Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 CITRUS RANCH PARK DESIGN 11-20-07AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2007 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: DAVID WILSON, ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: CITRUS RANCH PARK PREFERRED DESIGN SUMMARY: Per the City Council directive of April 3 2007, the Community Services Commission is returning to the Council a recommended preferred. design option for the Citrus Ranch Park Project (CIP No. 2046), which is within the confines of the CIP Budget and maintains the original intent of the park. Following City Council approval, a staff report will be provided recommending Council adoption of the resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the project and authorizing and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Citrus Ranch Park preferred design option as recommended by the Community Services Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: The project will be financed through the Park Development Fund. The total allocation for design services and construction of Citrus Ranch Park is $7,449,374.00 as identified in the FY2007-2008 Capital Improvement Program. BACKGROUND: The Engineer's Estimate of 8.9 million dollars for the original plan option exceeded the recommended Capital Improvement Project Fund appropriation for Citrus Ranch Park of $7,449,374.00. Following .the report the City Council directed the Community Services Commission to review the design options and return a preferred plan to the City Council for their review. At the May 16, Community Services Commission Meeting, the Commission reviewed the Citrus Ranch Park design options and postponed offering a design recommendation to the City Council. The Commission expressed concerns regarding the reduction in the scope of work particularly related to the non-development of the citrus knoll. Staff directed the project architect to draft and return an overall park design concept that included developing the entire project in one phase, access to the apex of the citrus Page 2 knoll and be realistic to the project budget without compromising the original intent of the park site. At their October 17, Community Services Commission Meeting the Commissioners discussed and reviewed the recently submitted preferred plan. The Commissioners came to a consensus and recommended the design and their design comments be forwarded to the City Council for review. RespectfuIly submitted, David Wilson Acting Director -Parks and Recreation Services Attachments w~< ~~~ ~~~ Q zap wx` F- U z Q~ o ~ ., ~~~ ~ ~ Q .-, zU ... w a ~` ,, ~`~ -~ '~ ,% 5~ e ~. f . -J T R !.: 7! t,1-. Y~~ ~~ ,veg. ~~ ti_ ~~ grbr i ~ ~ O ~~ zn O n > x rn o~~ z~ O > ~ 7~ "C7 i'r7 r-~ ~z ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ o zr ^n~ '- x z ~~~ ~~~ z 7C t ~ ~,,, \ ,. ,, COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION From the MINUTES of the OCTOBER 17, 2007 COMMISSION MEETING CITRUS RANCH PARK PLAN The Commission is asked to review the proposed preferred park design, which is within the scope of the CIP Budget and maintains the original intent of the park. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and recommend to the City Council the proposed modified park design and direct staff to prepare a staff report to Council for Adoption of the Resolution to Approve the Environmental Impact Report and Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for the Citrus Ranch Park Improvements, CIP No. 2046. Acting Director Wilson presented the staff report. The proposed modified park design includes three distinct recreation experience areas. The south area, near Jamboree and Portola, includes urban and active amenities such as play structures, a plaza and picnic structures. The north area, near Tustin Ranch Road and Portola, features a passive rural experience with large turf areas surrounded by trees. The knoll, prominent in the park, maintains the existing fruit trees, which are proposed to be renovated to produce an organic and edible product. The citrus knoll has foot trail access leading to a premier vista view-point at the apex. The apex of the knoll features a substantial shade structure with a sitting area. Wilson also provided the Commission with a presentation on the history of the design process for the park and an administrative memo with a summary explanation of the park funding process and budget restraints. After discussion, questions and comments, consensus was reached that the proposed park design fulfills the original intent of the park; if more funds were made available it could be even better; and it's important to move this project forward. Glaser moved, and Powell Albarian seconded to recommend to the City Council for approval the proposed preferred park design to comply with budget restraints, but would like the City Council to increase the project budget to accommodate additional features that would enhance the park; with Commissioners' comments attached. Motion carried: 4-0, Nunez absent COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2007, 6:00 PM CITRUS RANCH PARK -PREFERRED DESIGN OPTION COMMISSIONER COMMENTS (VERBATIM) STAFF REPORT WAS PRESENTED BY ACTING DIRECTOR, DAVID WILSON VG (VERN GLASER): Thank you very much, Director Wilson. I think that was an excellent overview of the proposed modified park design. To start the discussion rolling why don't we break our time into two different phases; the first will be where we ask director Wilson or Tim or Sam about some of the details and some of the features. There's a lot of information that we've just received, some of which we haven't had a chance to look at before and I know at least I have some questions. Maybe we can start out and have each one of us ask our questions, and after we do that we can have an open discussion about what to do after that. Who wants to start? KL (KIM LEASON): Thank you for the updated information. I think that's very true. In our last look at this we had a lot more detail in breaking it down. I like the graphic of the knoll. I think it's great. I'm just kind of concerned about what exactly has been removed in terms of all the individual things. Without looking at them it's kind of hard to tell exactly what we're keeping and what's not going to be there. I would certainly like to see... and I think the most important feature of this whole park is the knoll and the pathway leading up there needs to really draw your attention and make you want to go up that route and I think at least when I've seen it looks pretty barren in spots and some areas are not so attractive. Without seeing exactly what's being spent with what, what type of plant material we're going to be placing there, I don't really know enough information to comment on that. VG: Maybe a question for you guys to answer would be what, in order to get the budget down, what things were taken out and what specifically is that trail going to look like? I don't know who the appropriate person would be to answer that question. DW (DAVE WILSON): Larry Mouri, Architect, RJM, is here tonight to answer your questions. LM (LARRY MOURI): Good evening. I can just go through the items that we did delete from the plan. Specifically, there were things that were duplicated, elements as part of the plan so in the south area we took out the water play area, which is basically was designed prior to the Pioneer Park, which has a water feature there now, and it's just down the street so that was one item we thought we could delete. We have these vegetated swales where we deleted a lot of the cobble, which was more for aesthetics, but it will still function as a vegetated swale, basically taking the runoff at the parking lots and taking the swale before it goes into the storm drain system. There was a bridge that was again, more of an aesthetic element that we took out. We had a number of these entry plaza monuments that were more of enhancement features that we removed. There's the wood rail fence that surrounds the knoll and we talked about just putting up signage to discourage the public from entering the knoll; something that would deter people from entering the orchard. There was a shade structure at the south playground and we already have a substantial sized shade structure that's opposite the restroom building so we took that out. On the knoll there were some access stairs that actually went up from the main entry, which were more of a convenience for people as a shortcut up, but it was a substantial expense and that was removed. There was an amphitheater. Right now we're looking at kind of a flat pad with this shade structure, we took out the amphitheater. There was a large retaining wall with kind of an art element, they had some interpretive of the views you could see as you're standing at the vista. We took that out. There were a couple of rest areas as you come up the knoll that were taken out. There was going to be some grading up at the knoll but we kept the....obviously those areas that were going to be graded will have to be re-landscaped so we're looking at some material that will be drought resistance. Something that will make that area attractive and pleasing. In the north area one of the largest elements was the playground. We took that out of the plan because we already have one at the south end. There was a decomposed granite trail loop that went around the perimeter of the large open lawn area, which we removed. Some of these elements could be phased in later as funds become available. We wanted to select elements that could be phased in at a later time. The other element at the north area was the picnic shade structure, but we will design that so a structure could be put in at a later time. DW: All those elements were deleted. The commission did see an $8.9 Million design and it was basically an attempt to get down within our budget. These items were looked at carefully and care was taken not to destroy the intent of the park and they were basically necessary to get us down to the level where we can actually develop the park without additional funding, which is not available at this time. TS (TIM SERLET): Chairman Glaser, I have an exhibit here that was in my folder that shows in red some of the areas that were deleted. Maybe I could just pass it to Commissioner Leason and he could pass it down for the rest of the Commission to look at. I'd like it back because it has some of my notes on it. VG: That would be great. Any other clarification questions for staff or RJM? BG (BRYAN GLASSMAN): I just have a couple of questions. Are there any lights in the park? Some of the concerns of the resident were related to lighting. Where exactly are the lights? DW: Basically it is passive lighting throughout the park. They are not shown on this design, but there is a lighting plan in the plans and specifications and basically you'll see passive park lighting to illuminate walkways and areas, but no ballfield lighting or anything like that. BG: How long is the trail from the bottom up to the top? My concern is that someone starting out walking up the hill might need a place to sit halfway through. Is there anyway that we could put a bench or something out there? I'm not looking at anything big...I just noticed when I went out there, walked a little bit and went up to the top, it is quite a hike and I could just see somebody starting out thinking it might be easy and finding out it's not. DW: In the original design there were two rest areas parallel to one another and again, those were not included in this design for budgetary reasons. BG: Do you happen to know how much it would cost for one of those rest areas offlland? DW: I would have to defer to Larry from RJM, but as I recall, it was a substantial cost savings. KPA (KIMBERLY POWELL ALBARIAN): In following up with Commissioner Glassman's comments about the lights...you say passive lighting. I know most parks close at dusk, correct? How late will the lights stay though just for security purposes and I imagine there will be some people that will be in the park after hours. DW: Generally, our parks stay open until lOpm and there will be illumination. Will it encourage nighttime participation? I don't believe so, but there would be enough illumination for it. What our plans describe meets the requirements for passive lighting. KPA: On the knoll at the gazebo I noted there has been discussion about having it be a site for weddings, photo opportunities and other activities. Will that require permits? And how will that interfere with regular park users wanting to be in that space at the same time? DW: I think that would be something that we would have to look at at a later date. If that's something that the community could bear and if there was an actual usage that we identified, yes, it would be a permitted use through the Parks and Recreation Department and there would probably be some fees attached and a reservation form and they'd have to go through our regular process, yes. But again, going back to our research, the community really wants the knoll to stay passive and there's probably some concern about ceremonies with noise, parking issues, extra traffic, large gatherings, setups, etc. So there are a lot of concerns if you start putting ceremonies up there. If that's something that's of interest, I believe that the picnic shelter up there does have power and it's possible, and if that's a use that is identified, yes, we could definitely permit that out and make that a rental situation. VG: If you could humor me, I have quite a few questions and hopefully, they can guide some of our further discussion. Maybe if we could start, I want to ask some questions about the comments of the Citrus Ranch Park financing. As a Commission, we haven't necessarily been exposed to a lot of the budgetary issues, so I'd like to make sure how this works. If I understand the concept here, basically there are two different types of funding for parks; one is when the developers pay. into a fund that is specifically earmarked for the parks, and an example of that would be in the Tustin Legacy Process when the developers of Tustin Legacy build homes and projects, they are forced to put money away that we then can use to build the park in Tustin Legacy. The Park Development Fund, which I guess you refer to as fund 11, it looks to me like that is funded from the general fund (staff interjected, It also has developer contributions) VG: So, how is that replenished? TS: Through developer contributions or the General Fund, which is always a last resort. VG: That's always a last resort. So, it's possible if the City Council and the City Manager agreed, they could add money to the Park Development Fund if that was an agreed concept. It might not be ideal, but that is possible, right? Staff: Yes VG: And the impression I get from here as well is that it is possible to move some of the money maybe for the Park at Tustin Legacy over into this park (Citrus Ranch), or how does that work? I kind of got that impression from a couple of the lines. TS: I'm not real clear on that....(unable to hear further) VG: So, basically, if we were going to expand the scope of this project it would have to come from the General Fund, which would be possible, but it's not preferable. Staff (unable to hear response from staff in audience) VG: On the park plan itself, a couple questions on the design: There were some references in the prior feedback about the Eucalyptus Trees and I was wondering if we could look at the presentation at the picture of that side, I wanted to find out what those would look like and then I'd like to understand. So now, those Eucalyptus Trees, if I look at the site plan that we have there, are those included in this site plan? Are they represented by some of the trees there, or are those going to be removed and replaced? LM: We actually had a plant pathologist look at the condition of those trees, because they're diseased and stressed. His concern was because we have a playground at the bottom of the hill he did not recommend those trees to stay. VG: Where, if we look at the plan, where specifically are those trees on the plan? Is that right by where the shade structure on the overlook would be? LM: Yes. And it would be to the, if you're looking at the plan, it would be to the right, basically at the shade structure on the top of the knoll and you'll see the playground in the north area, there's a big slope that those trees are located on. VG: On that slope right there. So the plan now would be for that to be bare, or what would that look like if we were to remove those trees. LM: At this time there is no plan to replant the trees. VG: Can we look at one of those photos that we had said before, and I'm curious on when we renovate the grove...if we could go to one of the points where we could see the citrus trees....aesthetically, what happens when we renovate the grove, what do the citrus trees end up looking like: Are they going to look the way they look now? How does that work? TS: They'll be greener, a little more filled out. I did talk to an individual that actually operates groves, and he said what we need to do is get a tree trimming crew in there that specifically trims citrus trees and they know exactly what to do. Another thing I learned...I figured it would be about $30 a tree to trim them, but he said a citrus tree trimming crew will come in and trim them for $5 to $7 per tree. That substantially lowers our maintenance costs right there. That's what at least my vision would be, bushier and greener. VG: So they would be bushier and greener and then the relative density of the trees that we see in this particular design would be similar to what see on this particular slide, right. TS: Yes, I think we'd have to look at it as we get into renovating it...how many of the trees do we have to remove and how does the symmetry of the grove look? I'm guessing there will probably be some that have to be removed and some we'll have to add.. . VG: One of the... in reading through the results of the prior surveys, which was helpful to get some insight into prior community insights. I was wondering, Director Wilson, if you could talk us through what the consensus plan was that came out of that exhibit and what their thoughts were on that? DW: From the 2000 workshop? (Asked Sharon Cebrun, Secretary, to describe.) SC: RJM did the workshop. All of the neighbors within a certain radius of the park were invited. They walked the site and came back to Tustin Ranch Elementary School, where they did their drawings. They broke into six groups and discussed the site and the different features they wanted to see in the park and located them in their drawings. After the groups completed their drawings they presented them to the rest of the group. RJM summarized the results and developed a draft conceptual design, which they presented at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting for public review. After public and Commission comments, they refined the design and brought it back to the Commission a second time. The Commission adopted the design and the design development report.. VG: Interesting. So relative to the group consensus designs it looks like some of the items the community had wanted initially, like the water feature for example, we've had to pull out because of budgetary constraints. One of the items that came out just in your review of that was that there was a concept or desire for interpretive and educational signs and providing some connection with the past history. Is that something we would do independent of the capital cost of the project or is that built in? What are the thoughts on historical and cultural tie ins to the area? DW: Chair Glaser, I think that's an important aspect of the park. At this time I don't think it's built in to this design, but it's something that can be retrofitted and I think it does give us a purpose to actually look at the history... and there has been some talk that Portola camped there. Anything we can do to tie in the history can be done at a later date. I think the base of the knoll would be an excellent spot for that. VG: How long is the hiking trail that's in there in this particular area in terms of...as an order of magnitude...is it a half mile, a quarter mile? DW: Quarter mile VG: One of the things I noticed in the thing that you had in your area was that some of the hiking trail was cut off in this particular version. LM: I think we eliminated.... VG: And then it looked like there was a stairway coming down from the knoll to the parking area. TS: On the north side. The trail is very gradual. VG: Any other questions on the information? For discussion purposes in terms of our feedback on the plan, I think there are really two components to the feedback. One is discussion about do we achieve our original goals with the park within this particular budget. And then I think the second discussion is feedback on the design as it exists for more of the minor type adjustments. From the standpoint of do we think that this design as it is, does it actually achieve our goals, why don't we have some discussion about this and I'm curious to hear everybody's thoughts. BG: I think it does follow the original intent. It would be nice to have a few more amenities, but I feel it is following the original intent. The knoll, I think, I really like that shade structure that they do have. I feel it would be great, and everything they have designed, I'm all for it. KPA: Again, I concur with Commissioner Glassman. I'm pleased to see this revised design. It's gone through obviously a lot of phases and I think it definitely tightens up all of the components that many of the community groups had hoped for. You're never going to please everyone, but I certainly think there are enough different elements that anyone would be able to find something and be able to participate in the space. I think it's important to be able to make a decision and move forward with this project. It's almost seven years in the making. KL: I just want to make sure...you know we've spent a lot of time reviewing this, a lot of money has been spent designing and reevaluating this... that we get that end product, and if more money is needed to achieve these things then we've got that flexibility. I think we need to keep that in mind. VG: My thoughts are if we are constrained within the budgetary process to meet a certain dollar amount, I think that I would concur with what the other commissioners have said and feel like this is a good plan. I think if the budget is $6 Million with a few hundred thousand dollars for renovations and then some capital contingencies, I think this makes sense and I think we've done a good job with this. My concern...personally, Ithink we had communicated this in the Community Services Commission meeting last month is that I think there's more that can be done with the knoll area and when you look at the process in and of itself, there's not a lot of hiking trails or walking trails. The orchard kind of removes some of the usability of that site and removes some of that view. So, I think if we're stuck with the budget and if there is no way to do that, I think it might be there, but my personal feeling is if there's a way that somehow that we can stretch and expand the budget a little bit I think some of the designs that we've seen in the past for the knoll area represent a superior way to realize the objectives of the community. For example, I think with the hiking trail the greater extent of the hiking trail we had in the original design or even some of the alternate designs probably doubled or tripled the hiking area that people would be able to use. I think that's a valued benefit. Some of the concepts, and I know we want to balance the needs of the local resident with the community as a whole, but I do think there's more utilization of the facility that could be done with a little bit more open design. But again, I think we recognize the constraints that the city is under and if that $6 Million number as far as the base case is what's there, I think we are fairly stripped down in the northern and southern areas of the park. I do think in that knoll area, if we were to have an extra $1 Million or $1.5 Million, I think we could do a lot more with that and really exploit the power of this site. I'm a little concerned, for example with the lemon trees; I don't know how aesthetically pleasing they are to be in that quantity. And again, I like them; I think we should have at least 20% of the orchard stay there so we maintain the history, but there's just a lot there. What do the rest of you think about that? KL: I agree with you. I think it really limits our functionality of the property. There's not a whole lot you can do but look at them. KPA: Director Wilson, has staff investigated any type of grant funding, especially because there's a lot of history and preservation involved? I know in my professional field that there are various fenders that maybe interested in this type of a project? DW: Yes we do have a grant for this. We have been given firm direction that this $7,000,000 is the maximum we can spend on this park at this time. We would hope that the Commission could come to a consensus on this plan tonight. What we're recommending is to move this plan forward to have the City Council review it with your comments attached and let them discuss it if you feel it is a strong enough plan to do so. This plan is within the budget, it's within the intent of the original design, and it's at the maximum amount of dollars we have to spend. There are no additional monies available for this park. It is what it is. It's a $7,000,000 park. We do have other parks coming down the road that we need to expend funds on. This park has been in the works for seven years. The first workshop was in 2000. It's staff's position that we need to move this along to the Council. And we would hope that there could be a consensus here tonight. In any case we will move it along with your comments attached for the Council to review. VG: I think in terms of if I could consolidate what all of us have said, we certainly would agree with it moving forward. I think Commissioner Powell Albarian's comments that it's been seven years and we need to move it forward, I think all of us agree with that 100%, so we definitely want to move it forward. I think maybe, and we'll give specific feedback on this particular design in a second. And I'd like to hear Commissioner Nunez, but I think if we could maybe have... if the other Commissioners would agree that our general consensus is that we like the design but we do think we could get a much better utilization of the park if the budget were higher than what we have at this point. Would everybody feel that that is accurately representing our feelings with that? DW Do you all feel comfortable enough to move the park along with that comment attached? VG: Yes, with our other comments as well, but we have another chance to do. I would like to hear, Tim, your thoughts on the maintenance of the grove. I'm a little bit concerned about how that's going to work and whether that's going to have a long term negative impact on the project. TS: Thank you, Chairman Glaser. The original concept was to rejuvenate the grove. I believe it was around $289,000 - $300,000 in there for the irrigation system, etc. I had... then we had Larry look at possibly removing the entire grove, replacing it with natural vegetation. That came out to a cost of $2.2 Million with an annual maintenance cost of around $42,000 without water. If you add up the monthly water in, you're looking at probably $52-$53 Thousand a year for the maintenance. In the interim I had a chance to talk with some growers and some people that represent growers. They felt the grove could be rejuvenated. If we were to go organic fruit it would take roughly three years from the time you stop spraying the fruit until you actually can sell it. It's about a three year time period. They felt we could get roughly 400 boxes an acre; 4000 boxes of lemons a year at $12 a box, it would come to around $48,000 that we could get back from growing lemons. That may cover the maintenance of the grove. At ten acres they figured $2,000 /acre for annual farm maintenance. I roughly doubled that figure and if they could do it for $2,000, for an additional $4,000 or $5,000/acre, we should get a Cadillac grove. So the maintenance of $50,000 a year wasn't out of range compared with what natural vegetation would take. Now with the trees, because they are grafted trees, they were originally grapefruit trees and the lemon was grafted on, they will always be a little smaller in size than a normal lemon or orange tree. But the economics started making more sense than anything to me. The removal was $2.2 Million; to rejuvenate it was $300,000 and the maintenance is roughly the same. I'm still meeting with growers and members of the co-op to see what that is because I don't know anything about a lemon grove. I need to confirm it from more than one source. In any case, it looks more feasible now to keep the grove. My thought was that construction could take place; they'd fence off the area of the grove through the construction of the park and simultaneously we'd start rejuvenating the grove and see where we got on that. VG: How much is the cost of the non grove renovation portion of the knoll? Like to do the hiking trails and to build the shade structure up top. How much is that: TS: Larry might have a better answer for that. Let me check my notes. DW: Chair Glaser, as Larry is looking for his notes, again, if we do leave the existing trees and that does fit within our budget, if we start renovating and that does drive up costs, and if we get back more into the $8.9 Million range, so if you add the $2Million to the $6 Million or the $7 Million, were out of budget already, so the decision to leave the knoll in is not only driven by what the needs or wants of the community were, but also, it's a budgetary decision as well. VG: That's why I was just curious on the amount of the existing renovation on the grove to understand what the real difference is there. Because really we have three major sections there; the north, the south and the knoll. I was trying to get a feel for the $6Million: how much is allocated to each one of those. LM: I have roughly $700,000 for the improvements to the grove. TS: I had in the original first alternative with everything I had roughly calculated a cost of $1.8 Million for the knoll and the grove, so if you take out the $300,000, I had about 1.6 Million originally in there for the knoll improvements, separating it from the south and the north area. And that was with the stairs, with the stadium seating, all sorts of things up in that grove VG: So I think if I'm understanding the numbers right, it would be accurate to say that take out a large portion of the orchard, but leave a significant portion there, it sounds like it's about $1 Million more than what this is if it's $1.8Million for that and $700,000 for the one that we have right here, the more extensive redesign up there is going to be about $1 Million more than what this budget is. TS: As you take out the grove and replace it with something else it gets progressively more expensive, which is something I learned from analyzing this. And I was a proponent of removing the grove at first and replacing it with something, because I thought the maintenance cost would go down significantly in that the removal and replacement cost was not so high. But the $2.2 Million to replace it with natural vegetation kind of astounded me. VG: Right, which is a little bit more than what the original was in the $2.2 Million.. . TS: The $2.2 wasn't in the original. The first alternative was leaving the grove there and rejuvenating it. And natural vegetation of course isn't really natural vegetation, it's stuff you plant and then water and weed and take care of it. VG: Right, it's natural in that it's indigenous to our area. Any other comments on that? Maybe if we can share our thoughts on the existing design. Any comments or adjustments? KPA: I will give Vice Chair Nunez comments. Just glancing at it, it appears it will drive the cost up. Brace yourselves. (She read the comments submitted by Chair Pro Tem Hank Nunez.) After reviewing the packet from our board meeting I think we can bring this in at $7 Million by making our adjustments throughout the park. He has broken it down into three different areas. One is the viewpoint at the summit. He is really lobbying to see a brace of trees as sort of an entryway up to the knoll area. He thinks the trees should be uniformed, 6" white paint stripes so they're all in line with each other. He also would like to have additional parking next to Jamboree at the base of the viewpoint and some tot lot apparatus, some swings, a shade structure, an eating area with a non covered table, water fountains and restrooms. So it sounds like he's duplicating some of what we already have if I'm reading this correctly. On the passive park area to the west beginning at the foothill of the grove nearest Tustin Ranch Road, he would like to see cement tables, open picnic areas, covered by mature shade trees and no recreational apparatus. He's looking at it as being more of a passive area for playing Frisbee and ball. And any walking or jogging trails should run throughout areas two and three. There should be fencing around the perimeter of the park for safety concerns. VG: Any other comments on the existing plan? My comments on the existing plan would be, and again I think some of this is somewhat limited by budget, but I would like to see more hiking trails there and a little bit more distance for people to go. If there was a way to do that even if it was inexpensive. I agree with Chair Pro Tem Nunez' comments about the importance of some type of fencing to separate the park from the other areas for security purposes. And I think we should put the interpretive and educational aspects of the park in the original design and we shouldn't wait on that. The other comment that I'll just make that kind of relates between the two discussion areas, but from everything we just talked about it seems to me that if we agreed to put an extra million dollars into this park I think we're going to have something that's phenomenal and that we all get really excited about. When I look at the park that we have right here, my feeling is that I like it; I think it's going to be a good park and I think it's going to be one of the nicest passive parks in Tustin, but I think we're under utilizing one of the nicest pieces of real estate in Tustin. And I think even some of Chair Pro Tem Nunez; comments are really designed to get the utilization of the space up and I think the part of how we got it within our budget, you know my feeling at least on the Commission and again I'd encourage the rest of you to agree or disagree with it, and get your opinions on it, but my feeling is that we really should take advantage of this and that it might be worth sacrificing in some other areas. Again I just want to reiterate from my perspective I fully trust the City Council and the City Manager to make those types of decisions. I just think as a Community Services Commissioner our job is to represent the interests of the people and the way to get the best park possible. And we don't have access to all the information about the overall funding, but I just think if we look at the relative bang for an extra million dollars here I think it's huge and by being able to maybe take out some of the grove, reduce some of the maintenance issues, expand the hiking trails, add some of the interpretive and educational dimensions to the park right away, I think we' d really get something special that would be a statement park and bring it beyond the ok to the phenomenal. Any other thoughts or comments? KL: Through the chair... I agree with you. VG: If there aren't any other discussion points I think we probably need to come up with a motion here n what to do. KPA: It's a little unclear. Obviously the recommendation here is to approve this concept to the City Council for their review or input. With the chair's comments about an additional million dollars to help with this project, how does that impact our.. . VG: Maybe we could make a motion and we're certainly open to City input on how to do this since we're all fairly new on the Commission, but maybe the motion could be that we move to place this design put it in front of the City Council for their feedback with the caveat that the Commission's desire or wish list would be that we really believe that a budget expansion would be well utilized, but at the same point, if we're going to be within the budget, assuming that some of the issues and I do have some concerns with things like the maintenance of the grove, but I think in many ways we have to trust the experts like you that you've done due diligence on that, but I think that's probably somewhat what the motion should be...where we move to move it forward with the comments we make on the design, but then recommend that we think the City Council would get a bang for the buck to increase the budget. KL: I second that motion. DW: So Chair Glaser, If I hear you correctly you would like to move this park design for council review with your comments attached for their review and comment. VG: I think the summary comment would be that we like the plan, but we think it could be so much better if we were to increase the budget and that would be our recommendation without having full knowledge of the budget. And again, we certainly understand that we want to be as fiscally prudent as possible with all of the City's money. KPA: Second VG: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, Aye (unanimous). Motion carried. Motion: Recommend to the City Council the proposed modified park design with Commissioners' comments attached for review and approval and direct staff to prepare a report to Council.