HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-1999 Playfield Minutes
Meeting Repart
Date: 1.15.99
Meeting Type: Blue Hills Follow Up
Meeting Date: 1.12.99
Meeting Time: 4:00-6:OOpm
Meeting Location: Saratoga City Offices
From: Jeff Kreps, tbgi
Copy to: ®All Attendees
Jay Beals, tbgi
-,
~. ...
thebealsgroup
- li~r1 .'~.)1h~.
~~.u ~ ,a,.~,3i;yr .,..
~;~~„ N~)rth h~l.~~~a? F~ru- F
~ sn Jusa C~tlifcri•~i~ a=~.
,, , ^I~.,, ., _ , ~3,
Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev.
Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Attendees:
Irene Jacobs, City
Judy Alberts, PRC
Sonja Shurr, CUSD
Sally Calvert, Cup. LL
Bob Joyce, CYSA
Bob Kong, Stga. LL
Mark Linslcy, AYSO
David Mighdoll, CYSA
This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be
acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting.
Meeting Context: Preliminary meetings with School District representatives, City staff, and User
Group representatives have been completed and feedback on design
proposals has been received. Public meetings have been held for this site to
gather information from neighbors regarding their concerns. Proposal is close
to being finalized, but we have design revisions and details of the lease and
maintenance agreement to work out.
Meeting Purpose: 1) Review how we got here and discuss next steps
2) Review design proposals and associated costs
3) Discuss elements of a draft leaselmaintenance agreement
Intended Results: 1) Reach consensus on: Design, Lease language, Maintenance Costs,
Construction Costs.
I. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
II. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Jay Beals introduced the project by revisiting the events leading up to the present.
Briefly: the Task Force had recommended Blue Hills as a primary study site; design
proposals were drawn up and presented to the City, School District for comments,
revised before a public meeting, and then further revised to include feedback from
the public. The present meeting would be to review those revised proposals, arrive
at consensus regarding ane of the alternatives, and recommend that plan to the
Task Force with any modifications. Jay stressed the importance of this meeting
because the Task Force would be asked to make a final recommendation to the
PRC and City Council based on input from this meeting.
F1Jobs98198-12 Sazatoga ConsukinglMeeting ItemslFolbw up meetingslMtgRptBH1.1.12.99.dce
Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. ~
Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: City Offices "
•
B. Jay reviewed the primary motivators for developing the Blue Hills site: The
Community is in desperate need of athletic fields for its children; the current field
system is overused and this site would help lessen the burden at the other sites,
which, in turn, would help keep maintenance issues under control; it was a
tremendous opportunity for the City to partner with the School District to provide
space for recreation, as well as to provide same type of joint maintenance
agreement wherein the burden would not be placed on any one entity.
C. Jay spoke briefly about maintenance issues and costs, outlining the various "levels"
that could be provided at different costs. All present were reminded that a key issue
was not simply getting the facility built, but keeping it maintained to the level desired
by the various groups involved. Put bluntly, if maintenance money was not available
through some combination of the involved groups, then the facility would not be built
and money would be spent on existing fields. All agreed that the need for more
fields was sufficient reason to find a way to pay for maintenance-provided they
were assured of getting what they were paying for.
D. For comparison, Mark Linsky asked what "level" of maintenance Congress Springs
was currently receiving. He was told that maintenance probably fell into the "base"
category, which is a "minimum."
III. SITE REVIEW
A. A review of the previous Blue Hills proposals was given. Four alternatives had been
presented to the public for comment. A very brief summary of public comment on the
four previous design proposals revealed that the major concern was for the safety of •
children/parents in the area-which relates to the issues of traffic patterns,
speeding, volume, etc. It was also felt that the existing traffic situation was terrible,
and any increase would not only make it worse during school hours, but also carry
over into after-school hours and weekends. Another major complaint was that they
felt if the space was going to be developed, then there should be more of an effort
to provide park space for them that was not "flat grass." Some neighbors also were
concerned about noise.
B. After review, the four plans were refocused into the two current proposals. Major
competing elements were: safety at the school site, location of increased parking,
traffic patterns, field layout, design and size of the expanded "public park", cost, etc.
In summary:
1. Proposal 2A provided for: An additional parking lot parallel to Goleta Ave.
(63 spaces); an east/west field layout which was less than ideal from a
player's standpoint, but which was positive in terms of helping to prevent
balls from going into neighbors' yards or into the freeway corridor; a
restroom/concession facility, and a large public park area. Turf displaced by
the new parking lot would be regained by converting the current mulch/tree
border on the school site primarily into turf.
2. Proposal 3A provided for: Additional parking (67 spaces) to be extended into
the school property from the existing lot (this parking lot configuration would
necessitate relocating several modular classrooms and relocating displaced
school hard-court and tanbark areas); anorth/south field layout which
allowed for the possibility of conflict with the north neighbors and for balls to •
possibly enter the freeway corridor; arestroom/concession facility; a large
public park area.
F:Uobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuRinglMeeting ItemslForaw up meetingslMtgRptBH2-1 12.99.doc 2
Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev.
Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: City Offices
:~
C. Fencing options for both proposals were discussed. Key points were: the ability of
the school to restrict who has access to their property during school hours; being
able to monitor the children visually from the hard-court area; allowing the public
maximum space for school-hour use; providing fencing such that it doesn't encroach
on the field areas.
D. The forum was then opened for discussion about the two proposals.
1. Sonja Shurr stated that, from the School's point of view, Option 2A provided
them with more flexibility to rearrange the modular classrooms in the future to
maximize the safety and visibility of the children. She felt that extending the
parking lot into the school property (as in 3A) would restrict their options.
She also felt that the extended parking lot would be an invitation for people
to speed through it, since it was the policy of the School District not to use
speed bumps.
2. Bob Kong asked if the facility would be soccer only. It was presented that
the site would be grass only, with no cut infields, but that practice backstops
were certainly planned-since the School uses them for their activities
3. anyway.
It was also mentioned that the hope was to provide large fields at this site so
that the older kids could play there, and that this would help reduce the traffic
daring non-school hours. This would also lessen the burden at other sites-
which would, in turn, reduce maintenance requirements an costs.
• 4. Judy Alberts voiced concern for the safety of the children as they traveled
from the proposed parking lot along Goleta Ave. to the School or the YMCA
facility. She felt that circulation issues would definitely need to be worked
out, and that access to the parking lot might have to be restricted and/or
monitored during the day. In addition, fencing would need to be put up
between the parking lot and the field area.
5. It was agreed by all that the proposed parking lot along Goleta Ave. would be
in better proximity to the fields and that it would definitely lessen the
problems with parking on-street and U-turning. It would also provide an
opportunity for parents to pull into a "safe" area off the street to pickup and
drop off their kids. However, it was also agreed that the parking lot would be
directly across from neighbors and would need to be designed so as to
minimize conflicts, both functionally and aesthetically.
6. The cost and need for a restroom facility was brought up. Bob Joyce said
that simply providing portable toilets was dramatically cheaper and had
worked well at other sites. Mark Linsky stated that they really didn't need a
concessions facility-restrooms would suffice. It was proposed that a
concrete pad and minimal structure be constructed to house the portables. N
was agreed that, though portables were less expensive, there tended to be
resistance to them from an aesthetic standpoint. It was agreed that if the
"portable" option was chosen, then the utilities should be provided and
"capped" so that future construction of a formal restroom facility could be
undertaken, if desired.
7. Ultimately, when asked to choose between the two proposals, everyone
• agreed that while both plans had many things to be worked out, proposal
"2A" seemed to accommodate the needs of each of the concerned parties
the best, though representatives from both Little League groups re-stated
F:Uobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsulinglMeeting ItemslFolbw up meetingslMtgRpt8H2-1.12.99.doc 3
Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev.
Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: City Offices
their opinion that a "skinned" infield was also needed in this part of town.
Therefore it is the plan in proposal 2A (with minor modifications) which will be
taken forward to the Task Force for final "approval."
IV. POTENTIAL MAINTENANCE COSTS
A. Costs for maintenance of turf areas at various "levels" were presented. Jay stated
that the numbers were general, and were based on information provided by the
School District, City, and private landscape contractors. The costs for similar service
varied from group to group, which made direct comparison difficult, but "orders of
magnitude" were at least evident. In this way, members were able to see how much
"extra" it would cost per acre of turf to increase the maintenance standards. The
costs also gave a general idea of how much money the user groups would have to
come up with to make the project possible.
B. Regarding who would perform the maintenance, Sonja Shurr stated that the School
District would not allow an outside contractor to perform the work (because of union
issues). And since the City cannot bear the burden of any increased maintenance, it
was suggested that the school maintenance staff could takeover the additional turf
areas provided they were compensated, and provided they were able to perform the
chosen "regime" to the satisfaction of the various user groups.
C. Mark Linsky expressed concern about entering into an agreement with a union who
might have their own "agenda"-meaning: How would the groups be sure that they
were going to get what they were paying for? This concern was echoed by Bob
Joyce and others.
D. Jay said the easiest way to maintain control over quality is to make everything as
easy as possible for the School District; let them do what they can and then have the
users and the City pick up the rest (if an agreement can be reached with the School
District).
E. It was asked whether the maintenance fees were "seasonal" or "yearly." Jay
explained that any maintenance agreement would be yearly, and would include
monthly work to be accomplished to set standards (accounting for weather, etc.)
F. Several user group representatives asked whether they would have any control over
who used the site? It was explained that no one could be excluded from using the
site, but that the fee-paying, "permitted" users would have set rights to times and
locations that would be "inviolable." Essentially, this boils down to a significant
scheduling situation. All users who are paying want to feel like they're able to use
the fields they're paying for. On the other hand, users felt they should be able to
impose certain restrictions on field use since they were going to be paying for
maintenance.
G. David Mighdoll asked what mechanism the City had to generate funds for this type
of thing and stated that he felt, since the park was public, the City should find some
way to absorb the cost of maintenance. Irene Jacobs, with the City, agreed, but
stated that for a number of financial reasons, the City was currently unable to do
that. However, she pointed out that the solution of having "someone else" pay for
maintenance should be considered an "interim" solution, and that the users and
others should take it upon themselves to try to create awareness in the public eye
such that it might be possible to pass another tax or bond measure which would '
provide the necessary funds for park maintenance in the future. Everyone present
agreed that it would take strong leadership in the community and a huge grass-roots
effort to pass such a measure.
F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsumnglMeeting ItemslFobw up meetings~MtgRptBH2-1.12.99.doc 4
t Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev.
Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: City Offices
LJ
V. LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
A. When asked if they were willing to enter into discussion about jointly paying the
maintenance fees indicated in the maintenance projections, representatives from
each of the groups present stated that they were at least willing to discuss the .
situation, though there was much debate about how each group would be charged;
and how the fees would be split-for instance, Little League felt that the fees should
be tied to their usage.
B. CYSA stated that they were willing to enter into some type of agreement provided
they had some control over the "quality" of both the construction and maintenance of
the site.
C. AYSO felt that the fees should not be assessed on a "per-person" basis, but rather
on a site-by-site basis according to projected maintenance costs and according to
the "type" and "amount" of use for each of the various groups.
D. CYSA and LL representatives felt that aper-person fee was better, or perhaps a fee
charged "by-the-hour."
E. Jay suggested that there be a central "body" which would handle the scheduling,
permitting, fee collection, fee distribution, etc. He also suggested that this same
"body" would be responsible for setting forth and monitoring the maintenance
regime.
F. At the end of the discussion, the most important issue had been agreed to-that all
groups were willing to come up with a portion of the projected maintenance fees.
• This agreement provides that the Blue Hills project site can go forward to the Task
Force for approval. However, the mechanics and specifics of fee assessment,
monitoring, etc. are still to be decided-we hope at the Task Force meeting on
Tuesday, January 19.
VI. NEXT STEPS
A. As of this writing, a "pre-meeting packet" has been sent to all Task Force members
in preparation for the final Task Force meeting.
VII. SCHEDULE
A. Task Force Meeting #4
Tuesday, January 19, 1999
Saratoga City Offices
4:00-6:OOpm
• End of Report
F:Uobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuMinglMeeting ItemslFoNow up meetingslMtgRptBH2-t.12.99.doc cJ