CCMIN020414 - Laserfiche WebLink

specifically, the description of what was then called the Grand Meadow calls for a very natural and serene area which seems to be inconsistent with what a dog park would bring to the area Measure P also listed all subareas of the Bemal Property and indicated the allowable uses for the Oak.Woodland subarea as agriculture, open space, passive recreation, trails and utilities. Staffs perspective is that these uses are in conflict with a dog park. However, staff does believe that because the dog park is referenced as part of the planning documents, a case could be made that certain areas could potentially support the location of a dog park. The three specific areas are Site 5, most notably known as the potential child care site Site 12, most specifically identified as a park and ride area, and Site 13, indicated to be an environmental education center/Native American historic reflective area. The description for each of these three subareas stipulates that they could also be other public and quasi-public uses determined by the Council to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff believes the Council has the authority to make a decision that this would be an appropriate use though it would require further analysis by staff and the Commission. Mr. Bocian stated that staff is recommending that the Council and Commission use the February 24, 2014 workshop to discuss the Draft. Parks and Recreation Master Plan, to affirm the need for a dog park, and to discuss a potential action plan if the interest for such exists. Staff would then return to the Council with further information for review as part of the annual Work Plan and Priority Setting process. An alternative action, should the Council be inclined to proceed with a dog park at.either the Oak Woodland Area or Bemal Community Park, would be to direct staff to prepare a course of action to bring back information relative to potential costs within the context of the current planning process. Staff and the architect have not met specifically to discuss the impact on the overall design of the project but it would likely affect the ability to present the project this spring. Councilmember Narum asked where the dog park had been located originally. Mr. Bocian referred her to Attachment 3, Draft Bernal Park Master Site Plan, of the agenda report:. Vice-Mayor Pentin asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that it was removed by the Council just prior to directing staff to prepare the illustrative plan to place on the Measure P ballot. Mayor Thome asked if restoring the use at that location would require another vote. Mr. Fialho said that based on staff's interpretation of Measure and the specific Council direction, an amendment to the illustrative plan would require voter ratification. Councilmember Brown noted this is a conservative interpretation by staffs own admission. Mr. Bocian confirmed and said that is typically staffs approach with any voter approved issue. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked whether the ballot language failed to reference playground equipment or any other use that might seem obvious. Mr. Bocian said there are references to the illustrative plan, which include fields, play areas and recreation areas. Vice-Mayor Pentin suggested that throwing a Frisbee to your dog could be considered recreation. Mr. Fialho explained that it is essentially a Council policy issue. The Council at the time was very specific in its direction to remove the dog park. The illustrative map was fashioned to mirror zoning and to show the public generally what all the uses would be in the context of the various phases. Even if one were to make the leap suggested by the Vice-Mayor, the dog park was part of Phase 4 and not Phase 2 which is currently under discussion. Staff does believe the Bernal Property, which is much City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15 February 4,2014