27, 2012 meeting that more thought and planning with regard to the project was needed in order to minimize negative impacts to the park. June 24, 2013 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 3937) Park staff has informed the Commission that environmental assessment of the soils and stream habitat of San Francisquito Creek would be negatively impacted by the construction of a proposed fenced dog exercise area along the banks of the creek at the north end of the park. Even with waste containers, a periodic cleaning program and curbing along the edge of the creek, run-off contamination of steelhead trout habitat could not be adequately mitigated. Environmental consultants and Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning staff suggested park staff consider replacing the multi-purpose lawn and picnic area at the north end of the soccer field with a small, fenced dog exercise area. In March 2013, the Commission again reviewed comments from staff and design consultants and concluded that the serious impacts to the use of the park for sports and recreation could not be mitigated by any of the building placement alternatives or the alternate dog exercise space. The Commission began drafting a memorandum to the City Council at their March 26th meeting, refined the memorandum at their April 23rd meeting and finalized the memorandum to Council recommending against the Morgan building at their May 28, 2013, regular meeting (Attachment C). El Camino Park is one of five large specially-designed sports facilities in Palo Alto: Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields at Page Mill Road; Greer Park; Baylands Athletic Center; and the leased fields at the Cubberley Community Center. Although the football field at the Cubberley Community Center was renovated with artificial turf in 2010 with project mitigation funds from the Utility Department in anticipation of the El Camino Park project, staff is concerned with how terms of the extension of the Cubberley lease with the Palo Alto Unified School District in December 2013 and the pending construction of the flood control levees near the Baylands Athletic Center may significantly impact the inventory of playing fields and associated recreational opportunities while El Camino Park is still under construction until July 2015. While staff, in cooperation with the Parks and Recreation Commission, has sought viable alternatives to accommodate the Julia Morgan Hostess building within El Camino Park, we have reached the conclusion that this large building cannot be accommodated without serous impacts to park uses, the timeline for re-opening the park and park reconstruction costs. Staff, therefore, wishes to proceed with preparation of final designs and construction documents for the park without the Julia Morgan building or the dog exercise area. If Council wishes staff to reduce the size of playing fields and other amenities in the park in order to accommodate the placement of the Julia Morgan building and the dog exercise area within the park, Council should give recommendations to the City Manager in a Colleague’s Memo by the August 12, 2013, Council meeting. Tenative Timeline Preparation of finalized design for Site & Design review August – December 2013 Final Review by the Parks and Recreation Commission December 2013 June 24, 2013 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 3937) Final review by the Architectural Review Board January 2014 Review by the Palnning and Transportation Commission February 2014 Final design approval by Council March 2014 Preparation of construction details and bid documents April – May 2014 Award of contract for construction and Adoption of the Park Improvement Ordinance June 2014 Construction July 2014 – July 2015 Re-opening of El Camino Park July 2015 Resource Impact On April 23, 2012, Council approved the allocation of $2,275,796 of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) be used to fund staff’s tentative list of improvements to El Camino Park (Attachment B) which would include the installation of artificial turf on the soccer fields, the expansion of the parking lot, the expansion of jogging and circulation pathways, the creation of a multi-sport playing field and the creation of a new picnic area. These funds will augment Utilities funds from the reservoir project that would have rebuilt the park to its original design. Staff believes $2.275 million will be adequate to design and build the enhanced park if design and construction work on the project can continue on schedule for a July 2015 completion date. Final costs will be subject to finalized designs, which incorporate comments and direction for the Site & Design permit review process, and construction bids that will be solicited in mid-2014. Policy Implications Actions recommended in this report are consistent with previous Council guidance and discussions. The improvement of recreational facilities at El Camino Park are consistent with Goal 4 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan: “Attractive, well-maintained community facilities that serve Palo Alto residents”; Policy C-19: “Develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community facilities, and keep these facilities viable community assets by investing the necessary resources”; and Policy C-25: “Consider potential park sites when preparing coordinated area plans.” Attachments:  Attachment A - El Camino Park Conceptual Design April 23 2012 (PDF)  Attachment B - April 23 2012 Minutes (PDF)  Attachment C - Parks and Recreation Recommendation Memo (PDF) 31 04/23/2012 MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Burt no, Yeh Absent 13. Approval of the Use of $2,275,796 of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El Camino Park Reservoir Project. Greg Betts, Community Services Director recalled Staff made a presentation to the Council in June 2011 after a series of discussions with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC). Council directed Staff to review six items. Staff had successfully achieved those six directives, and had returned to the PARC to get their consensus to fulfill those objectives. Staff had also worked with designers on the reservoir project. They were coordinating the design of the restoration of El Camino Park, and had prepared updated figures from those presented in June 2011. Staff had also discussed prioritization of projects with the PARC. The purpose of tonight's Item was to review funding of this project. Site design remained tentative, and Staff would have a study session with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on May 3, 2012. There had been quite a bit of action on 27 University Avenue, the location of MacArthur Park Restaurant and the Red Cross building. Staff was working closely with the designers on 27 University Avenue to ensure the entire gateway parcel was well integrated. This would achieve the goal of creating a gateway among Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford University, and Downtown Palo Alto. Staff was mindful of timing issues. El Camino Park was one of four principle sports facilities in Palo Alto. The reservoir project was ahead of schedule, because of the dry weather. There was some urgency to complete the design, so that the project could be completed without two separate phases. Separate phases would add to the cost of the project. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was moving forward with plans for improvements to the levees at the Baylands. Moving the levee would affect parking and play at the Baylands athletic facility. One of the field carpets at the Stanford-Palo Alto playing fields was almost useless, and there was a proposal for a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget. Replacing the carpet would take the sports facility out of play. Staff was concerned that these sports facilities were away from neighborhoods, and wanted to avoid placing sports activities in neighborhood parks. Daren Anderson, Division Manager for Open Space Parks and Golf indicated Staff recommended tentative approval of the design for park improvements at El Camino Park, recognizing that the design had not yet been approved by the ARB; use of $2,275,796 in Park Development Impact Fees to fund Staff's tentative list of improvements at El Camino Park; and deferral of construction of a dog exercise area until an environmental assessment could be completed for Stanford University's approval, and final funding could be secured. At the June 13, 2011 Council meeting, the Council approved the design for improvements to El Camino Park to include a synthetic field, new 32 04/23/2012 pathways, a picnic area, and other amenities, and use of $1.4 million in Impact Fees for funding it. The Council's first amendment was to pursue improved connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians. On the north section of the park, across Alma into the proposed dog area, Staff proposed a crosswalk. A traffic safety study was needed to confirm the location and method for crossing. The proposed crossing was only 250 feet from an existing controlled crosswalk on El Camino Real. Towards the south end of the park, Staff was considering a sidewalk connection that would go across MacArthur Park and connect with a bike path. The additions to 27 University Avenue and MacArthur Park regarding connectivity would provide a connected southern portion of the park. The second amendment was to incorporate bike racks into the design. Siegfried Engineering Inc., the landscape architect firm designing the project added 15 bike racks, each supporting two bikes, in four areas. The third amendment was to seek an alternative to the Public Facility (PF) zoning currently in place to restrict land use to recreation or to serve as a disincentive for other uses. Staff confirmed the existing PF zoning was as restrictive as possible for the property. The fourth amendment was to incorporate a dog exercise area and to expand the parking lot. Staff met with the PARCPARC to discuss options for a dog off-leash exercise area. The PARCPARC voted on a dog exercise area of approximately a half acre in the undeveloped north section of El Camino Park. Stanford University would require some additional environmental study as well as possible mitigations because of the proximity of San Francisquito Creek. Due to the need for additional study, possible mitigations, and limited funding, Staff recommended deferring the final design and construction of that dog exercise area until a study could be completed and funding found. Regarding additional parking, Staff met with the PARC and presented options for expanding parking. After much discussion, the PARC helped select a design that added a loading/unloading zone and 26 parking stalls to bring the total to 68 for the site. The fifth amendment was to pursue an extended lease from Stanford University. On April 16, 2012 the Council approved an amendment to the 1997 Sandhill Road Development Agreement and extended the lease for El Camino Park for nine additional years, from June 30, 2033 to June 30, 2042. The sixth and final amendment was to return to the PARC for final design approval. On September 27, 2011, the PARC approved the design, but recommended the dog exercise area at a cost of $207,000 and the expanded parking lot at a cost of $242,000 be funded by a source other than Park Development Impact Fees. There was no other uncommitted capital funding available, which explained the difference between the PARC's recommendation and Staff's recommendation. Staff understood and appreciated the PARC's concern about investing heavily from the limited fund, but wanted to use $2.275 million on this one site. Given Council's concern about the critical need for parking and the anticipated increase in usage, Staff added the recommendation for Impact Fee funding. Since the PARC felt the dog park was a non-essential item at this park at this time given funding limitations, 33 04/23/2012 Staff recommended deferring this portion of the project until the Impact Fee account was replenished and a final design and environmental assessment could be funded and completed to the satisfaction of Stanford University. The Planning and Community Environment Department would perform an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) once the project moved to that stage. The Park Development Impact Fee balance was approximately $2.8 million. Staff's recommendations would reduce that balance to $537,449. If the Council chose to include the dog exercise area, the total cost for the project would increase to approximately $2.5 million, and the Impact Fee balance would decrease to $309,000. The PARC's recommendation would cost approximately $1.899 million, and leave an Impact Fee balance of approximately $913,000. Paul Snyder, Seigfried Engineering, Inc. reported improvements included a synthetic soccer field that would double as a lacrosse field, a passive park area with connectivity, an expanded parking lot, additional trees, reconstruction of a natural turf field, and a second passive park area. He had conferred with Staff regarding the 27 University Avenue project in relation to environmental documentation, limitation of the easement, park improvement ordinances, the utility corridor, and future projects in the area. He reviewed photos of the project. He and Staff had discussed the historical significance and integration of the Olympic grove. The design of the project had been optimized to maximize use of the entire park. Connectivity of the park had been enhanced and considered future possibilities. Architectural elements of the pump station would be included in the restroom facility and scorekeeper's booth. Mr. Betts indicated two locations were favored for relocation of the MacArthur Park Restaurant building. The first location, proposed by the City of Menlo Park and the Veterans' Administration, was the former Camp Fremont in Menlo Park along Willow Road at the Veterans' Administration. The second location was the Golf Course, where it would be used an alternative to the current clubhouse. Staff had considered three possible locations of the building within the park: 1) the dog park at the north end of the park; 2) the head of the parking lot close to the railroad track; and, 3) the undeveloped property at the south end of the park. Relocation to the dog park would require the removal of a number of eucalyptus trees. Relocation to the parking lot would reduce the size of the parking lot and eliminate a number of trees in the vicinity. Herb Borock noted 27 University Avenue and 400 Mitchell Lane were not on the Agenda, and felt it was inappropriate to discuss them. The current Agenda Item included an action that was subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Tonight's meeting should have been properly noticed for approval of the environmental review, and it was inappropriate to take action for the same reasons it was inappropriate to act 34 04/23/2012 on the California Avenue project. The softball field which doubled as a soccer field was being moved from one place to another. He did not believe Park Impact Fees could be used for that purpose. The major cost was the synthetic field, which lasted approximately eight years; therefore, the Council was not receiving anything for an extension of the lease. All that meant was an additional period of time when that playing field would compete with money for other park uses. It was a mistake to spend so much money on this one park, especially since it was mainly for adult teams comprised of residents from other cities. In terms of protecting this area for park use, the main protection was the park dedication. If a limit was linked to the lease and the lease was being extended, then the park dedication should be extended the same number of years. The area next to the synthetic soccer field could be used for a dog park, but one of the Commissioners argued that area should be reserved for people affiliated with the organized teams playing sports. Council Member Espinosa shared the concern about discussing the 27 University Avenue project, because it was not agendized and the Council had not seen any details on that project. He expressed concerns about approving a multi-million dollar park design when there was the potential for a significant alteration. Mr. Betts stated Staff's purpose in mentioning the University Avenue project was to let the Council know Staff was being mindful of the integration of the two projects. Connectivity through this entire area had been an important concern of the Council and Commission. The area of mature redwood trees was a constraint of the park. On the other side was the pump house for the reservoir. The City had a separate long-term easement from Stanford University for the position of that pump house, but the pump house could not be changed. The soccer/lacrosse field would keep the area as multi-use as possible. That was one of the reasons for the removable fence. If a building was located at the current transit center, it would allow for flow into the park. Staff was not trying to create barriers between the two adjoining uses. Council Member Espinosa was concerned about the possibility of a major building being located anywhere in the park, because it could require a major redesign. The current design called for a significant amount of money. Council Member Price asked whether the safety fence was the same as portable fencing or a separate portion of the site plan. Mr. Anderson stated the safety fence was designed to be placed by the north field to prevent balls from going into the parking lot. 35 04/23/2012 Mr. Snyder indicated the larger safety fence would be placed along the El Camino Real side and the backside of the soccer field. Council Member Price inquired if the surface materials were permeable, and asked for cost implications of permeable versus non-permeable. Mr. Anderson said permeable concrete would be utilized on the El Camino Real side of the north field. Because irrigation would be removed from the north field, Staff wanted to enhance every possibility of getting water to the trees in that area and would use porous concrete for the pathways. Porous concrete was more expensive than asphalt. Around both north fields, the design called for use of decomposed granite pathways, which would allow water to flow to root systems. Council Member Shepherd asked for an explanation of the $1.6 million from the reservoir project. Mr. Anderson had a list of the various items funding from Utilities would pay for. Council Member Shepherd asked how the $1.6 million became a part of the Park Impact Fees. Mr. Anderson stated the $1.6 million was not included in Park Impact Fees. Staff had broken down the $1.6 million from Utilities into each component of the park design, and deducted that amount from the cost of each component. Council Member Shepherd asked if the cost of improvements was actually $3.9 million. Mr. Anderson answered yes. Council Member Shepherd stated that was not clear. Mr. Betts explained the Utilities Department under Proposition 218 was required to return the park to its original condition. The differences were the passive recreational area at the north end of the park, the permeable pathways, the new fencing, the artificial turf, the expanded parking lot, the combination sports field, and all items the Council directed Staff to consider. Council Member Shepherd suggested having two line items and a combination of the two in order to show the approximately $4 million impact on the park. She shared Council Member Espinosa's concerns regarding possible relocation of a building into the park. She asked when the two bike subways might be constructed. 36 04/23/2012 Mr. Anderson did not have that information, but would review it. Council Member Shepherd asked for a description of the PARC discussion concerning the dog park. Mr. Anderson reported discussions at the PARC meeting covered the impacts of placement of the dog park in each section of the park. Adjacent to the playing fields meant balls would go into the dog run and owners would need to retrieve them. The area to the north was a natural area suitable for a dog park and would be low cost. A location at the parking area would require a short hike to reach. Mr. Betts noted the dog parks at Hoover Park and Greer Park were undersized. Staff tried to find an area large enough to support a dog park underneath trees. Council Member Shepherd asked if both playing fields would have night games, because lights were included in the design. Mr. Anderson reported the south softball field had lights. Staff needed more community outreach to ensure lights on the north field would not negatively impact the adjacent neighborhood. Construction plans allowed the addition of lights at a later point without having to dig up the playing field. Council Member Klein suggested the Council determine if the topic was ripe for a decision before spending more time discussing the merits. Mr. Snyder explained the south end of the project was being restored to the original condition, and the Utilities Fund was paying for the bulk of that restoration. There were no significant investments in that area, and the only improvements were the decomposed granite pathway and a small portion of the connectivity around it. Any investment in this project relating to the south end of the park was negligible, probably less than $10,000. On the north side of the park, design elements could be impacted by relocation of the Julia Morgan building. However, the playing field in the north end of the park could not be moved. Council Member Espinosa inquired about the impact a continuance would have on the park project timeline and costs. Mr. Betts stated the Item could be continued to July; however, the two major concerns were staging the project and the delay in reopening the park. 37 04/23/2012 Mr. Snyder reported the park would sit fallow for five to six months after the reservoir was complete if the Council approved the design. If it was continued to July, that time would increase to seven or eight months. If the project was delayed by six or eight months, then the costs would only increase. Costs of mobilization and reorganization after Phase I was complete were difficult to state exactly, but would not be a small number. Council Member Klein asked what would be the additional cost if the Council approved something tonight, then later wished to relocate the Morgan house to the north side of the property. Mr. Snyder explained the cost of redesign depended on the exact footprint and the stage of construction. He did not understand how that was relative to the overall design fee or the entire cost of the park or how valuable the risk was when compared to leaving the park fallow. While cost estimating the project, there was an opportunity to set a time to update the Council. It was possible the project could be reevaluated at the time information became available. He had discussed with Staff opportunities for that structure within the park that would not cause major problems. Mr. Keene noted the question of the relocation of the building was dependent on the park project going forward. If the project did not move forward, then the building would remain in its location and would have no impact on the park. If the building was to be relocated, the relocation site was within the City's discretion. Rather than waiting until July, he preferred the Council approve the design as-is pending Staff's return with a discussion of relocating the building. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to accept Staff recommendation: 1) accept the Community Services Department (CSD) and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendations for the approval of the (pre-Architectural Review Board reviewed) design for park improvements at El Camino Park, including pathways, a synthetic turf playing field, a multi-use natural turf playing field, landscaping, an expanded parking lot, a dog exercise area, and other amenities, 2) accept CSD‘s recommendation that $2,275,796 of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) be used to fund staff’s tentative list of improvements to El Camino Park, and 3) move forward with the construction of the recommended dog exercise area for $2.275 million, from the Park Development Impact Fees plus the 10 percent contingency fee, subject only to the completion of the environmental assessment and Stanford’s approval. Council Member Klein felt this was an opportunity to complete an excellent community asset. He disagreed with the recommendation concerning the dog park, because a deferral meant it would not happen. The argument was 38 04/23/2012 a polite way of saying Staff and Commission felt other projects were superior to a dog park. Palo Alto was not a dog-friendly community despite the number of residents owning dogs. This was an opportunity to provide a facility for a part of the City that did not have ready access to a dog park. Parking was a legitimate issue, but the impact would be minimal. Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to consider the possibility of a building completely altering the entire design of the park. If it caused those kinds of changes, Staff should return to Council sooner rather than later. He had heard community concerns about the lack of spaces for dogs. The PARC's conclusion was to look for and carve out spaces for dog runs when renovating parks. This was an opportunity to support the project for an area that needed space for dogs. Council Member Holman asked the City Manager to clarify his comment regarding Staff returning to Council within 30 days with an idea of where the Julia Morgan building might be located. Mr. Keene explained his comment was not meant to be certitude. Given the concern about the co-existence of the park with a building, he suggested Staff return to the Council as soon possible with a discussion regarding whether or not the Council wanted to place the building within the park. It was in the context of not delaying the project until the summer, if Staff could provide an answer sooner than that. Council Member Holman inquired why the Council could not wait until that time to move approval of a park improvement. Mr. Keene stated every time Staff returned an item to the Council, the Item was more complicated and the remainder of the Agenda Item was open to discussion. If the Council decided to put that building on the site, it could have some ripple effects and could have some impact on the whole discussion. If Staff recommended not placing the building in the park, then the Council did not repeat all the Items. Council Member Holman stated the Motion was to approve park improvements without consideration of how a building might or might not be moved into the park. Mr. Keene understood the Council did not have a position on whether or not the building should or should not be on that site. The Council was concerned about the potential impact of the park design and the project moving forward if there was a decision to locate that building on the site. If Staff felt moving the Julia Morgan building into the park was a viable option, they would not begin design work until they had presented that information to the Council. 39 04/23/2012 Council Member Holman felt the Council would have the park design discussion to determine where the Julia Morgan building would be located. She felt it would be a shame to lose the Julia Morgan building to Menlo Park. Council Member Schmid supported the Motion. He felt the changes that could come on connectivity were as important as the Julia Morgan building. If the Quarry Road overpass and the Everett underpass were completed, the park would be easily accessible. If there was development to the south of the park, the parking spaces in the park would become a valuable commodity. He hoped the Council could integrate the possibilities of this park. Council Member Burt asked how many bike racks were located by the dog park. Mr. Snyder stated there were approximately five racks by the dog park and each rack held two bikes, for a total of ten bikes. Council Member Burt suggested the racks by the dog park should be relocated in the park. He asked what the replenishment rate was for the Park Impact Fee. Mr. Betts indicated it varied quite a bit, but the average was approximately $200,000 to $300,000 per year. Council Member Burt asked for the life of the artificial turf. Mr. Betts stated eight to ten years. Council Member Burt asked how much it cost. Mr. Betts said $800,000 for the soccer field. Mr. Snyder indicated the cost of the actual surface carpet was approximately a quarter of the $800,000. Council Member Burt expressed concerns about spending that amount of money for a field used primarily by non-residents. He felt the Council should provide Staff with guidance as to the location of the Julia Morgan building so that the park design could accommodate it, rather than trying to fit the building into an established park design. Vice Mayor Scharff asked the City Attorney if that topic was within the Agenda. 40 04/23/2012 Council Member Burt stated he framed it as a placeholder space in the park, which was on the Agenda. Ms. Stump viewed it as appropriate with respect to the design items on the park. Mr. Keene believed Council Member Burt's comment was within the perspective he had suggested. It would be a design challenge to fit the building in. It would be easy for Staff to present some schemes to show how the building could fit. That should not preclude the Council from providing direction to Staff. Council Member Price did not support the Motion with regard to the dog park. She supported Staff's original recommendation to defer the dog park, because of limited resources. She assumed Park Impact Fees would be replenished, but was concerned about that. Relocation of the Julia Morgan building had environmental impacts as well as design impacts. The implications of that for the Budget were serious. She asked if Staff could provide options in a short period of time, because of the design and environmental impacts. Council Member Holman concurred with Council Member Burt's comments for a Council directive regarding integration of the Julia Morgan building into the park or the 27 University Avenue site. She did not support the Motion, because it did not have a larger context. She liked the park design, but felt the park was a poor location for a dog park. Vice Mayor Scharff supported the Motion. He felt the opportunity for a dog park was important and should be supported. Council Member Shepherd supported the Motion. This design was optimal for this particular park at this particular site. She felt the design of the dog park was awkward, but the dog park would be used. She preferred a discussion of the Julia Morgan building include all the options. MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Price, Holman no, Yeh absent COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Shepherd stated she attended the City/School Liaison Committee in place of Mayor Yeh last week, where they toured Ohlone Middle School. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:24 A.M. ATTACHMENT H 1 Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation El Camino Park Re-Design The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the park re-design presented to the Commission by Staff and the architect on 3/26/13. That design - and our focus - was in the area of the park bounded by El Camino on the west, Alma on the north, the railroad tracks on the east, and the end of the outfield grass beyond the softball/baseball field on the south. Summary Consistent with Commissioner comments that evening, the El Camino Park Ad Hoc Committee concluded that the newly proposed design does not meet appropriate standards for all users in a Palo Alto park. It is a design of compromise which does not work. The inclusion of a dog park and a space reserved as a possible location for the Julia Morgan building forces too many elements into too little space. The design presented simply has NO passive space for use by citizens. It is consumed by sports fields, reserved space for the Julia Morgan Building, parking lots, and a dog park compressed into such a small space that the functionality of each use is diminished. The commission recommends proceeding with the previously approved design. However, if Council does not accept this recommendation and requires a contingent land bank for the Julia Morgan building, we believe some element has to be removed or reduced in size to create a minimum amount of open space. There are only a few options: the dog park, the soccer field, the multi-use field (baseball/softball/lacrosse), or some parking. Recommendations I. The commission reiterates the following recommendations: a) We recommend against moving the Julia Morgan building to the park. In addition to negatively impacting other park uses, the addition of the building without a plan for how it will be used impedes appropriate facility planning for access and parking requirements as well as for management, operations and staffing costs. Furthermore, in order to reserve space in the park for the Julia Morgan building, the proposed redesign shifts the soccer field substantially to the north (left in the diagram) resulting in restricted space surrounding the soccer field for teams and spectators, and loss of much of the open space in the original design. b) We previously identified a number of possible locations for the Julia Morgan building. Among these, we believe the new Baylands Golf Course should be given serious consideration for its new location. The historic building would have very high visibility as the only structure in the open space of the new Baylands course and would retain its historic purpose as a public gathering space. The building would enhance - and be compatible with - the beauty of the new golf course design and replace the run-down clubhouse/restaurant building currently on the ATTACHMENT H 2 site. And, significantly compared to other possible locations, the building will have a specific and needed purpose, be self-supporting and be used extensively by Palo Alto residents and visitors. c) We recommend against locating a dog park within the main body of the park. Environmental considerations have precluded locating the dog park across Alma in the eucalyptus grove which was the original design. That was a large, self-contained area separate from all other park improvements. Now that this is not an option, forcing it into the originally designed open space compromises the one true/dedicated passive space in the approved design. Further, we believe it is best to evaluate the optimal locations for additional dog parks in the city via the upcoming Palo Alto Parks Master Plan instead of on an ad hoc basis. II. If Council nonetheless votes in favor of a contingent land bank plan for the Julia Morgan building, we recommend the following changes to the proposed re-design: a) Eliminate planned investments in artificial turf and lighting infrastructure and reduce the soccer field to mid-size in order to accommodate players, spectators, and routine constituent flow around the field. The full size field is not absolutely essential at this time although it is highly preferred. Further, the primary users of a mid-size field will be under the age of 12. Unlike the neighborhood fields typically used by that population, El Camino Park is in a more remote location and not easily accessible for young players by walking or bicycling. In addition, there is little demand by U12 teams for artificial turf or lighted fields. While the PARC supports investment in artificial turf and lighting at this site in order to allow flexibility to meet growing field demand, we cannot justify those investments without the potential for use by adults and older youth. b) Eliminate the dog park, so there is certainty of at least a bit of open space. Per the original design, place ample picnic tables and benches within the open space.