HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-1999 Playfield Project Status UpdateJHPd-?6-1g9q 16 ~ 49 C I T`r' OF SAPATaGA ADM I ~J.
City Counexl Study Session
Tuesday, January 26,1999
4~8 X68 1?89 P.~1.9~3
Playfleld Project Status Update
Ircnc Jacobs, Staff Liaison to PRC
$arbara Olsen, PRC Chair
Jape Beals of The Beals Group, Project Manager
1. Sczff Introduction - Jacol?S
2. Hi,rory of the Project -Olsen
3. The R.ema.iiluig Phases to the Process - Ulsen
4. Task Force Process/Schematic Designs of Proposed School Sites -Beals
5. Questions from nc~ City Council
1. Prnjcet 1.{itroductic~n: Irene will give a general uitraduetion to the information that will
presented tonight and then introduce Barbara. and Jape and Iet thew. move forward with
their portion of the presentation.
2. Histors of Proiect
November 1990
City rceeive;s the- final report from the consultant who was hued to develop the Parks
sold Ttails Master Plana The plan makes recomrncndations no the City to develop joint
use agreements with existing schools Sites to develop additional plapfield use.
je~ 1996
C:azrimuzuty Task force Mcetiug held to Prioritize Park llevclopmcnt fund Projects; 70
iinaembers from the Community attencie;d
FatII 1796
City ~rldtbudget cunt; before and 3ignifirant pro}~ress was made on any of the projects,
du Cjtty Council asked the Commission ro revise the original priority liver. re.cogni~ing that
the Ci~vould no longer be able to directly support any of the projects. The
Cos~snuniry Hub nom is bumped from its first priority slot and plapfields renovation and
dew-clopmeut azc moved up on the priority list.*
~~~
January 1997
Park.: & Re:crcation Commission decades to recom~,~,~•~d to Council [hat [he City hire a
project lnaaager to oversee tlae Playficld Devclopmuit Project C:itp~ .was not able to
commit sufficient staff tinge to this project as vas necessary in light of the recent budget
cuts.
L : ~ G~ G, ~r~~~-~ ~ ~ ~~.
~ ~.~iu'- SCE ~cn 5 c~e.~ti
~~~1~ 23~ t1~~ ~~-~~J~~
f 5 C ]
C` h
L ~S G-a.~s~ ~ 9.5~~ ~ ~
JA~~~-2b-1999 16 ~ 5~ C I T'r' OF SAP,ATOGA,'AAt9I N . 4~S E68 12GG P . 93-'9~
Public Input Meetings axe held for potential sites; Foothill anti Marshall Lane
rage will address the specifics
Nov~nber 1998
A Public Input Netting is held tux potential site; Blue Hills School/Azule
Jaye will address the specifics
December 1998
'T'ask roue Meeting #4 (Canceled due co holidays and lack of a quonnn)
January 1999
?'a,k Force Meeting #4
1'he Task Force held its fourth meeting to fortnulatc its formal recommmendation to the
Parks and Recxeatirsn Commission fox consideration in rebtuary. Again, the main
objective of this task Foxee was to devise a way to address rh,e maintenance issue before
the Parks & Reue~.tion Commission and City Council would consider preceding with
this project. "11~e Commission eQill take consider the Task Force's recommendation at
their February 1, 199) meeting.
Council Study Session on the Plnyficlds
T}~c study session was planned to pxovidc the City Council with an update on floe status
of the project; what has occutred up to now and what is left to be daiic. The session was
scheduled to offer the Council an opportunity to ask questions of the consultant prior to
bang asked to vote can the issue in eatlp March.
3. 1~e Re_maining phases to the Process
February l,1g99
Park; eT kecrealion Co~nrissioyr 111 ~~z~~g
Parks and Recreation Commission will consider the recommendation of the Task p'orce
and make a formal recommendation to the City Council foz approval of the "Plan".
Please note that depending upon the response that is received from the public on the
evc711ilu of Feb~.uazy 1, 1999, additic~iul meetings may be scheduled to addzcss issues
iaised at the meeting.
.f arGrto~rr Unun Scbovl Board M~eun~ (February 23, 1999)
REt approval of the plan for Footlvll School Site Project - in concept, if .,till
applicable_
Please note: The approval that will be requested of each schnc~l district will be between
the city. and the school district only at this tinic_ If the project does indeed proceed
further, ajoint-usr agreement spelling out the specific ~urms for each site related to
mainrenanee leQels and uses group pardcipatioa will came before the school board for
final approval at a later date.
Cup~,~irm iJraaon School Board Af~etarrg (I'afirtsary 23, 99J9)
Request approval of the plan for Blue Hills School Site Project - in concept, if sti.U
applicable.
C~znzfibell U>tiorr School Yaard 1tilectrrrg (1=elmrary 25, 9999)
JAPJ-~'6-1999 16 49 C I T'r' OF StlP.faTaGH.' AL~'1 I N . -iC~$ ~ 6c^~ l ~c ~ P . ~~~ O-~
March 1997
].'arks & Recreation Conunission meets with a.zld receives approval fxorn the City
Council to hire the Ptojcct Manager to implement the Playfield 1'rojeet. "phis project
ivoiild be funded by the Park I>c~elopment Fund fox t]ae developmtnt of new athletic
fields in addition to renovating souae existing fe1d5, such as Congmss Spru~~s Park, that
is in need of repair
Apri11997
"l~he Parks and Recreation Couimi:~sion supports staff s recommend that the City enact a
$12 per pazticipant user fee in place of the cutzcnt flat rate of $1,500 pc:r season for the
use of Congress Springs Park by osgani,zed spurts leagues. Staff had zeconunendcd thi;
increase in u5cr fees uz an attempt tv recover costs city-~xridc, as requested by tlae City
Council. In 1990 dollars, it costs tlae city $5,500 per acre in n,~tcuance costs for
C:ougress Springs alone, a park measuring 9.97 acres. Both AYSO and Saratoga Little
League pay $1,5(~ pet season for the use of the site.
T`he City Council overruled the tecommzndation of the Parks and lecreation
Commission and dicl not approve to enact a per participant user fct but, the Council did
request that the Project Manager's scope of services (that had already r~i;cu.~ved approval
by Council in March) be expanded to include the establisluiients of joint-use agreements
between the City, u,~ez groups and school districts for existing sites in addition to the
proposed gitc~ that had not yet bceu identified
?he Council made: it Ilea= to the user groups that the City would not invest in playficld
dev~loprnent projector if theze was no commitment from their part w help ist the
maintenance of these new fields.llie Ciry was anal is unable to pmcidc- additional
maintenance above the level that it is euzrently providing for existing sitc5 let alone
additional playficld siteS~If this group could not fast prove that this first circle was going
to work, the City Council would not consider building additional playfields.
May 1998
Beals Landscape Atchitecturc's contract is approved for to serve as the Project Man-ager_
June 1998
?ask Force Mec^ting - Number 1 Qune 3U, 199b) Jaye will dicuss the specifics.
Jury 199a
?ask Force Meeting - Nuaabcr "? Quly 29,1995) Jayc will discuss tl~,c specifics.
August 1998
'I'asls Force Meeting -Number 3 (August 1 cJ, 1998)
At this meeting, Task F'ol:ce Members pri,oriri~cd 10 potential. sites and voted, thus make
an initial recosatnendation to the YazIis ar,.d Recreation Coumv.ssion to improve the top
four, out of ten identif Fd sites; Blue Hills School/Azule Park, Marshall Laae School,
Foothill School and Congress Springs Park. The Task Force would make an official
recommendation to the Parks & Recreation Con-,mission once the Task Force had
received the fcedhack gathered at the Public Input Mcetuig5 ]Yom residents.
October 1998
Ji~J-2b-1999 16: ~ CITY GF SAP.ATQGA~' AT~hI I ~J. 4~8 G68 12G9 P . G~~ ~4
Re9ue,,t approval of the plan for Marshall Lane Sd~ool Sites Project - in concept, if sti11
appluaUie
March 1994
'1"he City Council. will be a5ied tc~ approve tlve rcc~mmendatioa of the Parks and
Reueation Commission regarding the Playfieid PLOjea "Plan". If the C:ouzicil approves
th.e "plan" in concept, then staff would work retain the sextrices of a firm or cuy~aultant
to perform the nccessarp report. related to tts~ffie, noise etc. that aze required by the City
before development could occur.
September 1999
The City would be provided with the results of the =eparts as would the public. From
what I understand, the public vaould have an oppozntnity to eozr~~+~c on the iesults of
the report and those comments would need to be addressed by the consulcant_ The
results of the rcpost would help to determinC what the ne~.-t steps of the process should
be; to eithzr proceed with the existing plan with minor changer or perhaps reconsider
other viable options.
Other points to cover if not already mentioned:
• Traffic & Safety were the number one concerns voiced: by all residents ar every
public input meeting.
• The Parks and Recreaaoa Commi,~on realizes that no improvrments can be
recomm~uded to any sine, proposed or not proposed, without hayu~,r-the Cite
consider d~~ traffic and safety eleuzent.
• T'he Park., gild Recteaticni Cointnission and staff hope to work with the Public Safety
Commission, nei~bots, user groups and all interested parries ~x-]ien considering
traffic and safety issues related to this specific project and any ocher issue that needs
to be addressed. ~ .,}~~ X~ ~~~ .
„ _p ` t'l~? / " _ "-r' -" ~.~v/1/' Cam- "'"t
!N~ " to ~ ~ ~'~ IC --fv
~ a'` ~ 4. Prc~nr~scd School Sites -Proposed Schematic es~~rn5: J /LY~o
~o~ ~ ``. aye will discuss the efforts made by the Task Fozcc; what m~as developed through the -j', ny,/~, ~
f~~ ~ prc~cr5s, the entiri maintenance issue, the plans iu detail etc. ' _ ~ t"
5. (7ua.,tions of the Council: i veryone wi11 pitch in. A representative from each uses
group that participated was asked to be present in order, to auswez any questions from
the Coundl.
~~,,~11
_~
TQTAL F'. fi=t