Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPC Agenda 2003-01-22 SEAL BEACH PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION \ ) January 22,2003,7:30 p.m. MEETING PLACE: NORTH SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER 3333 St. Cloud Drive I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ID. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (By motion of the Commission) This is the time to: 1. Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; 2. Rearrange the order of the agenda. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS VI. ORAL COMMUNICATION At this time, members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Commission cannot discuss or take action on items not on the agenda unless authorized by law. Matters brought before the Commission that are not on the agenda may, at the Commission's discretion, be referred to staff or placed on the next agenda. .) VII. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Park and Recreation Commission, Staff or the public request that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action 1. Minutes of October 30, 2002 meeting (Approve) 2. Arbor Park (Receive and File) 3. Capital Improvement Projects Status Report for Marina Center Improvements, Playground Equipment Rehabilitation Project and Community Pool Improvements (Receive and File) 4. Un-funded Capital Improvement Program Parks Project List (Receive and File) VID. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Review of Old Ranch Tennis Club Proposed Site Plan (Provide Recommendation) a. Public Comment/Correspondence IX. MANAGER'S REPORTS - Informational items x. COMMISSION CONCERNS ) XI. ADJOURN Next meeting February 26, 2003, 7:00 p.m., City Manager's Conference Room The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at lease 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Thank you. "'..! SEAL BEACH PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION , Minutes of October 30, 2002 meeting I. CALL TO ORDER Called to order by Chair at 7:09 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Schelly Sustarsic, Andy Rohman and Carla Watson Absent: Ricky Layman IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda was approved as submitted. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Assistant City Manager June Yotsuya informed the Commission that Lisa Chattier, District 2, resigned from the Commission. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATION AnnaBeth Goering, ~ho came to hear the meeting, shared that Mayor Larson would be appointing her as the next Commissioner for District 2. . VII. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of September 25,.2002 meeting 2. Senior Transportation Program Update The consent calendar was approved as submitted. VIII. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Annual Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair The Commission elected Carla Watson as Chair and Andy Rohman as Vice-Chair. 2. Special Event Policy Statement The Commission concurred with recommended cl:zanges to the Council Policy Statement on Special Event Permits as presented by Associate Planner Mac Cummins. The recommendations that will beforwarded to City Council include: 1) parties on park space involving less than 25 people, that does not involve alcohol or live music, would not require a special event permit; 2) events contained wholly within a City owned facility and rented through the City's facility rental permit process would not require a special event permit; 3) events at Marina Center and Senior Center that serve alcohol would not need a special event permit in that the City's fee resolution already contains a provision to charge for alcohol sales at these sites and are a part of the facility . ~ J't4m V/I-/ rental permit process. The commission also discussed and recommended that events on the Electric Park greenbelt should be limited to daytime events only and no exterior lights should be provided, and that memorial services on City owned facilities or park spaces should not require a special event permit. ' 3. Cancellation of November Meeting Commission agreed to cancel November meeting. IX. MANAGER'S REPORTS Ms. Y otsuya provided a copy of City's correspondence to the 10K Run Committee that addressed the commission's concerns regarding the committee's possible donation for an exercise circuit on the Electric Park greenbelt. The letter also included Public Work's non-funded parks, recreation and landscape project list for the committee's consideration regarding a future donation. X. COMMISSION CONCERNS Ms. Watson expressed her concerns on a residential improvement project that occurred adjacent to Gum Grove Park and its impact to the park. Mr. Cummins explained the situation arising from the contractor work on a retaining wall separating the residence from the park and the appropriate steps the City, would be taking to ensure that a similar situation would not reoccur. Ms. Watson also requested that Public Works provide the commission with a list of the City's non- funded capital improvement projects for parks and recr:eation. Mr. Rohman questioned the status of the Old Ranch Tennis Club project. Ms. Yotsuya explained that the Tennis Club Site Committee has been meeting recently and their recommendations will be forwarded to the Commission for consideration. Public Works staff anticipates placing this item on the Commission's January agenda. XI. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned to January 22, 2003, 7:00p.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room. AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 22,2003 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission FROM: June Y otsuya, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: ARBOR PARK SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Receive and file staff report. BACKGROUND: At their meeting of January 13, 2003, the Seal Beach City Council approved a lease agreement for the continued use of Arbor Park. The City has leased property from the Armed Forces Reserve Training Center for recreational purposes since 1982. This leased area now serves as Aroor Park located in the College Park East area. The original lease was to expire in December 2006. The new 25-year lease will be in effect until December 31, 2028. FISCAL IMPACT: The new lease approved by the City Council does not require any annual payment or ~ental charge. ' However, it does requir~ a one-time payment of$7000 to reimburse the federal government for required environmental study and contract administration. RECOMMENDA TION: Receive and file. Submitted by: ~ Agenda Item JI/ /..... ;z, AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 22,2003 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission FROM: Mark Vukojevic, P.E., Deputy City Engineer THRU: June Y otsuya, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE - STATUS REPORT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; MARINA CENTER IMPROVEMENTS, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT, COMMUNITY POOL IMPROVEMENTS. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Receive and file staff report. BACKGROUND: On, July 22, 2002, Council awarded the Playground Equipment Rehabilitation Project, Project No. 50093, to Ortco, Inc. in the amount of $230,971.00. The bid proposal exceeded funds that were available from the Proposition 12 budget. The Roberti Z Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Grant Program provided additional funding. Construction began on October 1, 2002 and was completed on November 27,2002. The tot lot contain amenities for children between the ages of 2 to 12 and ADA compliant features. Each tqt lot has been inspected and certified by an independent Playground Inspector and Safety Auditor. . Between December 2001 and June 2002, the City received a donations from the 10K Run Committee, Seal Beach Host Lions, Seaside Lions, and Seal Beach L.O.T.E, totaling $29,000 for aesthetics and functionality improvements to the Marina Center. The Public Works Department obtained the bids and construction began in June of 20.0-2 and was completed September of 2002. The completed project included a new sound system, stove and sink, new vertical blinds, . complete painting of the interior, six new commercial sliding glass doors, and small miscellaneous repairs. The roofing repair project for the facility is currently in the bidding process. The Community Pool Improvement projects at McGaugh Elementary School have also been completed. In June of 2002, the City Council authorized an emergency repair of the pool heater and in August of 2002, the new heater was installed. Several other improvements have been made to the pool room which imp~ove the safety of the facility. The diving board replacement Agenda Item ](1J.- 3' - .. costs were found to be over $20,000 which was over the budget and can not be completed at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file Prepared By: ~~uk~~.E. - Deputy City Engineer NOTED AND APPROVED: "i AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 22, 2003 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission FROM: Mark Vukojevic, P .E., Deputy City Engineer THRU: June Y otsuya, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UN-FUNDED CAPITAL SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Receive and file staff report. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved 5-year Capital Improvement Program, CIP, contains the current and proposed capital improvements for the City of Seal Beach. In addition, needed and un-funded projects are listed as a part of the report. Attached is the needed un-funded park projects list which is available on the Department of Public Works website. www.sb-publicworks.com. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file pri~ - ~ Mar K. Vukojevic, P.E. Deputy City Engineer NOTED AND APPROVED: /m(~t City Manager Agenda Item f1 If ..-9 . sb-DPW: 042 CIP Budget: Unfunded Projects: Type contains park sb-DPW: 042' CIP Budget: Unfunded Projects: Type contains park ~I~ .oldi ". , ,.:..\ '..:' :" .r.:-,---:---.---:-....:-.--:--.---:..::'::~-~ ...... :. <. ~ '. I: , I IO.ProJectj' . ....;. .', ':'.'.: .... ',. " ........ 'Funding I : . #r. '. #.ProjectTitle;':' .1'rvpe :. '!Oescription ", ,'. .'. " . .. ~Source . I Amount ~ ; 7~49ii ....:.:;:...50029'~;;ct'ric-G-;:;;;beit~~k--_.-'-- 'fT"h; Electri~;;;;j;elt '1~'~~~:Th~' reno~a~io~ project w;u;~' includ;~~Ching, -"'-1' ooiGe~e~t'l$io,ooo:Oii": I I I Project i Improvements ,alriflng and reseeding the turf, repairing the concrete pathway and upgrading the Fund ; i ' , ~ trash receptacles. J ~ 70492j 50030 1 Arbor Park jpark jThe project for this 13-:'acre park includes renovating the turf area, replacing the 001 General $25,OOO,00:~ L_:;t-___~rf/lrrlgation Project! Improvements __; irrigation sy:~:.~ and upg~~~ng the electrical service. I Fund I i ; 70493. 50031; Heather Park ~ Park i Install restrooms at park. ,'001 General "$150.000.001, I J Restroom Project .!Improvements ~ Fund I' 704941 500321' Aster Park Project j Park ; Upgrade/repair irrigation system and turf. 001 General $10,000.00 I . . ' Improvements j ! Fund I! \ i : 704951. 50034, Almond Park . Park iThis project Includes the renovation of an existing park. This 1.S-acre park is in need 001 General $25,000.00 'I i .__,_l,::"urf/lrrig~~on Project pmprovements ; of turf and Irrigation renovations and removal and replacement of trees. Fund j 1704961 50035rBluebell Park Project I Park ; This project calls for the renovation of 1":3 acres of turf area and irrigation 1001 General 1$120,000.001 I llmprovements : ($10,000), concrete repairs ($15,000), tot lot ($60,000), basketball court ($7,000) 1 Fund ' i ill picnic shelter ($25,000). i ' i ! 705521 jArbor Park Restroom -!park . : Install restrooms at park. j 001 General 1$150,000.00 i I j ,ProJect i1mprovements ! Fund . i , I ~ I' 705531 jAlmond Park :Park ! Install restrooms at park. 001 General $150,000.00 II : Restroom Project hmprovements! Fund I : 70554! ! Bluebell Restroom lPark : Install restrooms at park. 001 General $150,OOO.00! I' ,Project : Improvements J I Fund ! rl70560 i Edison Park j Park ~ Upgrade/repair irrigation system and turf. 1001 General $25,000.00! 'I · Turf/Irrigation j Improvements l l Fund , ! Improvements j i I I I ,,' .70561, i Pavement Rehab~ I Park : Pave and/or reconstruct road and parking lot. I I ~ Edison Park jlmprOvements I l:roi:;--Ju'1I'J1~-:r.~.. ',.~' 'I--.....,~-..::,~., !' , 'Y" , ."..7"'''''i'",.~~ '. I ," ". '0 ""'.='", ":.,:.;x-::';:",..,. ',,'~_:~ .j,~J .~~~., '.-: .',:. f.ft.:<~: R,W.~~;~'..: L:' \<:' -:'>;:,..(~~"'~'~~" ~~~~;'j:j'~ ,~~,',./~f~,:~,::~{n.~: Page 1 of 1 'i $75,000.00 ; i 9~OQ!.9PO'P'0'i 1/16/2003 ~ AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 22,2003' TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission FROM: Mark K. Vukojevic, P .E., Deputy City Engineer THRU: June Y otsuya, Assistant, City Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB PROPOSED , SITE PLAN SUMMARY OF REQUEST:. Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed Old Ranch Tennis Club site plan. BACKGROUND: History As part of the City's development agreement with the Bixby Ranch Company, the Company has agreed to dedicate the Old Ranch Tennis Club to the City at no cost and pay the City the sum of one million dollars. The offer of dedication expires on September 23, 2004. As stated in the Operating Memorandum "Such money shall be used for improvements that will benefit the College Park East neighborhood, including but not limited to improvements related to the Tennis Club Property." The Old Ranch Tennis Club is a seven-acre site, containing 16 tennis courts, a 2,100 square foot clubhouse, a 3,200 square foot locker/shower/resn:oom facility, a 1,000 square foot workout room, and a 77 -space parking lot. In March of 1999, an 18 person volunteer ad-hoc committee known as the Tennis Club Site Committee (TCSC) was formed to look at the site and deterniine its best use for the community. The mission statement was "... develop 'recommendations for the best and highest use of the Old Ranch Tennis Club property for the colmnunity." The group met for a series of. evening meetings and discus~ed the tennis club. finances and operations, developed a recreational wish list, and develpped three site plans with the help of Purkiss- Rose, a landscape architecture firm. In addition, the Recreation Department received proposals for tennis club.operators based on its request for qualifications. At that time, the site plans included the demolition of 5 tennis courts, expansion of the club house to 5,000 or 6,300 square feet, an outdoor stage and perfonnance area, basketball courts, restr.ooms, lighting, new landscaping and hard-scape which incorporated activities such as bike riding, walking, tot lot play, and picnicking. It also Agenda Item JlDl- / .. , included a new skate park, splash pool, and the construction of 20 new parking spaces at Bluebell Park. On May 2, 2000, a town hall meeting at the tennis club was held highlighting these plans and the plans were well received by the 50 residents attending. In June of 2000, Mayor Campbell polled the residents of College Park East to determine interest and receive input on the proposed site plan. Of the 30% responding to the survey, 74% supported the proposed new park plan and 26% supported keeping the tennis facility as-is. This info~nation was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on September 27, 2000 and the design concept was approved and recommended to the City Council. On October 23, 2000, the site plan was presented to City Council for approval of the concept. At that time, the cost of the improvements was estimated at $1.4 million. With a $1 million budget; it was assumed that the City could use the anticipated Proposition 12 funds to make up the difference and the revenue from the Bixby Development to offset operational costs. The Recreation Director presented the staff report and extensive public comments were received at that time. The City Council discussed all aspeCts of the plan and report, and the comments received. At 12:20 am, a motion was carried that "...staff be directed to bring back additional complete information that proves the concept works, including bid infonnation, that would be necessary to determine what will be done with this site." The project was then put on a temporary hold. In late 2001, the project and the associated costs were re-analyzed. The Public Works Department was assigned the project in November 2001. Costs ranged from $1.4 to $1.8 million and a re-scope. of the project was sought. On December 19, 2001, the City Manager, the Deputy City Engineer, and the Interim Recreation Director met with the TCSC to discuss the project. The City notified the committee that several of the amenities including the pool, must be deleted since the project was over budget. One million dollars was stressed as the total budget. The TCSC directed staff to provide . maintenance cost estimates to the existing and proposed facilities, cost estimates for the ADA upgrade to the existing facilities and future analysis. In January of 2002, the City contracted with an inspection firm to determine the required repairs and ADA upgrades necessary to the facility. The cost was estimated at $250,000 which reduced the available funds to the park to $750,000. Working with Council Person Campbell, staff further studied the project costs and the various ways to operate the facility in addition to studying other similar proposed and existing facilities. Staff met with members of the TCSC, the Commission, Council, City residents, and local tennis club operators to develop a new scaled-down site plan. Several plan iterations were developed and reviewed. The Recreation Commission was updated on the progress and was presented with further infonnation on costs and concepts on the scaled-down site plan on June 26, 2002. On September 24, 2002, the new scaled down site plan and costs were presented to the TCSC. The scaled down site plan included repairs and ADA upgrades to the facilities, the demolition of four courts, constlUction of a new skate board park or dirt BMX area, \ small tot lot and new landscaping. After an extensive discussion, the TCSC agreed on the concept that open parkland space was more important than 4 tennis courts and moved approval of the new site plan. The TCSC agreed to share the concept with CPE residents and bring back comments to the next meeting. On October 1.5, 2002, the TCSC met and discussed comments they received from the public. Several comments were received in favor of the project and several against. They also discussed the options of using the money for other areas in College Park East. After further discussion, the TCSC reiterated the concept of parkland vs. tennis courts and moved "... that the previously approved concept plan be referred to the Recreation Commission for approval) that they refine the alternatives, and they approve the concept plan and forward it to City Council. for their approval." , Existing Conditions The Old Ranch Tennis Club is currently being operated by the Bixby Ranch Company. Membership ranges from 180 to 240 full-time mel:nbers and 35% of the members are Seal Beach Residents. The courts and facilities are used for tennis play for full time members, hourly play patrons, tennis lessons, Los AI~itos High School tournaments and other regional tournaments. A inspection of the facility indicates that $250,000 would be required to bring the entire facility to good working order status and to upgrade it to a fully accessible site. Proposed Concept Plan approved by the Tennis Club Site Committee The proposed concept plan which was approved by the TCSC is a scaled down version of the original .concept plans. The existing site would be repaired to good working order and upgraded to full ADA specifications. This is estimated to cost $250,000 which leaves $750,000 for the remainder of the park concept. The proposed park concept will demolish approximately 1 acre, inc~uding 4 tennis courts, and construct a new skate board park or dirt BMX area, small tot lot, and new landscaping throughout the new park area at' an estimated cost of $750,000. The tennis club facility would_ then retain an enclosed area containing 12 courts, the clubhouse, and locker/shower facility. The, total estimated cost for this proposal including' design,. construction, inspection, and a contingency is $1,000,000. Proposed operation of the tennis club facility Several different fonnats for the operation of the tennis facility were reviewed and roughly studied. The proposals received in June of 1999 along with interviews with the existing operator and other. local operators provided the infonnation for the analysis. Staff determined four basic options may exist at the site. Each option assumed that a private contractor would operate the site. o Full Private Membership Tennis Club o Private Tennis Club) Private Clubhousellocker rooms, and public pay for play 'l o Private Tennis Club, Public Clubhousellocker rooms, and public pay for play o Public tennis and facilities and p~blic pay for play (i.e. no membership dues) Analysis and research was conducted to detennine the financial viability of 12 vs. 16 courts. In general, a 16-court facility has a better opportunity to produce income. However, no direct evidence was found that a 12-court facility would be detrimental to the facility. In general, a completely public facility and pay for play operation would cost the City approximately $50,000 annu~ to operate. A partial private and public facility could c.ost $25,000 annual to the .City. A fully private facility has the best opportunity to break even or possibly provide income to the City. As indicated above, the costs to operate these various scenarios varied "and are somewhat inconqlusive. Following the decision on the proposed tennis club site plan, staff will prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to operate the Tennis C;enter. The proposals will be required to evaluate the different operation scenarios and the costs. With the firm costs provided, the Council will be able to decide what type of operation is fiscally prudent. for the Community. This RFP process logically follows ~e Councils decision on the site plan. Alternatives Alternative No.1 is the TCSC recommended alternative which includes the repairs and ADA upgrades to the center, demolition of four courts, construction of a new skate board park or dirt BMX area, small tot lot and new landscaping throughout the new park area. The estimated cost of this alternative is $1,000,000. The operation of the tennis center would be evaluated and detennined based on the proposals to be received. The advantage is a gain in open space to CPE with some amenities for children and general . park use. The disadvantages are that 4 fixed asset courts would be removed from the tennis center and they may affect the operation of the tennis center. Alternative No.2 includes demolishing the entire seven acres and landscaping with turf, creating open parkland. The cOst of this alternative would be approximately $800,000 . and may net the City up to $200,000 to be spent in the CPE neighborhood. The advantages are a large gain in open space to CPE and the oPI>ortunity add amenities to the park. The disadvantages are that a tennis center fixed asset would be permanently lost and no immediate amenities would be at the site. In addition, the annual cost to maintain the site would be $30,000 per year. Alternative No.3 includes demolishing everything except the clubhouse, locker room, and parking lot and landscape the remainder of the site. The clubhouse and locker room would be repaired and brought up to ADA standards and. the total cost of this alternative is $1,000,000. The advantages are a large gain in open space, retention of a clubhouse, locker room and parking lot and the opportunity to add amenities in the future. The disadvantages are that the tennis court fixed asset would be pennanently lost, income capacity would be lost and no immediate amenities would be at tlle site. In addition, the annual cost to maintain the site and center would be $50,000 per year. "! Alternative No.4 includes the $250,000 repair and ADA upgrades to the center and no demolition at the site. The operation of the tennis center would be evaluated and determined based on the proposals to be received. The $750,000 in remaining funds would be used to make improvements in the College Park East neighborhood including repairs and upgrades to other parks, concr~te repairs, street paving, storm drains and other improvements that benefit the CPE neighborhood. Planned amenities could also be added at other existing parks. The advantages are that several other needed improvements such as parks could be made to the neighborhood and the tennis center asset would remain in place. The disadvantages are that no new parkland would be added and it. may b-e difficult for the cOlmnunity to agree on what types of neighborhood improvements should be done. A variation of this alternative is contract with an operator to maintai!1 a private club and require the operator to mak~ the needed repairs and ADA upgrades to the facility. However, this facility may not be able produce a financial profit. Alternative No. 5 is a no-build alternative and the City rejects the dedication of the property. This alternative is a no cost alternative to the City. The f:idvantage is that the Bixby Company would continue to operate the tennis center as is. The disadvantage is that the Bixby Company could request to develop the site at a future date. Summary An abundant amount of alternatives exist for the site and for the funds and a directional . decision point is now required for the project to continue. The offer of dedication will remain valid until September 23, 2004 and the total project budget is $1,000,000. No other project funds or annual maintenance funds are available at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed Old Ranch Tennis Club site plan. Prepared By: ~~~ M K. VukoJevlc, P.E. Deputy City Engineer ... NOTED AND APPROVED: suya, ASSIstant City Manager ,'I!;I'.: ;{('l<-IS N,I'.\Kll.il:,W """"~" ;l t I en y (';(- ~~[td_ or: ~.CH ....0".('.. . y A~~. ("l!"". ::) .:.r:-r !r.ll~!:lI)Vnirl'HS: n~E; ;f.t-!N1S r.H!iI \ :(li>I'!'~II.;I0N "l~El.l!,<ltl.4.rn 'JJu.. l'!.\!/ 'l..,jIt",~""".04 ...... __ ~.' t~ .. ,,-, f'Jillft . <. '. ..~~~.. --....- ~.':'... 'lII>'''G'& * or' \~ AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 22,2003 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission FROM: June Y otsuya, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB - PUBLIC COMMENT/CORRESPONDENCE Included with the Old Ranch Tennis Club agenda report is correspondence received as public comment on the Old Ranch Tennis Club issue. The following documents have been submitted by: 1. David G. Saunders - Letter 2. Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood - Considerations When Selecting Plan for the Old Ranch Tennis Club Site 3. Old R:anch Townhomes Association President Robert E. Tumelty - Board Statement on the Possible Effects of the Transfer of Ownership of Old Ranch Tennis Club Agenda Item till/-flU \ January 6, 2003 To Seal Beach Parks & Rec Coinmission Members c/o Seal Beach City Clerk Joanne Yoe 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach, CA 90740 Well over a year has passed since it was first possible for the City of Seal Beach to accept ownership of the Old Ranch Tennis Club and one million dollars from the Bixby Company. Since then, there has been much ~isunderstanding about the role and responsibility .of the tennis club committee fQrmed by Councilmember Patty Campbell. There has also been misinformation and, confusion about this committee's actions and "recom- mendations. " You will soon be asked to consider and choose between two plans. Neither is satisfactory for the City or truly reflects the desires of the majority of that committee. As I will explain, it is not a true committee recom- mendation at al1. Please consider the following before being misdirected into a very expensive' and irreversible decision to demolish valuable existing tennis courts. The City should accept the property and the m.i11ion dollars now, and let the money finally start earning interest for the City. Keep the club physically as it is. Lease it to a private contractor with some form of private membership continuing, while opening the club and clubhouse to non-members on a pay-for-p1ay, pay-for-use basis. Operating in this manner will make it possible to assess how to continue in the long term with this valuable asset. After some time has passed, it can be determined how this site can provide the most benefit to the largest number of Seal Beach residents, while generating the most income or the least cost to the City. My wife, Cheryl, and I are 10-year College Park East (CPE) residents. For the 20 years prior, I lived in "Old Town" and on "The Hil1." We are not members of Old Ranch Tennis Club, but Cheryl is an avid tennis player, and I play occasionally. Cheryl is a member of Patty's committee, giving me sOD?-e insight into how that com- mittee has operated. The committee's first "recommendation" was criticized and rejected because its estimated cost was $600,000 more than the available million dollars. The fact is the committee was asked to produce a "wish list" for conversion of the facility into a multi-use community center. At that point they had not been told that all or part of the money could be spent on other CPE recreation facilities. Costs were not iricluded as the committee formulated its suggestions on an ideal conversion. After the "wish list" was presented to City Council and the estimated cost was calculated, the plan could have been returned to the committee to be modified to be within budget. Instead it rejected in total. . , . When the committee met in September, 2002, Patty presented just two options to be voted upon. Although some members were not'in favor of either plan, a vote was still taken, but not just committee members voted. One vote was cast by the spouse of a committee member who was in attendance, and another vote was cast by a non-member who also attended the meeting. ' . · Both of these plans are seriously flawed, in part because there are so many unknown factors regarding how much usage the club will have if it continues as 100% tennis. Only time and public input can provide this information. · Both plans are flawed because they include the demolition of four valuable, expensive tennis courts at a cost of $265,000. That cost, just to convert tennis courts to vacant dirt plots, is more that one-fourth of the entire available million dollars! There is no accurate way to estimate how much usage the existing courts may have in the future, but it is reasonable to assume that once $265,000 is spent to demolish four of them, they will never be rebuilt. . Page 1 of 2 · The "recommended" plan is flawed because it replaces one demolished court with a skate park that is too small, only about 120 by 60 feet. This is less than half the size of the 120 by 135 foot skate park at E1 Dorado Park, Long Beach. This plan leaves the second demolished court area vacant for a "future 13MX dirt area." This is also too small to be satisfactory and would prese~t problems of dust in dry weather and mud in wet weather. Moreover, the expensive constructiml of these two facilities would benefit just a small percentage of Seal Beach residents, mostly young boys. Furthermore, it would create two areas where speed and daring are the focus, but with no supervision to regulate the number of people using them, how they are using them, or if they are wearing protective gear of any kind. We have a five year-old son who might eventually use such facilities, but the price based on this plan is much too high. A community swimming pool would benefit far more residents. This could be a long-term option at the tennis site if there proves to be insufficient tennis usage, or elsewhere in CPE if keeping all existing courts is the eventual decision. This "recommended" plan calls for the demolition of two more courts to be replaced with "parkland area." Converting this area, approximately 120 by 120 feet, to parkland is absolutely unnecessary. There is simply no logic to spending $130,000 to demolish two perfectly good tennis courts and considerably more money to create ''parkland'' when other, better sites are available. Aster Park is less than one-quarter mile north of the tennis club. It is approximately 150 by 180 feet of grass, trees and a few picnic benches. My ten years of observation shows this park to be very seldomly used. We should spend a fraction of the money here to landscape Aster Park, and retain all the tennis courts. Bluebell Park is directly across Aster Street from the tennis club. It has a large open grass field, a covered picnic area and a basketball court. Some of the million dollars could be used here for much needed renovation. If it is determined that a skate park and/or BMX dirt area should be constructed somewhere, Almond Park is a better site than the tennis club. It is more centrally located and still adjacent to the noisy freeway. Construction could be in a long, narrow configuration along the freeway soundwall, so the existing play equipment and asphalt area would not be changed, and the grass field would remain large enough for soccer practices and other sporting activities. In summary, the acquisition of the tennis club will be a boon to the City. That is a certainty. Its future use, however, should be planned slowly and carefully, and bridges should not be burned while its best use is being determined. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David G. Saunders 3661 Oleander St. Seal Beach, CA 90740 (hm) 562-493-6961. (wk) 562-430-0534 clsaunders@ ade1phia.net Page 2 of 2 ~r~~Pj~iJti~i1'6r~~ifi1;~J:~~~itl~i: ',' "., '" (' .' ,>, ,'," 1'::. ,}':.:',: ':. ' f':~*1~~i*;~!~~~1~:?~~r~~~:~~?~~i~~{;:~;;:. '!:~~"":'.:""~"h:';""':~:~:""':':~'l~::'~~::':.',:.::::<<,,~...;.:~:.~.,.," .,.:~~~<<',.'~.,~n:::.;~:.:,~""'."";"',:~".;':~:::,:.,~:,,:,:::,.:'.::.:(::f~~~.,:::~;..~..,;,:,,:,:.~,:<;,~.:...l.:~'.:::[::.,;~..:.:"t,:':,'..'.~:.>.,;,:":.~.^,~":":::,~:,,,::;~,,,:,:,;,~,;;,:~:~,,~,',',1,'.:~.',,~...'~,1 .- i' ' '~,~;:. ......: .'::f ';~~~},~~~~~~:~~~~fj~iI~;:~~~~~~{~}~~~ :. ::~,.<.~;. .: ;~.~.,~~~;~ ::'; .' q:I,~.. ... ~. :-..'.,..,..~(.'-(o(..."....Wx.~..~ ...." ,i>;i,''S''''' ::::.....,.,.. ,. x', t.: "0'-=" "... ~ ~{:.:.~.{?:~~.:::~.~:~(."}..~~.~.;-:.~~.:"~.::~~k!t~;.;~~~:-=.:::.:::~.:t-. .......;;.....:--.. ."<x....-X%......~ .,' :. q:I,;~ ',:, . .':, " :'. r :~~~~[~i~~!~i~~~ti~t~~1~~~~~~0~~~~ ~l..~,.;,::,;,::.~:.:~~,::~,f,i^..,~.'.:~,.:~.,~,i,:~~;>y:' , . .. ..,<-:2~i '=II ~ . i. . .~ ....Yo......' ~..o.:".-.:.......:.!.:-:O;'...;;.......,.............~....~.......:,....Y........... -.r . .' ..... ....... . 0::' }. . ~. 0;.:-...-:..... :0....:....;.. ::. 0;. -('x. .(. oif...:.o:....: :~..<-. .....-::....(:'!- ....:.,.. :....,/....(..,:....?: . "'. . g'^ ....-:;..~.K:-.-.. ,....):.( .:... ....,.... ):"'x:'.);i".. -: .,.., "'X'~'''.'., ..)Fo;....... ....... ( ~~' >:-..............cv.<...O;.......~.....;................(..,~=>..~:-..,.-::.~....."...(Y.'<...~);.:.....:,.. ..' s.. .... ..j-x. .Zl.~I1. -=-..'''.'-:., ..c.....<..........,.,,;..,..:.,.. '. .-:.......<..v...:o..'~..... . ~ /(~'~,. ,'W'. "1(lJ' , ":'0)("-1". .).. ~'.""~:w " '. ~ . ,.' ~\." '.:':s, '''''lot'......,. ' '< . . .~~,,\.. '.,..,"!!t .:~.~'-um~o :x~/1., ":>7-~)y><' .. ..>~~,.!.~ ~ ~ . ..v' .::: ..:.v:-~....v,~ .'.":P. . c:J ...':'~'/::;-;:~..r>~~6 ~.~~~;:~ ':'" , . .'...... ,,~ ""7 ..~~1A '~j;"'fJr' .N...... '~. ',.r.:."-!~~~" ~~/7-~.'C"~ :>^;[Y'j:ilv~ .-!~, :' A-~/jL~~" ':',: ,- ~'u;'~o""" -,.-:.::.........~.0(f.J:.: ,:...,.?/~~,:.l..~:' .:Ei~6:>~~~;t:A.ve ::.:'..~' ..,~~,. '::'~{~':'>" " (,:t- :." ;o-..;~Bi)- ..c1.-i......~.."':..;'-,....- ".. ..".' ,,'~~...e.... '.J" ".,: ,"'....,,:~.~::I' ~,.':."n't~ ~'.:.~)~',.(.... ~ ., f' " ", "':' . ...:'~: m 0,:, .:~ :. .... ~ ~,' ,". ~. .. *.... . :...:..':,' :.:...:......:.:"':;.:':",'.......,,-.'.' 22 .t.~~.~f.t:.~y; ,,' .......... ...... .. ....;.~..:.(: ....)~ """"3'0' '0'" ~ .,.,;". m .:':....: .,~90Oft~ . .... '., . .~~-- ~-,~Ir ~ :-....... '''-''';:0' ~:-. ~~..y~:--:--:."=....:-.. K' .')'" J' ......-=:..-::...:-.)1';('... ......... . r .. '.,' <...'....,. ','c.'......'.....,.,'.,' "'..~,..'..."..,....... '(" "..,.,...:<",,;?:.....-.r.. ...<., <' K;; m plC"O n 8 . Jc-ID >!~.~iti1~~~i~k.~t;~ti;~i~~1~~;~:*H~1;~;~~;!~;~:[j~~::tt:;t~1~~~:~~1j , ...,...:~.... '. :" ~!:I: . "~~~. .:':, "f'" .' .' :CJ:~. ^ ':-~'l:-:':y '-:" ..'lo........:-. .....,i',. "'::.-:-::/".('l-: ..:--)....x......:.:....-:.-=:..(:....x..jo.. :,.,...... A..;:.-....(... ..:-:,.:....::.... r .. ~ . ~ .. . ..,.",_..~ __ ....... ~ ;:~f64\)~~<<~:&~~*-:t>>~tf>!2?~'.:YL>~:;.:t;\t<~: ..::?~W f..'., ..1 .~,~' ,'1 '..:. ..,.:, ~ ,~;_..~ . ".,'.,','~"',."',.,.,.,:<'.,,..,.,-..,(,,".,.,,,.(,.R~:-:.,.,:-:,:<..,...;: '.' < ,":<"".A, <v' '~~A~lb G ,r t"I' ., v~ . ~ ~~~~~~t~~f:i;1~~!~~f!~f~l~~;iJ.~i~~f~~~f,~~ri~i~g~~~~~i .. i~1f' ,'. 'r- :, .:, : .', :~4 '. t :.,: '.:k~#~~^~ ,".. ", .;:"-".,...,li(,,<,....,;':<....,.... ,,'.,,'.,-<.,'..7,....,'.(... .....'"., ,M.."..,..v.. "?,;., [~ j j I ' ....::'~".Je.:l ~ .~ :.;t.t~~::{~~~;~~t:;;::.~:;:;::.~.;.~~(~~~.;t;~.;t..?~...::~~~:i--{.~~::~;~:~;:::;r:~~~~"::.:~ ~t. . . '. ." ~ .,.r..t!\. ":~ ~ '.: ~N'u ....,,~ . .>: <:~ :'{':<'''~~r::::'(=X'':-':''',~::-?~,:,~<"",:-: .:-:".:-?--:".-:".-:. ..:.-::.:'":}:':=<.:-~.:-::-::...-: ..{":(:;..:<<.. ... :.' :.;........: ...:'-:~ .~~.. 'J"" .....0.: uN^ . "..".,...."......,",.,.,...,.,,~,',',...,-:,.'. ',.,.,....-:."'.,.,.,..l"',......<..'....,...-,"",, > >,......... ~..~ ~ ,.."..:.:.:'........':.,.~.,'......,........': ..'.. ,..........~~'::,,:""',:,>:.~:,:,',:<',>:,:.:.':'.::~:......, :'b~ ,..... "'{e\\'" .' '.' jf.at'~ :. =','p'.... rl~" , ".{:rtJronWo:xj"Av~ '.',., '~~i: , 1 - ~. a ~.;, '.0: ,r:.~ " . ~. ,-') , ~ , .' . kl1 +Hazslnut Ave. . 1- ,.. '; , .I. . .:.... <'~.~~~^'^..y,l~, 'f:;~-:'~'> .,.." ,~i . Sra t) lOrd ~~~ ~r'''F: ',.'r "A'.I::~~..~~~~~~s,' ~~';'~~''-~~;;I'~ "l;:::~~k~" ,.,',:.., :'/ . .. . ... ICII "Yo". .. ~ y --. ~. r- q t 'LJ.' . . . . m~;.,'_;.:..-.~-...~;..~'l. :.......' .' " '_~<<. L..: ....+.;:~'......;..;...;.-.-: "~ ve' -/'. 'I" . . ", ~~, ." .q)J t%;tJ . ,. .~~~ .. ," . ~,-"..-,..... A' e ......... . J 'J ,( ~ ~ ~~ .": f. . 'w'ood' v ~ '" ;'.' ~,~;;.._ ,.( . :/... . "''':.''1 n" n w__~ '--,. ..--..,.~ ~-~ MI'- ',~~-~:9""p_~~~~~ ',:~ ".:. QJ {Ac~"';",'~ "'A"~' ."\. , .... "~=':.[':'~-~ .;'.. .:, ~,~~mw.-\' ..~7:1.:.'fJr-^-..~A~~~-~~' \~ 10" " ...--" , . ~ 1)11 J ... ,..... '''-'', " . " ""~~~';'~'il:5:' (-.~:...~~ " ..." ,. .:.':. ..,:..Jt:th..^...~91~YAve' . j: . ' );''',1 '...;;p'<tYJ'..:." "~ { 'i~ :~'f,C:hr,i~,'t"',i.~~";" \,. ~0.':""'"~:'..'-...;.:^:.';'.__--1J~I, ,lt6o':.':L. ,: .,., ,: .J ..~.. : .~....:......;.................~~:,.q,.,.A",er, J:Y '.II>' " ~11 .' :j~;:.r' aJ.:,; . I' ,J: ::.. .. '.: '.. " ,~--:ffl~ . .... .~ : . t ~: ~. j ~', . .,.. ~ .~JifiJ AlmD &'a~d~J:.. :,).: {,~' I ".' ~ i. J ~ . ~' . ~ ..~ J J:~:~~i~~t?-:1;i)J4~,:Et~~~1~g~';;i'Jf~ '~~!:~~~Xt;:g;.i.:~J)i1~1$tk~)~~)~;:x~f~$j:t: ' :,~';:.... ->.-:. (..~..-r.. ".? .....":-:.....x>>:-do :-::M">:. '-)' .;. .*..-:-.(.<<:;:-::) .. ::. ... .(, ..(. -:: /..: ~ ...::. ':0 .;....;...oC. .~<;. :y,-;.. ~~ .". _3_ ?t~~t:r~i~~i~i~:$i~t&jl~lf~{c~~~~;{(~tj.~~1it?$:~t1.!?;gt,~~1W;.1~;1~ :,0";"';.> .:>-:o'.-:.,..ot;~<:...... ....:-:.ly~-!-:;..~.~"...;..~;O:if.). ~X.;."<:O::,,<.(:.: :.:"..... ~~.<:..... ;.A(.;r.:;R~';''':::: .....;.( ..~-:<.......~.;.:...:;l';."-:-O::o) :);.~: >'''~:'.. -:'-; 0::": <: ;.:-}:> :~..,.~' *-~f..-:: ~-=:;:-:::-':.}; ~::}.:::: ;<':,. -::~~ ;-:;:;.:.......0;0 :-..~..-;:. (. )::-:<:)...~...:. ~ ....~. ::->:: :-::'0,0:: ":....~~-:..:.. ..,:..:::.: . .... .....=-=...:-;.. :-.~:{.~..:-:. u.".....:-:("v.... ...... ~:,I'< '0(";('::-::::':<:-: :""')"'1o'V ...::......."'..........:0 .:0:.......(.. ...-x.. ';(;....<.':o:')o'4..~.:g~.... -_If.. ,"..,x.. ~.., ,~.,;.;-,~" :,' ,,'_,.' ," .~~(,.,........'V::i"'>:.". Y ,'..;:,'..'$:. "<:.: ',,"':',:-:,,' " v"A ~.N ,,'...., -Y.Y '~":-."'i-':V"""'<>:',<< ,<<V:::::^~." " ):',/:<: .. "...... <-::..-t"^/: ... . <,y . ... "~"'A''''''''''';' ....... 0...tx:~-{:$.r'" '. . -:<"......."<'.:-::*-., -:.- .0:. -: .; . ;."' :-.:...:... "~O:".' )~""'~..;'" . ... . J' -:-;=--:"."1('.:< ~.':(.: (, ..'{~.-:.::-.. ::-:::::-~-:-:'::-::;':-~(1<..;--:. ~:-~';':"':-:::~.,.:Y :-:;~1.iY:(:;.;':{':--.;:-=- ;~<~{:~{::<::-....~; -::" .:"~< ::~-;;:-::':":< -:} -:(.:::~ :< C' .... i...~:lK~~~ ~+~~~)..~<:<":o~~">:~~:~-:.~<~~-::::.~~.;~:~f.}~o}<..-:-~~~~~~:~;.~.....~:~,,;~..~s<~~g~~~~~i:-:~~.: ~:},,:,;-:.X{t:..:~~:::~~~ . ...~ ...-t'o.,-.. ..'::c . . ...'l;....:L~M..,.,:{~..,,:O ........::.:,::-....x..[..... ...:-.... .....\v;.;:.ol'O::?:{..\Jo::;.: .;.....:-:.;.::......$y.~-:.::..<........v.............-::::.';( '.' .~'.I'.." .:-"0)...-:.-=:....<...(......:0..:....;. '. ~:.):. .:;.,.:.~.:.~:.;)(::..:~.:..~-:.~k:~x.~~;..=5~:~:;::":..;.:...~~:;:-:.;.~):~~-::?:;...:{<!oi-=.~<(.~;:{.";:"(.~2i.;:~~"::.::-=..~..:~~(.~::.;;.::::::::::::-;:::..J:.:.:-:-...:.:-~:.;.:*...'~:<'~-:~~"::.' .:... .*IN .' l . ~Io":,. ~"... ...........-::...,.:- ......"<...::..... ...:;0-.......:-...:...... :-...<<.......~.. ".;' -.: ~~-.......,,:O?.... ......-::..";,..: ".-= :..<:..-:.."O-:~.":._:;....-:. . .:--;..-a........-: . . ..:;: . .. .... !. .... ..:(...:(~~:o:'.:-:'::-:...:o....:"-:'.(i..-: ...~ ""=-:: .:-Y::-~~.. .;.t .:....-: .......;.1 ":...::...~.:-~.x~:.;.(.~~;o. ::-:";-"0)' ,.:",0:." y~..-:.:.....y .x'.x.:: ~"., < ." "7:- .... ;irjt~8~*:~*a1~~1:~~~;'~~~~~~j1il0~~t.~~~~:~~{t;1tk%~1~~~~~f*~r.~;f~' "'{11~~-1~~. . '.~,;, : ::l'. ..( :..-:;.-..:-:..;.-.:;:~...f:..}::",=....~:.;....:-:.:'y'-:'....:~"~~:'X: .>>0<<::.:.:-=-::'..~...:;;...:O:.:-":0.. ......;:::-.:-:...?J<x~:-x......<-. .-:;....=.:0.. .":-:.,~. ;~ %-= -=l :'"~;.-.. f. m ~..:;?-.~::.}..~.~.~~~ :-..~-::):~f:.t~~..<<::..:. --<" -=:~}c-:<.:;;:-::t.:<.~* -:;-~~.~<~)~{ :.t;t.x.'.; ~..;~-::~~~.::;:.~:::--;~::<~; <:.;..~~ ~.':':: :{"x-::-~.:-:o.-::~~. . . t~ v: j '.0.: . ~:(.:-t.:-:-~~'.f",:~:{~<'i':~':O:=- .;.t-: -=.:; ~..c.;:..:<::{~-to)t:~.}:...~.~.::<~.;-:=:o(x. :-t.;. ~;-=}~i<~~;})::-.~.::~~~<;,{~<~:-t*~.:-~..:J:;.:.(.l ~':J 01 ;-=~:i{:-:<~:{~2:>t.~~:.~~~)9:~(;~.=.~::f:.~9i-:~:(f~~.~.*":-:-~;tl~1~~t=<:-:-;--~~~.:=:~.~:~k"1<~:~~~::~:;<;~~~&):-;.~tf.:~~; ~~o.' '.~.. N ....v....;.:x.....;.:-". '''-'':-$ .{<}Y-.l' 0.):.... ...... ...:.;;..<.....;.;..::.;..:-:.......-=:... x. ...~.. :-:o.x;... ...O:':..:-:..-;"X~........'Y.'=-~..:-.-<:'(::x~o;.:..,..:. :.;=~. J- ?j;g~~M~1~ft0~*~1~~l;~~;i.#~~~~$1l1.i~gM~~ti{J~i!i*ts~~s~~~~f.;;f:.~~f:.' . : ,~~, ' i ' . " ,.: g - ~ .- ~ Considerations When Selecting a Plan For the The Old Ranch Tennis Club Site ~ Submitted -by Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood Seal Beach, California January 4, 2003 Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 1 Summary of Background Facts: . . Old Ranch Tennis Club has been an excellent neighbor to the residents of CPE for more than 32 years ,,'. . Old Ranch Tennis Club is attractive inside and outside, complements the Golf Club and adds value to CPE . The City of Seal Beach will be gifted a $4 plu~ million asset along with $1 million of funds for "improvements that will benefit the College Park East neighborhood, including but not limited to improvements related to the tennis club property." (source: Memo Number One, Dec 15, 199B) . The present and forecasted financial condition of the City of Seal Beach prohibits subsidizing new amenities at the tennis facility Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 2 Issues to Consider: . Benefits to neighborhood residents of CPE and to City of Seal Beach . Financial ramifications . Safety . Legal and liability ramifications . Impacts to the CPE n~ighborhood . Preferences of the residents of CPE and of City of Seal Beach . Suitability and quality of new amenities Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 3 Recommendation From Options Available . Retain the tennis facility at it present size, 16 courts, ,,' o to provide the opportunity for a financial surplus to the city from membership and public play (see attached budgets) o to maintain the quality standards of CPE AND . Apply the $1 milliC?n funds towards community center or other improvements in CPE Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 4 This concept yields the greatest benefit to CPE and to Seal Beach o Benefits - who and what? · The entire CPE community, all ages and interests, benefit from community center enhancements · The tennis facility already supports many users from Seal Beach . · Retaining the tennis facility as is 'can produce positive ' financial results to the city o Safety · There are no significant new safety issues arising from this concept o Legal and Liability · There are no significant new legal issues arising from this concept Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 5 o Impact to CPE · Retains the look and feel of the neighborhood that residents already value o Financial · Preserves funds for constructive future use · Will not require destroying existing assets such as demolishing courts at a high cost · The financial contribution from the tennis center is more certain when it is at full size. Over five years the difference is a loss of over $150,000 versus a surplus of over $200,000. (Source: Budget Forecasts by ORTC) o Preferences of CPE · Community center enhancements are the most frequently requested services in CPE , · Informed CPE residents do not want the character' of the neighborhood changed . · Informed CPE residents do not want to waste funds on marginally beneficial amenities like BMX tracks ,..1 Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 6 ~:. o Suitability and Quality · Community center is compatible with a community tennis center and with the CPE neighborhood Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 7 Reasons a BMXlSkateboard Plan is Unwise o Benefits -who and what? · Primarily to age groups 2 to 13 as users. · Primarily designed for boys ages 6 to 13 · No general benefit to CPE residents and a potential negative impact depending on the final appearance, upkeep and nature of users of the park · No general benefit to City of Seal Beach residents oS.~ . · Poor location due to traffic at Basswood and Aster · I nsufficient parking along Aster · BMX and Skateboard lots are unsafe by their nature and accidents are a certainty Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 8 o Legal and Liability · BMX and skateboard parks bring added law suits by their nature · Unattended amenities for the anticipated user age groups increase the possibility of accidents and law suits o Impacts to CPE .,' · Converts a known facility with known positive effect on CPE , to one with a reputation of becoming a "hang-out" · Converts a f~cility with known upkeep standards to one dependent on limited city finances to retain its appeal , · The proximity of BMX and Skateboard amenities to the tennis facility may render the operation of the tennis center as home to a dues paying membership infeasible. This further burdens the city and the upkeep of the entire facility may become subpar Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 9 o Financial · The plan consumes the entire $1 million to produce a "basic skate park" -(Source: budget from the Seal Beach Tennis Club Committee) · The plan endangers the opportunity for the tennis facility JO continue being self sustaining or produce a surplus for the city · No budget analysis has been publicly revealed for operating and maintenance costs. · Construction of the new park requires destroying nearly $500,000 of city assets by demolishing tennis courts and a fitness center · Eliminating the fitness center and four tennis courts renders the operation of a membership club at the tennis facility infeasible, again placing the full burden of maintaining the tennis facility on the city Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 10 · The City of Seal Beach will be pressed to raise taxes to support the new park and to complete the construction of the full plan o Preferences of CPE residents · P Campbell "blue letter" survey reported 740/0 support but this was for a previous plan, not current plan. Also, the ,.. survey was poorly worded producing ill informed response · A large and growing number of residents oppose the plan as signified by a letter campaign · The difference in preferences is attributable to fully informing the residents · There is now greater support for using the $1 million to provide a community center . o Suitability and Quality · The spac~ available for BMX and Skateboard lots is very limited - Irvine and Lake Forrest skateboard parks are 11,000 and 40,000 sq ft of skating area Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 11 · Space limitation will result in poor or marginal quality amenities · Poor or marginal amenities will fall into disuse resulting in pressure on the city to turn the property into "something useful" at great expense · Skateboarding shown to be tenth in youth interest level below swimming, baseball, football, track and tennis " (Source: California State University Fullerton report by Management Honors Students, May 2001) Submitted by the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood 12 Seal Beach Tennis Center 16 Court Configuration Pro Forma Operating Budget 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Revenue Non-Res Full Membership Dues $249,600.00 $287,040.00 $315,744.00 $331,531.20 $348,107.76 Non-ResSingle Membership Dues $24,000.00 $27,600.00 $30,360.00 $31,878.00 $33,471.90 Junior Membership Dues $12,600.00 $14,490.00 $15,939.00 $16,735.95 $17,572.75 58 Res Full Membership Dues $57,600,00 $66,240.00 $72,864.00 $76,507.20 $80,332.56 58 Res Single Membership Dues $10,800.00 $12,420.00 $13,662.00 $14,345.10 $15,062.38 Hourly Play $6,000.00 $6,900.00 $7,590,00 $8,728.50 $10,037.78 Pnme Time Hourly Play $8,400.00 $9,660.00 $10,626.00 $12,219.90 $14,052.89 Trounaments and Events $2,880.00 $3,312.00 $3,643.20 $4,189.68 $4,818.13 Locker Rentals $2,400.00 $2,760.00 $3,036.00 $3,491.40 $4,015.11 Fitness Center Dues $2,400.00 $2,760.00 $3,036.00 $3,491.40 $4,015.11 Lessons $9,600.00 $11,040,00 $12,144.00 $13,965.60 $16,060,44 Clinics & Groups $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600,00 $600.00 Total Revenue $386,280.00 $444,222,00 $488,644.20 $517,083.93 $547,546.77 Expense Labor $204,000.00 $214,200.00 $224,910.00 $236,155.50 $236,155.50 Membership Publications $16,200.00 $17,010.00 $17,010.00 $17,010,00 $17,010.00 Laundry and Cleaning $9,000.00 $9,450.00 $9,922.50 $10,418.63 $10,939.56 Office Expense $3,600.00 $3,780.00 $3,969.00 $4,167.45 $4,375.82 Postage $4,800.00 $5,040,00 $5,292.00 $5,556.60 $5,834.43 Utilities $49,200.00 $51,660.00 $54,243.00 $56,955,15 $59,802.91 Insurance $3,600.00 $3,780.00 $3,969.00 $4,167.45 $4,375.82 Repairs $18,000.00 $18,900.00 $19,845.00 $20,837.25 $21,879,11 Gardening $2,400.00 $2,520.00 $2,646.00 $2,778.30 $2,917.22 Landscape Maintenance $26,400.00 $27,720.00 $29,106.00 $30,561.30 $32,089.37 Miscellaneous $33,600.00 $33,600.00 $33,600.00 $33,600.00 $33,600.00 Total Expense $370,800.00 $387,660.00 $404,512.50 $422,207,63 $428,979.73 Net Income $15.480.00 $56.562.00 $84.131.70 $94.876.31 $118.567.04 Revenue Rates per month Non-Res Full Membership Dues Non-ResSingle Membership Due Junior Membership Dues 58 Res Full Membership Dues 58 Res Single Membership Due! Hourly Play Prime Time Hourly Play Trounaments and Events Locker Rentals Fitness Center Dues Lessons Clinics & Groups $130.00 $100.00 $35.00 $120.00 $90.00 $5.00 $7.00 $240.00 $5.00 $10.00 $5.00 $50.00 Counts per month Non-Res Full Membership Dues Non-ResSingle Membership Dues Junior Membership Dues 58 Res Full Membersl)ip Dues 58 Res Single Membership Dues Hourly Play Prime Time Hourly Play Trounaments and Events Locker Rentals Fitness Center Memberships Private Lessons Clinics & Groups 2003 160 20 30 40 10 100 100 1 40 20 160 1 Expense Rates per month Labor Membership Publications Laundry and Cleaning Office Expense Postage Utilities Insurance Repairs Gardening Supplies Landscape Maintenance Miscellaneous $17,000.00 $1,350.00 $750.00 $300.00 $400.00 $4,100.00 $300.00 $1,500.00 $200,00 $2,200.00 $2,800.00 Assumptions 1. Expenses based on actual past experience of ORTC 2. No captial investment shown 3. Membership growth based on restoring membership to past levels 4. Expenses growth based on 5% annual CPllncrease 2004 2005 2006 2007 184 202 213 223 23 25 27 28 35 38 40 42 46 51 53 56 12 13 13 14 115 127 145 167 115 127 145 167 1 1 1 2 46 51 58 67 23 25 29 33 184 202 233 268 1 1 1 1 Seal Beach Tennis Center 12 Court Configuration Pro Forma Operating Budget 2003 2004 2005 2005 2007 Revenue Non-Res Full Membership Dues $179,400.00 $197,340.00 $217,074.00 $227,927.70 $239,324.09 Non-ResSingle Membership Dues $20,400.00 $22,440.00 $24,684.00 $25,918.20 $27,214.11 Junior Membership Dues $4,500.00 $4,950.00 $5,445.00 $5,717.25 $6,003,11 S8 Res Full Membership Dues $40,320.00 $44,352,00 $48,787.20 $51,226.56 $53,787.89 S8 Res Single Membership Dues $4,500.00 $4,950.00 $5,445.00 $5,717.25 $6,003.11 Hourly Play $4,500.00 $4,950.00 $5,445.00 $6,261.75 $7,201.01 Prime Time Hourly Play $6,300.00 $6,930,00 $7,623,00 $8,766.45 $10,081.42 Trounaments and Events $2,304.00 ' $2,534.40 $2,787.84 $3,206.02 $3,686.92 Locker Rentals $1,800.00 $1,980.00 $2,178.00 $2,504.70 $2,880.41 Fitness Center Dues $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Lessons $7,200.00 $7,920.00 $8,712.00 $10,018.80 $11,521.62 Clinics & Groups $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 Total Revenue $271,224.00 $298,346.40 $328,181.04 $347,264,68 $367,703.68 Expense Labor $180,000.00 $189,000.00 $198,450.00 $208,372.50 $208,372.50 Membership Publications $12,000.00 $12,600.00 $12,600.00 $12,600.00 $12,600.00 Laundry and Cleaning $7,200.00 $7,560.00 $7,938.00 $8,334.90 $8,751.65 Office Expense $2,400.00 $2,520.00 $2,646.00 $2,n8.30 $2,917.22 Postage $3,600.00 $3,780.00 $3,969.00 $4,167.45 $4,375.82 Utilities $42,000.00 $44,100.00 $46,305.00 $48,620.25 $51,051.26 Insurance $3,600.00 $3,780.00 $3,969.00 $4,167.45 $4,375.82 Repairs $16,800.00 $17,640.00 $18,522.00 $19,448.10 $20,420.51 Gardening $1,800.00 $1,890.00 $1,964.50 $2,083.73 $2,187.91 Landscape Maintenance $21,600.00 $22,680.00 $23,814.00 $25,004.70 $26,254.94 Miscellaneous $38,400.00 $38,400.00 $38,400.00 $38,400.00 $38,400.00 Total Expense $329,400.00 $343,950.00 $358,597.50 $373,9n.38 $379,707.62 Net Income ($58.176.001 ($45.603.601 ($30,416.461 ($26.712.701 ($12,003.941 Revenue Rates per month Non-Res Full Membership Dues Non-ResSingle Membership Duel Junior Membership Dues S8 Res Full Membership Dues S8 Res Single Membership Dues Hourly Play Prime Time HOUrly Play Trounaments and Events Locker Rentals Fitness Center Dues Lessons Clinics & Groups $115.00 $85.00 $25.00 $105.00 $75.00 $5.00 $7,00 $192.00 $5.00 $0.00 $5.00 $50.00 Counts per month Non-Res Full Membership Dues Non-ResSingle Membership Dues Junior Membership Dues S8 Res Full Membership Dues S8 Res Single Membership Dues Hourly Play Prime Time Hourly Play Trounaments and Events Locker Rentals Fitness Center Memberships Privata Lessons Clinics & Groups 2003 130 20 15 32 5 75 75 1 30 o 120 1 Expense Rates per month Labor Membership Publications Laundry and Cleaning Office Expense Postage Utilities' Insurance Repairs Gardening Landscape Maintenance Miscellaneous $15,000.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 $200.00 $~OO.OO $3,500.00 $300.00 $1,400.00 $150.00 $1,800.00 $3,200.00 Assumptions 1. Expenses based on actual past experience of ORTC adjusted for reduced membership 2. No captial investment shown . 3. Membership drops due to reduced courts and must be rebuilt, however, maximum capacity Is also reduced 4. Expenses reduced Initially then growth based on 5% annual CPI increase 5. Membership monthly dues rates reduced to reflect reduced services 2004 2005 2005 2007 143 157 165 173 22 24 25 27 17 18 19 20 35 39 41 43 6 6 6 7 83 91 104 120 83 91 104 120 1 1 1 2 33 36 42 48 0 0 0 0 132 145 167 192 1 1 1 1 -., OLD RANCH TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 550 OLD RANCH ROAD SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 Ms. June Y otsuya, Assistant City Manager City Hall 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Ms. Y otsuya: I hand-deliver the document, BOARD STATEMENT ON THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB dated December 11, 20003. The Board of Directors developed this document in behalf the residents of Old Ranch Townhomes, the 60 residential units most contiguous to Old Ranch Tennis Club. Please let me note that there is no organizational or other relationship between our association and Old Ranch Tennis Club. The closeness in the names of the two organizations may be confusing. At the same time I ask to be placed on the formal agenda of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting, Wednesday, January 22, North Seal Beach Community Center, and that the attached statement be made available to the Commissioners as part of their meeting package, or in a way that meets your usual practices for such distributions. Thank you for your interest and concern. ------- l/Pl Sincerely, R E. Tumelty, President For the Board of Directors. Encl.1 Lsealbeach:011503 OLD RANCH TOWN HOMES ASSOCIATION December 11, 2002 BOARD STATEMENT ON THE POSSIBLE EFECTS OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB BACKGROUND The board of directors took an action at its regular meeting, Tuesday, December 10, 2002 in reference to the proposed changes to Old Ranch Tennis Club. The changes, which reach us through the news media, represent a commendable community effort but at the same time have the potential to negatively impact our entire neighborhood. This we do not want. Most of us are acutely aware that about 1999, Bixby Ranch Company began a long-term development of this portion of Seal Beach. Without reviewing a development scenario that extends back over the years, the Bixby Company made a small but significant offer to the City of Seal Beach. Bixby offered to dedicate the property known as Old Ranch Tennis Club, more than 7 acres ofland, and in addition, and concurrent with the city's acceptance of the dedication, offered to transfer the sum of $1 ,000,000 (one million dollars), for this noted purpose: "Such money shall be used for improvements that will benefit the College Park East neighborhood, including but not limited to improvements related to the Tennis Club Property." [The quote is from Memorandum Number One, Dated December 15, 1998, at subsection 3.2.5.1. titled Old Ranch Tennis Club, City of Seal Beach, and is a.portion of the named "Development Agreement" between Seal Beach and Bixby.] The City has not yet acted to accept the dedication, which has a 5 year tenn, ending late in 2003. To implement the Bixby offer, our City Council representative, Mrs. Patricia Campbell has worked with a committee of community members to propose the use of the property, and the use of the money gift. It is our knowledge that the work of the committee and whatever City of Seal Beach staff support is given, will reach the Commission for Parks and Recreation in January 2003, and then, eventually reach the City Council. The public media report that a fundamental proposal calls for removal of the four eastern-most tennis courts, 25 percent of all courts, those closest to the intersection of Basswood and Aster streets, erecting a wall to shield the open space from the remainder of the tennis club, and developing a BMX dirt bike trail, a tot park, and a skate park. Our homeowners in the four units facing the tennis property would be heavily impacted by the noise, sight-lines, traffic, at least (units 200, 210, 220, and 230). Whereas the entire complex ~ould be affected, perhaps negatively. In order to make our wishes known to all parties of interest, the board has developed a policy position regarding the suggested changes to the tennis club property. The policy position gives the board guidance to develop actions which may be necessary to represent our interests which are significant, to say the least. The full intention of the board is to monitor any and all developments related to the matter and to keep our homeowners (; Page 2 informed. The board will spell out our policy position at least to the City Council Members, to other units of government, and to relevant members of the larger community as welt BOARD STATEMENT The oncoming transfer of ownership of Old Ranch Tennis Club and the cash grant, accompanied by developments may have profound implications for residents of our community and to the entire community as well. The proposed transfer would take place no later than November 2003. The$l,OOO, 000 would befor "improvements in the College Park East area, but not limited to the Tennis Club Property. " The upside of the transfer and proposed developments is that a new recreational facility would be made available to the residents of the local area. On the other hand, there is the potential for many negative outcomes stemming from the proposed use of the property. The proposed changes could adversely affect property values, and in addition, have perverse effects rangingfrom the aesthetic to localized safety concerns. Particularly we should be aware of possible impacts in vehicle and pedestrian density. Increases in acoustic and illumination factors could be significant. Critically impacted would be the four units facing onto Basswood, and in fact the entire neighborhood We need to protect our interests from any possible downside effects stemmingfrom the proposed reuse of the property by the City, and to protect our interests by all possible means. For each of us, we should be alert to all proposals for development which we define as not in our best interests. Our interventions should be reasoned, but immediate, and appropriate for our purposes, focused on both our individual, and community interests, to include forming and participating in related political interventions as necessary. The board will be alert to all possible developments and will monitor the situation, while in the meantime, working actively with all individuals and groups whose interests are parallel with ours. We intend to keep each of you informed as to our collective actions, so. that individual actions may be in the general spirit .of reaching our common goals of a community which continues to be a pleasant place to live. For the Board of Directors, Old Ranch Townhomes Association Robert E. Tumelty, President December 11,2002 and revised January 8, 2003. AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 22,2003 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission FROM: June Y otsuya, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB - PUBLIC COMMENT/CORRESPONDENCE Included is an additional letter received regarding the Old Ranch Tennis Club issue. The following document was submitted by: 1. William James Nicol- Letter Agenda Item Il Idd/- ,Ii ~ Wm James Nicol 249 Sixth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 562.493.1024 wjnicoI892@adelphia.net December 24, 2002 Mr. Charles Antos, Councilman Seal Beach City Council 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Old Ranch Tennis Club Acceptance from Bixby and Future Use. Dear Mr. Antos: I am writing to express my concerns over the City's probable decision to accept the Old Ranch Tennis Club from the Bixby Corporation. As I understand it, the City negotiated the right but not the obligation to accept the property and $1,000,000 to support its renovation and/or the improvement of certain areas of College Park East in connection with its' final resolution of the Old Ranch Golf Oub development plan. I am told that the most likely scenario is the one espoused by Councilwoman Campbell on behalf of her College Park East constituency. She proposes to go ahead and accept the tennis club property and then demolish the four courts adjacent to Aster Street and acros~ from Bluebell Park. The area vacated would be developed to provide additional green belt area across from the gas station and a skateboard park and BMX ri4ing area on the portion closer to the freeway. A new wall would be constructed to separate the foregoing area from the remainder of the property which will continue to be dedicated to tennis. I believe the initial assessments are that the demolition of the existing four courts, development of the new green belt, skate park and BMX area and the constructipn of the new wall will use approximately $400,000 of the support funds to be provided by Bixby. Since there are as yet no definitive plans for the development and, operation of these activities, I suspect that these preliminary cost estimates will prove to be low. Under Ms. Campbell's proposal, the tennis center will be reduced to 12 courts and will still require some $150,000 in ADA related improvements to be operated as a community center. An outside management company will be brought in to operate the tennis center on the City's behalf. As I am very familiar with the operation of management service contracts, I am quite certain that you will not get any organization to guarantee the success of the venture or, for that matter, even share in the risk of the operation. They will agree to provide a certain regimen of services for which they will expect to be paid and will extract a management fee on top of the base fee. The management fee may have some relationship to the success of the venture but only if such arrangement is Wi1Jil'lm T Nir.nJ Pl'lUp. 1 1 ? /?41O? Charles Antos specifically negotiated in advance. Nonetheless, the management company will expect to earn a profit, whether or not the City does. I am also told that the most likely revenue basis for the operation of the tennis center will be an hourly fee as opposed to the standing monthly dues basis presently employed by the club. The collection of these fees will require additional staff and will present obvious risks as a cash based process. I think it is extremely unlikely that the tennis center can be operated in a break-even mode under these arrangements with its' full complement of 16 courts, let alone the proposed 12. On the contrary, I think you should anticipate six digit operating losses and that is before you deal with the costs associated with the ongoing maintenance and operation of the newly developed areas and the exterior landscaping that has made the club such a good neighbor for the College Park East residents over the past thirty years. It seems to me that Seal Beach already has more than. its' share of under-maintained and under-utilized parks, tennis courts and even skate parks as well as streets and sidewalks that are in serious need of repair. I have significant doubts that a meaningful number of College Park East or other Seal Beach residents would use the skate park or BMX riding trails. One has only to look at the inactivity at the Zoetter skate center to sense that these projects will not be big hits at the Old Ranch site. For starters, how many homes are within walking distance of the site? How many skate and bike age children do they house? At least the Zoetter center was centrally located, was constructed on an existing black top playground and was built with mostly contributed materials, labor and funds. I have talked to a few local youngsters who are or were active roller bladers or skate boarders and they are unanimous in their response that they would probably not use such a new facility. Their primary concern is that it will be just another mediocre park. On the other hand, they do indicate that if the City were to develop a really "radical" park, they would use it and so would every skater or biker from twenty or thirty miles around. Aster Street would be lined with cars at aU hours of the day and night. I doubt that is what the College Park East residents have in mind! I would urge you and the entire Council to exercise extreme caution in the review of the fiscal impact of this project before you agree to accept the tennis club from Bixby. I realize that it may be difficult to see how the City could fail to benefit from the acquisition of a prime piece of real estate, backed by $1,000,000 in cash, but I am convinced that such may be precisely the case. Without a very thorough understanding of the range of financial results to be realized to the City through its' ownership, it would be easy to get lulled to sleep that this is a "no lose" situation and to get stampeded into a decision to take the property, agree to redevelop the area adjoining Aster Street and then figure out how to live with it. Once' you do commit to take the property, however, the project will develop a life of its own. It may be that the deal as it was originally negotiated was an attractive one at that time and that the City could have then legitimately contemplated adding to its parks and recreation budget. Times have, however, significantly changed. The City should not expose itself to a potential Wi111l'1m T Nir.nl Pl'lOp. ? 1 ?/?41O? Charles Antos financial "black hole" that will benefit only a tiny number of its' residents and may well back-fire into another poorly maintained recreati~n area which doesn't even deliver those benefits. If it is your ultimate decision to accept the property, I strongly recommend that, at least initially, you keep the entire tennis center as it is to give your selected management group the best opportunity possible to make its' operation a success. My guess is that they will need at least two summers' play to get court usage up to its' peak potential, whatever that is. You will have all of the Bixby money available to help underwrite its' start-up costs and you can always revise the use of the property during the course of the City's ownership - at a time when a well thought out assessment of the community's real needs has been conducted. For the record, my wife Sarah and I and our three children have lived here in Seal Beach since 1990. We have also been members of the Old Ranch Tennis Club since 1973. I am not asking you to vote to keep Old Ranch a private tennis club since it is rather apparent Bixby doesn't want to continue its' operation either. You may have an opportunity to negotiate yet a better deal with them or perhaps defer the dedication of the property to a time when the City's fiscal picture is a little rosier and its' plans for the use of the property have been more fully and properly considered. I would be pleased to further discuss my views with you. Sincerely, " ... Willis:lm T Nir.ol Ps:lap, ':\ 1?1?4/0? CITY OF SEAL BEACH PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DISTRlCT TERM COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL EXPIRES MEMBERS REPRESENTATIVE 1 2005 Ricky Layman Charles Antos 119 - 5th Street 136 - 14th Street, A Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 596-5003 Phone: 430-1450 2 2005 AnnaBeth Goering John Larson 308 College Park Dr. 13741 Annandale Dr, #186 Seal Beach, Ca 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 598-9976 Phone: 594-8717 3 2003 Carla Watson Paul Yost 1635 Catalina Avenue 485 Schooner Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 598-9294 Phone: 493-1736 4 2004 Schelly Sustarsic Patty Campbell 4288 Candleberry Avenue 4433 Ironwood Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 431-3466 Phone: 598-394I- 5 2003 Andy Rohman Bill Doane (William J.) 1240 Knollwood Rd., 38-L 1401 Skokie Road, 83-A Seal Beach, CA 90740 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 594-8464 Phone: 594-9080 IJ-~ ~ 1X--.