SPP PARKS & OPEN SPACE SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF MEMO
Meeting Date: July 13, 2026
From: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director
Subject: Parcel R Park Development
Recommendation
Receive an update on the Parcel R Park Development Project and provide feedback on two design and project delivery considerations to guide the next phase of project development.
Background
On June 18, 2026, the City Council adopted the Parcel R Park Development Plan, establishing a conceptual framework for future park improvements at Sierra Point. The approved concept reflects several years of planning, public outreach, technical evaluation, and recommendations from the Sierra Point Park Subcommittee. The adopted concept includes a variety of passive and active recreational amenities designed to create a resilient, accessible, and communityoriented waterfront destination.
As staff prepares to advance the project into the next phase of design and implementation, several project decisions remain that could influence project cost, schedule, long-term maintenance, and procurement strategy. Staff are seeking the Subcommittee's feedback on these items before returning to the City Council with future recommendations.
Discussion
1. Turf Selection
The adopted concept plan currently incorporates artificial turf within the event lawn area.
During the June 18, 2026, City Council meeting, Council discussed both natural and artificial turf, including lifecycle costs, maintenance requirements, durability, and public health considerations.
While artificial turf generally requires a higher initial investment, it offers reduced irrigation demands and lower routine maintenance. Natural turf typically has a lower installation cost but requires ongoing irrigation, mowing, fertilization, and periodic rehabilitation. Over an anticipated 30-year project life, the total lifecycle costs of both alternatives are expected to be generally comparable, although the timing of expenditures differs between the two options.
The Subcommittee is asked to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach and provide feedback regarding the preferred turf material for future design development.
2. Project Delivery Method
As the project advances, the City will also need to determine the most appropriate project delivery method.
One option is the City's traditional Design-Bid-Build approach, in which the project design is completed before construction is competitively bid.
Alternatively, the City could explore a Design-Build delivery method, allowing the design and construction teams to work collaboratively throughout final design and construction. Because the project also includes a separate public art component that will require its own competitive procurement process, staff are seeking input on whether a Design-Build approach should be considered or whether the City should proceed with its traditional Design-Bid-Build process.
Staff are requesting the Subcommittee's feedback on both topics to help inform future recommendations to the City Council as the project advances into final design and implementation.