Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1998 Playfield Task Force Minutes Meeting Report Date: 11.23.98 .~ m thebeaisgroup l 10$ 2$ 7 4202 F 108 '?$7 0165 E i~e.ris~~~lhebealsgroup c:, two North Market, Fifth F~. S+3n Jose, California 9511 License Number 1534 • • Meeting Type: Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Meeting Date: 11.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Time: 6:30-8:OOpm Meeting Location: Blue Hills Elementary Copy to: ®All Attendees Jay Beals From: Jeff Kreps Attendees: Irene Jacobs, City of Stga. Barbara Zeitman-Olsen, PRC Jenny Crotty, PRC AYSO representatives Little League Representatives Blue Hills neighbors/parents 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: Task Force has recommended this site as one of four priority sites. Design proposal from user's standpoint has been developed. Public input is now needed. Meeting Purpose: To present proposed design and to hear concerns from neighbors. Intended Results: 1. An understanding of overall project and Blue Hills Elementary's part in it 2. An understanding of proposed design elements 3. List of concerns shared by neighborhood residents INTRODUCTION A. Jay Beals gave an introduction to the overall project and the process by which Blue Hills had been selected to receive detailed design development. It was stressed that the designs to be shown were in no way an "accepted" project at this point; neighbors were told that there were to be several opportunities for their concerns and ideas to be heard before the proposal became "final." B. Both Irene and Jenny stated that the reason athletic fields were being given such a strong consideration was because in public decision-making meetings in recent years, the need and desire for increased youth athletic fields was voted to be the top priority-this coming from members of the community, not just from the City. In fact, the two highest priorities were the creation of new athletic fields and the renovation of existing facilities . PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTS A. Jay presented the design proposals and stressed that they were just that, proposals, and that plans were not going forth to build what we were presenting; that we were F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuRing\Meeting ItemslPubic MeetingslBN~eHilsMeeting Report.doc Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Meeting Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: Blue Hills Elementary School • there to gather the input from concerned neighbors and parents. These concerns would then be used to help refine the designs as the process went further. The major elements of the three proposed designs were: 1. Option 1: a. Renovation of the turf at the school site, including irrigation. b. Renovation of the Azule Park site to a turf area. c. Planting of trees around the site for shade and screening purposes. d. Construction of a permanent restroom/concession/storage facility. e. Construction of picnic and play areas f. Construction of a perimeter walking/jogging path g. Re-grading the southeast corner to facilitate access to the overpass. h. Expand the on-site parking directly to the east of existing lot (+ 67) i. Relocate three modular bldgs., storage area, and electric panel. j. Relocate displaced asphalt hard-court k. Relocate displaced tanbark play area 2. Option 2: a-g. Same as above, except field layout is different, thereby requiring no replacement of displaced hard-court. h. Expand the on-site parking parallel to Goleta Ave. (+63); 2-way flow. 3. Option 3: a-k. Same as above, but with a different field layout and a different approach to the replacement of the displaced asphalt. The storage/restroom/concession facility was also moved further toward the highway, in an attempt to decrease the noise and the proximity to • the school's property. B. Issues which were being considered when the designs were done: 1. That safety for children and neighbors was a primary concern. 2. That any asphalt hard-court displaced must be replaced in a useable manner 3. Any on-site storage areas disturbed by the plans would have to be replaced 4. That the School District may be expanding in the future, creating a need for more modular buildings. III. OPEN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION A. Jay then opened the floor up for comments, questions, concerns, etc. These concerns have been categorized and are listed below: 1. Traffic: there was concern over any increase in traffic that a new athletic facility might generate. It was felt that, already, the school had inadequate facilities for pick-up and drop-off, and the resulting U-turns and car back-ups were already creating an unsafe environment for the kids in the area. 2. Parking lot parallel to Goleta Ave.: Again, the safety of residents and children walking along Goleta was felt to be impaired by the proposed parking lot along Goleta. The YMCA facility has a lot of kids in the area also. Neighbors also felt that the lot would lead to more noise. On the other hand, some residents felt that a parking lot in this location would discourage the U- turns currently being practiced by providing parents with an off-street location where they could drive in, drop off their children, and then drive out without impacting the neighbors. It was also felt that this might be safer for the kids • being dropped off. In addition, it was felt that this configuration would put users of the fields closer to the turf area, thereby encouraging them to park in the lot instead of in front of the neighbors' houses and driveways. F:1Jobs9819&12 Saratoga ConsuflinglMeeting ItemslPubkc MeetingslBk~eHi~Meeting Report.doc 2 Meeting Minutes for: Meeting Date: Meeting Location: Blue Hills Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Thursday, November 19, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Blue Hills Elementary School 3. Expansion of the school's parking lot (to the east): While most agreed that an expansion of the existing lot would alleviate some of the traffic concerns, the issues of noise and proximity were still in debate. It was felt that the expanded lot would still be too far from the fields and that users would continue to park in front of the neighbors along Goleta. It was also felt that an expanded lot would prove to be irresistible to teenagers who wanted to hang out there after school hours and make noise, and loiter, etc. There was also the concern that there were people who were parking and "watching" the children, and that, somehow, any proposal needed to take safety and visibility of the children into consideration. 4. The overall, proposed "park" facility: Members of the local Greenbriar Homeowner's Association made several points relating to the design. First, they made it clear that they were willing to work with the Task Force and PRC in order to come to an equitable solution. They, too, want to see the Azule site developed, but are concerned that the whole site might be devoted exclusively to soccer. They would like to see more "park" area, that would be unsuitable for soccer. They felt that the current proposals were too heavy on the side of athletics. They also felt that the "mini-park" in the southeast corner was too small. The members also mentioned that there was a kind of agreement made between the City and the residents that the Azule site would be developed into a neighborhood park, not a soccer field. It was also felt that more trees were desirable within the turf area to make it seem more park-like. On the other hand, other residents asked why people couldn't simply walk • across the overpass to Kevin Moran Park and use its facilities for recreation, since it was likely not going to be developed. Another request came from a Cupertino American Little League representative who requested a dirt infield be cut on this site. 5. Access to and within the proposed site: Neighbors wanted to know if there would be a fence around the perimeter to keep people out. School District representatives stated that, yes, there would have to be some kind of fence. Residents then asked if they would be allowed to use the "park" during school hours, and if so, how would they gain access if there was a fence? (Though the residents seemed to be in support of restricting access to the site off Goleta.) There was also much concern over whether there would be a fence down the middle of the field which would separate the "park" from the school property. It was suggested that if there were no fence the children would run, unsupervised, into unobservable areas of the site, creating a safety hazard. Who would monitor this? Some felt that simply telling the kids not to go beyond a certain point would be sufficient. Others felt that the kids should be kept closer to the monitored school play area. Another concern was that kids might find their way to the overpass and get too far away. Still others said that the proposal was simply "flat grass" which was completely observable from the current play areas, and that children really couldn't get out of sight. It was also stated that, in an ideal situation, the school would have an increased amount of turf on its site anyway, and the only reason they didn't have more space was because there wasn't any more available, except the City's Azule park site. F:Uobs98198.12 Saratoga ConsuttinglMeeting ItemslPubkc MeetingslBq~eHi~SMeeting Report.doc 3 Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Meeting Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: Blue Hills Elementary School • IV. CONCLUSION A. The meeting was brought to a close by Jay Beals, who thanked everyone for their concerns and their willingness to be part of the process. Though some residents were decidedly against any kind of development other than a "residential neighborhood park," there were positive statements which affirmed everyone's beiief in--and support of--this process. It was stated that most present felt a solution could be reached which would accommodate the needs and concerns of both sides. V. MEETING SCHEDULE A. What: Blue Hills follow-up meeting (to include Congress Springs): When: Tuesday, December 8, 1998, 9:30-11:OOam Where: thebealsgroup, 2 N. Market St., Fifth Floor, San Jose Why: To review design refinements 8 to focus on lease/maint. agreements Who: City, School District, AYSO, CYSA, Cupertino Little League B. What: Task Force Meeting #4 When: Tuesday, December 15, 1998, 4:00-6:OOpm Where: Saratoga City Offices Why: To present final design proposals for all study sites, and to finalize lease agreements for the four primary sites. Who: All Task Force Members End of Report • F:Uobs98198-12 Saratoga Consu~inglMeeting ItemstPub6c Meetings\BlueHilsMeeting Report.dce 4