Meeting Minutes

The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:05 p.m.

1.  Roll Call

Chairperson Davids took the roll.

2.  Approval of Minutes - Minutes of July 21, 2005

Section 3 – Next Steps Proposals:Greg Harris noted that the cost of any given scenario still needs to be calculated.

The minutes of July 21, 2005, Section 3 – Next Steps Proposals were amended to include “Review of costs of various scenarios if cost can be calculated”.The amended minutes were unanimously approved.

3.  Review of Values – Ranking by Members

The list of values summary statements, which had been consolidated by Chair Davids, and resultant rankings were discussed.The highest ranked items were:

• “Put priority on solutions that increase capacity when (time of year) youth and adult competitive sports are most active”
• “Provide recreational opportunities for all citizens – no one should be excluded due to ‘no space’ or ‘no fields/facilities’”
• “Develop solutions that have the broadest benefit to all San Carlos residents and promote the ‘City of Good Living’ theme”
• “Consider health, fitness and youth development as primary objectives”

Discussion included the following:

• Wording of some of the statements unclear, some statements are similar
• Spend less time on items with low or no score, but recognize all have value
• Some members feel strongly on certain items that did not score high
• The validity of the statement that there is an increasing number of youth and children was questioned

Chairperson Davids stated the information gathered from the survey should be retained in members’ binders and can be referred to when the committee is ready to make its decisions.

The committee requested that the survey results be e-mailed out to all members.

4.  Discuss Model Designed by Greg Harris

a.  Review Model Assumptions

Greg Harris reviewed the assumptions of the computer model designed to provide an objective measure of the incremental benefit of different field scenarios.

Dan Robinson commented that the subcommittee had disagreement on some of the assumptions including the number of children per field during soccer practice at Highlands.He does not agree with the premise that all 11 and over CYSA and AYSO kids can play on Highlands as suggested.

Greg stated that the model is not about what could be done, but rather to represent the level of use if the surfaces were changed under current use patterns.

Ray Merala stated that the subcommittee had “great difficulty coming to agreement on some of the assumptions.”

Lee Thompson asked if the model can be used to come up with different formulas or scenarios.Greg replied that the value is measuring one change, such as from old grass to new grass, grass to “synthetic”, no lights to lights so you have to hold everything constant and make one change in order to create this index.

Ray Merala said that alternatively you could look at ranges and see how variations in the ranges affect the final outcome.There are fundamental differences they are unable to agree upon in order to move forward.

Bob Dehner commented that everyone’s assumptions of what teams do are different and you can’t make any kind of a rational decision.He suggested we look at what is actually going on and maybe that could be the base for assumptions.

The assumptions in the model were reviewed.

Assumption #1:  Grass fields are closed for six weeks a year.

Barry Weiss confirmed that all grass fields have scheduled maintenance closures of 6 weeks per year.Ray Merala noted that some fields are closed more than six weeks.Agreed by Parks and Recreation.

Assumption #2:  40-year rain averages for San Mateo County say that we have 39 days a year where the measurable rainfall is greater than .01 of an inch.

Barry Weiss stated that Parks and Recreation is comfortable with the 39 day figure, although rainy day closures are not actually logged.Ray Merala noted that the figure doesn’t take into account the closures that occur on fields in poor shape and have to be closed longer because they remain saturated longer than others. Staff agreed.

Assumption #3:The sun sets at different times during the year.

All agreed.

Assumption #4:  School properties generate more hours of play than parks (although being used differently).

The model breaks the day into different day parts, so on a weekday there are “school hours” 8:00 am - 3:30 pm; “daylight hours” 3:30 pm – sunset; and “lit hours” sunset - 10:00 pm.On weekends daylight hours are 8:00 am – sunset, and lit hours are sunset -10:00 pm.

Dan Robinson was concerned with school hours from 8:00 am – 3:30 pm being included.He does not think it is a benefit to any of the objectives that were listed high on the survey as far as gaining more practice time or playing time, such as Item #5, “Put priority on solutions that increase capacity when (time of year) youth and adult competitive sports are most active.”He agrees that it does provide a certain benefit, although he does not think it will provide any benefit to the solutions for which we are looking.A school may benefit during the day time but it won’t help at all with the crunch with organized sports or drop in play.

Chairperson Davids directed the committee back to addressing the basic assumptions and understanding them.We are not analyzing any field or scenario, but rather understanding what is in the model.If we can agree on what’s in the model and the basic assumptions, we can leave that alone and not get involved in the details.

Eric Von der Porten stated that this assumption creates a bias towards converting blacktop at schools to turf.One way to break it down or make it clear, is to calculate the number of added school hours separately from the number of non-school hours, that way the large numbers of school hours can be considered in a different arena than the “after school hours”.

Other thoughts by the committee:

• School hours are limited to the school, because they are not open to the public at that time.
• Factoring in the school hours, it doesn’t seem likely the State would increase P.E. hours if they have grass instead of blacktop.It won’t change funding of P.E. programs.It is not as much a benefit.It is a small minority that benefit.
• There are about 1,000 middle school children that would benefit from school ground improvements
• Rather than school hours, call it “early hours” 8:00 am - 3:30 pm

Greg Harris responded that the model is designed to be objective, just count hours.There was some early concern that the model did not take into consideration dimensions of a space and might rank a 3 yd x 1,000 yd property as better than something that is of usable proportion.

Bob Dehner expressed confusion on use vs. time.Greg Harris explained that the subcommittee looked at hours of play and density of play.He ran both sets of numbers based on the assumptions he could gather, he concluded the results are largely the same.

Assumption #5:  All scenarios have already passed the reasonable test.

Actual use at Highlands for soccer was used in the scenario, as opposed to extending practices for each child 1 hour per week, and then made the assumption.We know that the assumption of utilizing “synthetic” 100% of the time is not realistic, but the point is to have a relative comparison.

Greg demonstrated that he had included Ray’s request for density in the model.Showing what we do today for soccer at Highlands – three teams play per day between 5-10:00 pm, but we have two teams on the weekends.Slots are 1.5 hours long.There are nine teams Monday – Friday.Increasing that to 4 teams, the ratio of practice slots to game slots is roughly 2:1.This generates 96 field slots.Each team wants three slots per week.In the scenario shown, two hours twice plus a game with a 1.5 hour slot = 5.5 hours.Total team hours = 174; team hours per week 5.5.Total team hours give you 32 teams supported.There are an average of 15 players on a team, which = 475 kids supported and there are a total of 2,600 kid hours (475 x 5.5).Right now all U-11 and above kids (687 kids) practice and play on Crestview, Stadium and Highlands.The new model supports 475 kids in 2600 hours.The old model supports 323 kids in 1700 hours.There is a 16% increase by going to plastic.

Dan Robinson noted that last year there were two teams at Highlands, not three.Greg responded that he left out the 3:30 – 5:00 pm slot for that reason. It was corrected to say that two was recommended by staff, but permission was given to have three a couple of times per week. Dan noted that practice times used to be two hours, but were cut back to 1.5 hours about five years ago.Soccer season starts in mid July and ends in December.The utilization number doesn’t account for any use being added, such as in December – February, because much of that time fields are closed due to rain.Greg said it is accounted for in the model.

The committee requested that the spreadsheet be mailed as a hard copy as not all committee members could open the attachment.

Chair Davids stated that we will ultimately use the models, with the assumptions which will be a baseline.We will adjust as we move forward.

5.  Formulate Recommendation Regarding City Owned Land

Two City owned parcels were discussed:

• Chilton Property which contains seven single family home lots.It is designated as open space.Brian Moura explained that the developer donated the land and the City Council at that time indicated that there might be a park there one day.

• Crestview Drive Property across from Vista Park was set aside as an onramp for Highway 280 years ago.

The question was posed, would either site be desirable for a field?Rod Lehr responded that Crestview would require grading, but could be a “tremendous” field.There is a lot of parking area.However other considerations would be the neighboring condominiums and environmental concerns, with the bordering water district land.

Chair Davids stated that assuming the parcels could be sold to developers for homes at Chilton and town homes at Crestview, the proceeds could be used to purchase land, possibly in the city’s industrial area.The industrial area has been protected because of the revenue stream it generates for the city, but maybe a new field, possibly synthetic, could be added to the inventory of space.

Members of the committee felt it would be of interest, preferably with lights.The question was raised if the City would be willing to take tax producing industrial property off the tax roll.Barry Weiss explained that for every dollar brought in from residential unit property taxes, a City will spend $1.16 to provide services.Park land costs .37 cents for each dollar of revenue and commercial land .29 cents.

One suggestion was to expand Central, but multiple residences would have to be bought by the City.

It was suggested that an inventory of all spare lots be done to get an idea of the funds potentially available.

Chairperson Davids asked how the committee would want to proceed.Does the committee want to look at the sale of the properties for improvement of new property, or existing property, or both?If we generate $6-8 million, how would we use it?Would there be a stipulation/strong recommendation that if we sell, this is what we will do with the funds?

The committee responded with the following thoughts:

• Funds should be used to develop a new sports complex.
• Funds should only be used for new land purchase/development.
• Sell Chilton, improve Crestview, and possibly install synthetic turf at Highlands.
• Recommend to City Council to pursue the sale of Chilton with the money to be used for new field space.Buying property would be better than renovating an existing facility.
• A sports complex would be wonderful, but selling the land could upset the neighbors who live near the open space.
• The process to sell the land, find a site, dealing with zoning issues could take years.
• Measure G funds will be available in two years, making approximately $1.2 million available.
• There are potential grants for installations of synthetic turf due to water savings and recycled rubber.The amount of water savings would be approximately 3 million gallons per year at Highlands, and 2 million gallons at Heather.
• There was concern that once you sell city land, there may not be suitable land to purchase.

Chair Davids explained another issue is the East Side Specific Plan protects and encourages commercial development between the railroad tracks and Highway 101, except for the residential areas.Commitments were made when the Harbor Industrial Area was annexed that we wouldn’t do anything of this type in that area.There are also some heavy uses in that area, such as Delta Star.Another issue would be traffic.The County land around the San Carlos Airport is highly protected, not available.Eminent Domain is another possibility.

Carol Taylor proposed language:“The City use the proceeds from the sale of undeveloped City-owned property to pay for acquisition of new field space.”Crestview is not mentioned, as she is not sure that is a good place for a field because she feels it is more likely to happen in the industrial area, and does not support the sale of it as we might need it for something else. It was debated whether to sell first, then acquire or acquire, then sell to finance the acquisition.

The committee gave input:

• Amend to leave the door open to improve existing sites.
• Keep the Crestview property and improve it.What if the property is sold and new property is not found to purchase.
• The best use of the money would be to renovate existing sites / partner with the schools vs. using it only specifically for purchasing new land.
• Buy land.
• It would be a mistake to lock ourselves in to acquiring land if we don’t have enough money.
• Add a preamble to Carol’s statement that “this committee will make every effort as its first priority to identify the sale of property to acquire new”.
• It should be new land that we buy and develop in a commercial/industrial area.

Carol Taylor made the motion, “That the City use proceeds from the sale of undeveloped City property (Chilton) to pay for the acquisition and development of new field space.”The motion was seconded and passed 13 to 4.Those opposed would have preferred looser language that would not lock the committee into only purchasing/developing new land.Chairperson Davids noted the committee voted on the concept knowing it could be revised at a later date.

The committee directed City staff to research the potential sale price of Chilton property, zoning, and EIR issues.

6.  Public Comment

Linda Lynch asked that committee members should be mindful of respectful behavior toward each other when offering opinions and comments.

7.  Next Meeting Date

August 18, 2005 at 7:00 pm in the Library.

8.  Meeting adjourned at 9:11 pm.

The committee will focus on school sites at the next meeting.There is the issue of lights on the football field at Carlmont.Thought should be given to considering an agreement with Carlmont and to provide lights, and use that field.

The issue of the Crestview property will also be revisited at the next meeting.