Meeting Minutes

The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10 p.m.

1. Roll Call

Chairperson Davids took roll.

2. Approval of Minutes from October 6, 2005

The minutes were unanimously approved with the following corrections:

• Second page, middle paragraph should read, “…for the source of funds…”
• Second page, under the source of funds, number 5 on the list is intended to be concurrent with items 2, 3 and 4.

3. Pending Items – Last Meeting

Staff members Tonya and Jennifer presented a series of charts and graphs titled, “Athletic Field Comparison:Number of Teams Served.”The material presents a snap-shot of teams served for youth soccer, youth baseball and softball, and adult softball for one season.The charts and graphs are intended to show, based on current schedules and experience, the number of teams served considering the options of natural turf, synthetic turf and lights at selected athletic field sites.Assumptions for this model are shown on page 1 of the chart series.

Chair Davids thanked Tonya and Jennifer for their work and suggested that committee members keep this information as ready reference during the development of recommendations.

Committee members reviewed a memo from Barry Weiss dated October 20, 2005 titled, “Field Construction Costs – Data Sources.”In this memo, Barry listed the information sources he used in developing acquisition, construction and maintenance costs for city properties and school sites.These sources included city staff, school district staff, recent costs from the Arguello Park renovation project and the Redwood City experience titled, “Field Life Cycle Comparisons.”The chair reminded members that these costs are best estimates based on information available and that final costs for San Carlos fields will be subject to a precise bidding process.Davids also underscored a statement by member Greg Harris that the estimated cost of installing and maintaining synthetic turf being discussed by the committee does not include the replacement of this turf at the end of its life cycle – say 12 or 15 years.Nor does the evaluation of natural grass include a reserve for replacement.Both matters must be considered before financing plans are made final.

Also, as a pending item from the last meeting, members reviewed a summary of the “Preference for Enhancing/Improving Existing Fields” which was distributed by e-mail dated October 13, 2005. Nineteen members completed and returned the poll which was intended to measure member preference for enhancing and/or improving existing fields.The results were to be used to focus committee discussion on final recommendations.

Of the 19 responses, the highest scores were for:

Heather – convert to synthetic (16)*

Highlands – convert to synthetic (15)

Lower Tierra Linda – convert to synthetic with lights (12)

Central Asphalt – leave as is (12)

Crestview – leave as is (10)

Heather – convert to synthetic with lights (9)

*Some members suggested that those who showed a preference for “convert to synthetic with lights” at Heather School could be combined with those who marked “convert to synthetic,” assuming that these preferences could overlap, preference for “convert to synthetic” at Heather Field would be the preference with 16 marks of support.

4. Develop Recommendation – Existing Parks/Fields

Members discussed ideas for moving toward a recommendation:

• Narrow the decision process down to the three high preference fields:Highlands, Heather and lower Tierra Linda
• Add the incremental hours model and the teams served model as indicators of achieving the greatest benefit/capacity
• Consider the new field concept (Crestview land or Eastside) as the best way to add hours and capacity
• Identify short, mid, and long term solutions
• Select recommendations that benefit the entire community

Chair Davids advised that he and Vice Chair Lewis will develop recommendation(s) considering all factors on the table and present them at the next meeting for review and decision.He also stated that it may be necessary to postpone the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow sufficient time to complete this report.

5. Public Comment:

No public comment.

6. Adjournment:

Meeting adjourned 9:08 p.m.