Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-1999 Playfield Minutes . ~ tUri '?S.' 1:'~~ ~ ~ t~la ';t~." ~ Meeting Report F.,~. thebea~sgroup ~::,,~~~,,,~<<,,,, ,,~e, , . Date: 1.20.99 Meeting Type: Task Force #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.99 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Time: 4:00-6:OOpm Meeting Location: Saratoga City Offices . From: Jeff Kreps, tbgi Attendees: City Staff, PRC Representatives, School Dist. Representatives, User Group Representatives, tbgi principal and staff Copy to: ®All Attendees Jay Beals, tbgi 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: Input for all four of the priority sites has been gathered from the User Groups, neighbors, School Districts and the City. Design proposals and costs as well as projected maintenance costs have been revised to reflect this input. We now need final recommendations to carry forward to PRC and Council. • Meeting Purpose: 1) Present and discuss current design proposals for each site 2) Discuss maintenance requirements for respective design proposals 3) Discuss partnering options and accountability for maintenance routines at each site. Intended Results: Final Recommendation consisting of: 1) Consensus on Design Proposals, Costs, and Site Prioritization 2) Consensus on Maintenance Levels and Costs for each site 3) Consensus on Accountability for Maintenance Items 4) Consensus on Lease/Maintenance Language WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT HISTORY SINCE TASK FORCE MTG. #3 A. Jay Beals gave a brief summary of the project since the last Task Force meeting in August. At that meeting the original 10 study sites were reduced to the current 4 for further study. To accomplish this detailed study several meetings were held for each site which included different groups of representatives (for instance the School Districts met with the City, the Users met with the School District, etc.). In addition, public meetings were held for each site, and the input from neighbors was then distributed to members of the Task Force. Following the public meetings, the • proposals were reviewed by the groups representing each site and revisions were made before the final Task Force Mtg. F:Uobs98198.12 Saratoga ConsukinglMeeting ItemslTask Force g4lMeeting ReportTFfl4.doc Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: City Offices • B. Jay gave a summary of concerns that arose at the public meetings (the primary concern being safety as it relates to increased traffic loads), and indicated that, ultimately, everyone wanted what was best for the community-however that was defined. III. FEE ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION A. In the interest of facilitating smooth relationships between all the potential parties involved in the process Jay spoke briefly about the need for some type of "monitoring agency" to help oversee items such as compliance with established ,maintenance standards, permitting and scheduling (in association with the City and School Districts), collection of fees, fundraising, etc. The structure of such an organization was not discussed, but the Task Force was asked if they felt such an organization was needed. They said they did, but with the following comments: 1. It was suggested that any "agency" should be representative of all school and park sites within the City of Saratoga limits, not just the four sites focused on by the Task Force. 2. The School Districts requested some type of control over the maintenance routines, and some flexibility built into the agreement regarding penalties for "non-compliance." It needs to be understood that "things come up" and the exact program is not always able to be followed to the letter. And from the School's point of view, the needs of the School will always come first; beyond that, they're happy to do what they can to help keep the fields in good shape. • 3. This "monitor" would have to carefully determine the limits of this "flexibility." 4. The organization would have to be very low cost, with very low overhead. 5. School Districts reminded everyone that this "monitoring agency" would have the freedom only to make recommendations to the school districts, but that the District and/or the City would have the final say on what was done and how money was spent. 6. It was agreed that the "monitor" should avoid all political affiliation and potential bureaucratic red tape. IV. PRESENTATION OF CURRENT PROPOSALS A. BLUE HILLS ELEMENTARY-Jay presented the most recent proposal which reflected input from the School District, City, Users, and neighbors. !t was explained that one of the primary objectives in developing this site is to help ease the burden at other sites. However, it was pointed out that, though groups or teams might shift location (for instance from Congress Springs to Blue Hills), there is enough need for fields that any space, current or future, would be used to its maximum potential. (For example, CYSA hasn't been playing much in Saratoga because the fields haven't been available. If more fields were to open up, then CYSA would definitely be interested in sharing their use as because many of their kids come from Saratoga.} This doesn't have to be a negative thing if the "monitoring agency" is willing to look closely at scheduling practices and games at the City-wide level, and to adopt a "field rotation" system wherein a given field will get a chance to rest periodically. Other feedback regarding the Blue Hills proposal follows below: 1. It was acknowledged that the proposed development would have to clear • some significant hurdles regarding safety and traffic issues before it would gain total support from the neighborhood groups. However, it was also noted that there were neighbors who has expressed interest in working with the F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsukirglMeeting ItemslTask Force #41Meeting ReportTF#4.doc 2 ~~ Meeting Minutes for: Meeting Date: Meeting Location: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 9&12 City Offices • Task Force so that a proposal could be reached in which all groups were happy. 2. It should be noted that the cost projection for this site includes neither baseball facilities-permanent, with skinned infields- nor restroom facilities. 3. Regarding baseball, Task Force members were informed that the site would be used for practice only (turf infield areas) and that there were no plans at this time to add a dirt infield facility appropriate for games. 4. It was noted that, within the boundary of the Cupertino American Little League district, there were no dirt infields, which was why this was needed at the Blue Hills site. 5. Having at least practice facilities at this site was very important in light of the fact that both Redwood and Argonaut Elementary School fields would be taken out of service for one year each in the near future. 6. Regarding maintenance of this facility, the City said they were working on the possibility of being able to take care of the non-turf portions of the site- essentially the "public park° areas. The City is enthusiastic about the project and is trying to do whatever it takes to get the project off the ground. 7. There was some concern that the City, in the past, had said they were unable to do any maintenance, yet, here they were saying they would possibly be able to do so. The City responded by saying they would present the issue to Council phrased in this way:" ...the neighboring public wants a 'park' in order to support this project, and since we want and need their support, we need to do whatever it takes to help accommodate them. And if • this means that some money has to be spent on maintenance of landscaped areas, then 'let's try to do it."' 8. It was reiterated that the whole issue of the User Groups paying extra money for maintenance was supposed to be an interim solution until public support could be generated for a bond (or other) measure that would provide the necessary funds for park maintenance. And, for their part, the Users said they were willing to bear that financial burden provided it was temporary, and that they had some control over both the use and maintenance of the fields they were going to be paying for. (Though, it is unlikely that any one group would be "assigned a specific facility. More likely is that all funds would go into a maintenance "fund" to be distributed City-wide among all the facilities being used far youth athletics.) 9. A final note about maintenance: though the City might be able to take over the maintenance of "landscaped" areas, it was presented that the School District would most likely take over the maintenance of the increased turf area. The District indicated that this would only be possible if they were compensated for the additional area, and if they weren't expected to perform routines above what they currently perform at their school sites. Task Force members were in agreement with these terms. In addition, the Users would be expected to bear the general burden of keeping the fields picked up, etc., as they currently do. B. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK-The proposal was presented (essentially, turf • reno vation and minor repairs and upgrades to existing facilities) and was then opened up for discussion. 1. As was noted earlier, it was expected that Congress Springs would still be used to its full potential, even if Blue Hills were developed. This being the F:Wobs98\98-12 Saratoga ConsuNng\Meeting ItemslTask Foroe #41Meetug ReportTF#4.da 3 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: City Offices case, it was noted that the maintenance level would have to be increased to prevent the turf areas from declining to the point where they currently are. This increased maintenance would come at a cost to the user groups. 2. Again, User Groups stated a wi{lingness to help with funding for the increase in maintenance. 3. The current proposal would restore the. fields to a very good condition from which to start a new maintenance program. 4. Jay talked about the availability of tests capable of determining actual impact to a site after a specific use. This type of testing might be necessary in order to accurately gauge each user group's impact on the turf, and to therefore equitably assess maintenance fees. 5. Again, the idea of rotating fields and giving them a chance to rest was presented-especially if Blue Hills was developed. The "monitoring agency" could oversee this rotation. 6. Little League representatives expressed concern that the soccer groups were taking all the available fields. AYSO representatives countered by saying that they are only trying to meet the needs of a growing soccer community. 7. Maintenance at this site was fairly straightforward. The City would continue to maintain the turf areas, though any requested or required increase in maintenance regimes would necessitate additional monetary compensation from the User groups. In addition, the Little Leagues would continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the infield areas, backstops, etc. C. MARSHALL LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL-The presentation of this site began with an acknowledgement that there was significant opposition to any development at Marshall Lane which might increase traffic and, therefore, further decrease the safety of an already unsafe area. It was also stated that in this age of expanding population and youth sports leagues, the days of underutilized school sites such as Marshall Lane were at a close. It was hoped by ail present (except those neighbors who are opposed to any development of this site at a11) that some type ofi compromise could be reached in order to benefit both the children in the leagues as well as the greater Saratoga community. 1. The Mayor of Saratoga asked if it was within the purview of this Task Force to study the effects of increased (if any) traffic at this site. Another City staff member explained that that, at this time, it was not within the scope of the Task Force to evaluate traffic impacts, but simply to make the recommendation to Council that the site be considered for development as proposed. However, the City also stated that they will be consulting with a traffic engineer in the near future, and traffic analyses, as well as Environmental Impact Statements-where necessary-would definitely be parts of the process if Council gave the overall project the "OK" to proceed. 2. Task Force members were informed that their recommendation to Council regarding Marshall Lane would have to include a statement to the effect that "any development would have to respect the neighbors' concerns, and that they would be willing to work closely with the neighbors in_ order to achieve a satisfactory result." 3. It was also noted that there was some neighborhood support for the project as presented. 4. School District representatives reminded everyone that we were still at the "conceptual" stage, and that there were still many more steps in the process F:Uobs98198.12 Saratoga ConsukinglMeeting ItemslTask Force #41Meeling ReportTFNd.doc 4 CJ C7 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: City Offices • before a "final plan" was developed. (Steps such as presentations to the PRC, School Boards, City Council, etc.) There would be additional opportunities in the future to work out the details and to debate pros and cons. The purpose of the Task Force meeting was for the Groups to simply say, "Yes, we think this site is needed and deserves further study." 5. Quito Little League stated that they are in desperate need of fields within their boundaries, and that this site would serve a large portion of their members and is the only site on that side of town with the opportunity for development. 6. Neighborhood residents read a prepared statement wherein they voiced their opposition to the project in any form, and the fact that they felt discriminated against by not being "allowed " to talk at this meeting. 7. Task Force members were sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors, but were equally adamant that the needs of the greater community needed to be considered as well. There are very few places left in the City of Saratoga with the potential to accommodate the increasing needs of Saratoga's youth. 8. Maintenance at this site would be split: the School would continue to maintain their turf areas at the current "level;" if built, the infields would be the responsibility of Quito Little League and/or any other groups using the fields. Any restroom facilities, if built--and it appears to be a significant "if"-would also be the responsibility of the User Groups-though the District would want to have access. • D. FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL-The proposal for Foothill School was under negotiation between the School District and the primary User-LG/Saratoga Girls Softball-until just before the Task Force meeting started. The results of that negotiation are as follows: The School District's priority for the use of funds at this site was for turf renovation while utilizing the existing irrigation system. The LG/SGS League priorities had been stated to be a restroom/concession facility, covered dugouts, etc. After viewing the current proposal and its associated costs, both parties felt that they could get what they needed most. They would essentially split the allocated amount such that the District got the field renovation, while the LG/SGS would receive the restroom facility, covered dugouts, drinking fountains, and batting/pitching cages. Other items to be worked out: 1. The dying perimeter trees are going to be taken down and removed by the District; what is planted in their place remains to be discussed between the neighbors, District, and the Users. The intent of this planting is to screen the neighbors' view of the site, provide limited protection against balls going over the fences, and to provide some shade for both players and spectators. 2. The exact limits of turf renovation are yet to be decided. One possibility is to simply do the outfield areas; another is to redo the entire turf area with the intent of providing space for warm-up that is further away from the neighbors. The LG/SGS said they didn't need all of the turf completely redone, but if the non-outfield areas could be smoothed out to be more safe and usable, then that would be valuable to them. 3. Maintenance issues were fairly straightforward. The District would continue • to provide their current level of maintenance for the turf areas, and any desired increase would necessitate additional compensation. For their part, the LG/SGS would be responsible for the maintenance of the restroom facility and for keeping it stocked. The District stated they had no interest in F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuRinglMeeting ItemslTask Face #41Meeting ReportTF#4.doc 5 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. , Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 9&12 Meeting Location: City Offices using the restroom facility for their kids, but that they would need a key to it • since it would be on their property. The facility would remain locked at all times when the League wasn't on the premises. Additionally, the League would continue with the responsibility of picking up trash around the field area. 4. As for the lease/maintenance agreement, the League stated an interest iri some type of long-term arrangement, such as a "right to first refusal" after five years under the given agreement. This would help to ensure that they would have the priority use of the fields they were paying for when the school was not using them. 5. The utility costs associated with the new facilities on the site would have to be carefully monitored in order to accurately assess an appropriate fee to the Users. The League suggested that, until this can be done, they would be willing to work out a "flat fee" with the District, perhaps monthly. V. PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- A. The draft agreement contains many of the items mentioned in preceding paragraphs. Feedback regarding this agreement follows, and important considerations include: 1. That the School Districts are willing to enter into tentative agreements with the City of Saratoga only, and that any other parties would have to negotiate their agreements solely with the City. 2. That the groups paying for the use of a certain site would have to work out a • resolution wherein each group was entitled to "exclusive" or "primary" use of the site during their season. 3. That there are substantial scheduling issues to be resolved and included in any agreement. 4. That all Users have to be in agreement with the guidelines set forth, in order to maintain equity. 5. Precisely how much extra money will be paid for added maintenance areas, or increases in maintenance levels, will have to be worked out at a later date, if and when precise plans for development go forward. The costs presented are to establish a baseline, and to provide perspective on the magnitude of the expected financial responsibility. 6. There was concern that too much of a focus on maintenance at new sites would detract from the much-needed maintenance at Congress Springs, and that the existing facilities should be given top priority of funds. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS-At this point the Task Force was asked to enter into discussion about prioritization of the project sites and to make a recommendation to PRC and City Council accordingly. The following are items arising from that dialogue. A. It was felt that the development of Blue Hills should take priority because: It would take currently unused space and put it into service for both the youth groups and the greater Saratoga community; it would increase parking for the school and the additional parking would provide a solution to the traffic problems along Goleta; it would provide amuch-needed and desired public park area. B. On the other hand, it was felt that the prioritization of °public park" areas over youth • athletic fields was counter to the mission of the Task Force-which was to focus on play-field development. F:Uobs9619&12 Saratoga ConsuttinglMeeting ItemslTask Farce 1t41Meeting ReportTFp4.doc 6 • • • Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Paris Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: City Offices C. Others argued that if creating a public park would help get additional fields built, then it should be considered. D. Blue Hills was considered to be a long-term community investment which would pay dividends in the future, and that this opportunity should not be missed. E. It was felt that, eventually, development is going to come to all of the sites in question, regardless of dissent, and that since the Task Force was made up of representatives from all the major organizations, it should take the time to work through the options carefully to provide a coherent, sane and equitable set of solutions. F. The City suggested that the Task Force simply prioritize the sites however they wanted at the "full price," and send the recommendation to the Commission who would pare it down if they felt it was necessary. It was suggested that "you might as well ask for what you really want because you never know what might happen." G. An important point regarding "phasing" of the projects was brought up. It was suggested that, since construction/renovation of a field would render that field unusable for up to a year, the Task Force should consider recommending "phasing" of each project, so that not all the money was spent at one time, and to allow for the accumulation of additional funds over time. For instance, if a field can't be developed for two or three years, for example, then put that site at the bottom of the list and start with other sites, always planning that the funds will be there for the last project. Another example was at Blue Hills: perhaps the turf expansion could be done first, with the "park area" coming later, and the restroom facility coming still later. With an expensive project such as this, this method would free funds to be used at other sites. H. It was felt that there should be a disclaimer on the proposal stating that "we want the whole package, in some form; that it cannot be `one site or nothing."' VII. FINAL VOTE-After much debate about ranking the projects vs. simply presenting the whole package for approval, it was decided that a vote would be in order to establish some type of prioritization. Members assigned each site a number from 1-4, with 1 being their choice for the top priority site. One representative from each of the User Groups present, and one member from each of the School Districts were asked for their vote. Note: The Cupertino representative had to leave before the vote but was sent a fax with the opportunity to cast a vote. The collective results from that vote are as follows: A. Blue Hills Elementary- 17 points @ approximately $1,100,000 B. Congress Springs Park- 18 points @ approximately $270,000 C. Foothill Elementary- 22 points @ approximately $260,000 D. Marshall Lane Elementary- 23 points @ approximately $300,000 E. Note: The final recommendation was based on the above, with the following additions: 1. That all four sites are important 2. That they should be phased to the extent possible 3. That "value engineering" be employed to try to cut the costs wherever possible to help free funds for other sites _ 4. That the proposal should show the "long view" which displayed the phasing and which fields would be down at what times and where money was being spent at any given time. This would help to keep track of funds, keep people focused on the long-term vision, and would facilitate scheduling. F:Uobs9819&12 Saratoga Corr;ultinglMeetirg ItemslTask Force #41Meetiiy ReportTFlk.doc 7 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. ; Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: City Offices VIII. NEXT STEPS-The Task Force was told what the "path of travel" would be for the • proposal, and at what dates they could expect to participate. A!! were encouraged to stay active in the project and to support it whenever possible. The estimated schedule follows below. !X. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE PROJECT MEETINGS- A. City Council Study Session-Tuesday, January 26, 1999 B. Parks and Recreation Commission-Monday, February 1, 1999 C. Final presentation to City Council-Tuesday, March 9, 1999 End of Report :~ • F:Wobs96198-12 Saratoga ConsutinglMeeting ItemslTask Force #41Meeting ReportTF#4.doc 8