Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-04-28 #M AGENDA REPORT DATE: April 28, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: June Yotsuya, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The City Council to reconfirm its minute action of March 10, 2003 and to receive and file staff information on the processes for the tennis center facility improvement/operations request for proposals and the survey of public improvements needs within College Park East. DISCUSSION: At the City Council meeting of March 10, 2003, City staff requested that City Council approve the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for the Old Ranch Tennis Club Conceptual Plan. The City Council by minute action approved retaining the facility in its present configuration, directed staff to obtain alternative proposals from private tennis facility operators for a public /private hybrid facility, provided future direction to staff regarding taking possession of facility and funding after a facility operator is selected and specific use of property is determined, and requested staff generate a survey of College Park residents regarding suggested public improvements in neighborhood. (Attachment A is the March 10, 2003 agenda report on the Old Ranch Tennis Club Conceptual Plan. Attachment B contains the March 10, 2003 draft minute excerpt for this item.) In order to address some concerns raised regarding clarification of Council discussion and action on this item, staff requests that the City Council reconfirm its minute action of March 10, 2003. In addition, staff has prepared a timeline for request for proposals for public improvements to and future operation of the center facility operations as well as a timeline for the generation of a survey to College Park East residents on suggested neighborhood public improvements. The schedules of dates in Attachment C are provided as approximate guidelines for each process. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council reconfirm its minute action of March 10, 2003 regarding the Old Ranch Tennis Club Conceptual Plan submitted at its previous meeting and receive and file staff information regarding the processes for tennis center facility improvements and operations request for proposals and the survey of public improvements needs within College Park East. Agenda Item C/ April 28, 2003 City Council Agenda Report — Old Ranch Tennis Club Conceptual Plan Page 2 Submitted by: 1(in= rtsuya, Assistant City Manager NOT ' b ,, - 1 ri APPR :' l : d , :. ,, John % B. orski, City Manager / . achments: A -March 10, 2003 Agenda Report • B -March 10, 2003 Draft Minute Excerpt C- Suggested Timeline for RFP and Survey • Attachment A • AGENDA REPORT DATE: March 10, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John B. Bahorski, City Manager • THRU: Douglas A. Dancs, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer << SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE RECREATION COMIVIISSION `+ RECOMMENDATION FOR THE OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN. - SUMMARY OF REQUEST: - The proposed City Council action will approve retaining the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in it's existing configuration, direct the City Managers office to obtain proposals from private tennis facility operators, and direct staff to take possession of the funding and property after a tennis club operator is selected. In addition, staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction regarding the facility upgrades and the expenditure of 1110 funds for College Park East. 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 /restroom 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 determine 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 community." The group met for a series of evening meetings and discussed the tennis club finances and operations, developed a recreational wish list, and developed 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. Agenda Item 0 • • 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 performance area, basketball courts, restrooms, lighting, new landscaping and hard -scape which incorporated activities such as bike riding, walking, tot lot play, and picnicking. It also 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 information 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 information, 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 which was estimated at $250,000. 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. • • • Agenda Item • The Recreation Commission was updated on the progress and was presented with further information 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, construction 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 15, 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." Proposed Concept Plan approved by the Tennis Club Site Committee (Sept. 2002) - 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' 411 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, including 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. Recreation Commission Concept Plan (Jan. 2003) On January 22, 2003, the Recreation Commission was presented five alternatives for the project. The five alternative were as follows: 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 determined based on the proposals to be received. 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. Agenda Item , _ • 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 isc$1,000,000. 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 onIthe proposals to be received. The $750,000 in- remaining funds would be used to make improvements in the College Park East neighborhood including r repairs and upgrades to other parks, concrete repairs, street paving, storm drains and other improvements that benefit the CPE neighborhood. Planned amenities could also be added at other existing parks. - 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. Prior to the meeting, staff met with members of the tennis club and in the College Park , • East neighborhood to take their comments. This included a meeting with a group called the "Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood ". Approximately 100 people attended the Recreation Commission Meeting and 22 people made public comments. After a discussion, the Commission recommended to the City Council that the City accept the - - Old Ranch Tennis Site as is and it's funding, direct the City to obtain proposals from III private tennis facility operators. Existing Facility Operations - - - The Old Ranch Tennis Club is currently being operated by the Bixby Ranch Company. Membership ranges from 180 to 240 full -time members 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 Alamitos High School tournaments and other - regional tournaments. . Proposed operation of the tennis club facility Several different formats 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 information for the analysis. . . - Staff determined three basic options may exist at the site. Each option assumed that a private contractor would operate the site. • • ❑ Full Private Membership Tennis Club . - ❑ Private /Public hybrid Tennis Club ❑ Public Tennis Facility (i.e. no membership dues) • Analysis and research was conducted to determine the financial viability of 12 vs. 16 courts. In general, a 16 -court facility has a better opportunity to produce income. Agenda Item • However, no direct evidence was found that a 12 -court facility would be detrimental to the facility. In general, a fully private facility has the best opportunity to break even or possibly provide income to the City. A private /public hybrid facility could break even. A Public Tennis Facility is most likely to cost the City annual funds to operate. As indicated above, the costs to operate these various scenarios varied are somewhat inconclusive. The City Managers Office will prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to operate the Tennis Center. 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. The City would take ownership of the property after the operator is selected. If the City took ownership of the property without an operational plan, the City would immediately assume the fiscal responsibility of paying for tennis facility operation costs, utilities, landscaping, etc. These costs would outweigh any interest earnings, which may be gained by depositing the $1,000,000. Therefore it is not recommended the facility be accepted prior to receiving firm proposals from tennis club operators. Funding Expenditure Options An 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. The City Council may direct that the facility be upgraded by the Public Works Department with • the available funding. Another option is to have the future tennis club operator make the facility improvements instead of the City, similar to the Ruby's lease agreement. This approach is beneficial because it leaves the $1,000,000 in tact. However, with the low operating profit for this type of facility, this option may not be feasible or possible. Staff is requesting direction on this option. Staff is also requesting policy direction on the planned expenditure of the funds. Depending on the facility upgrades, these funds range from $750,000 to $1,000,000. The funds must be used to make improvements in the College Park East neighborhood. Possible projects include repairs and upgrades to other parks, further repairs and upgrades to the tennis center, concrete repairs, street paving, stone drains and other improvements that benefit the CPE neighborhood. Other amenities and improvements could also be added at other existing parks. • FISCAL IMPACT: The offer of dedication will remain valid until September 23, 2004 and the total project budget is $1,000,000. Approximately $10,000 has been spent to date. No other project funds or annual maintenance funds are available at this time. • Agenda Item • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following items: " - 1. Retain the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in it's existing configuration; 2. Provide direction on the method to complete the facility upgrades (City or operator); 3. Direct the City Managers office to obtain proposals from private tennis - ' facility operators; 4. Direct staff to take possession of the funding and property after a tennis - club operator is selected; 5. Provide direction on the expenditure of funds for College Park East (projects). - - Prepared By: _ Reviewed By: - - . i . - 4 0,-- _ , M k K. Vukoj evic, PE i oug an ;/ Deputy City Engineer Director of Public Works /City Engineer III . . . �E/ D ED: , 6 ) . . . , J • 1 B. Bahorski ` Vy Manager . • Attachment: Approved Minutes from the Jan. 22, 2003 Recreation Commission Meeting • . Agenda Item Attachment B M I N U T E E X C E R P T Seal Beach, California March 10, 2003 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:12 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN - RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Deputy City Engineer presented the staff report relating to the Recreation Commission recommendation to retain the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in its existing configuration, the recommendation also requests that the staff be directed to obtain proposals for a tennis facility operator, and direction relating to facility upgrades and expenditure of funds for College Park East. The Deputy explained that as part of the Bixby development the Old Ranch Tennis Facility was to be dedicated to the City at no cost and $1 million was to be given to the City along with the facility, the offer of dedication is to expire in September, 2004. He noted that in March, 1999 an eighteen member ad hoc committee was formed to review the site and determine the best use of the facility, the group held several meetings and developed a recreational wish list and site plan with the assistance of Purkiss -Rose, a landscape architectural firm, at that time the site plan included the demolition of five courts, expansion of the clubhouse, an outdoor stage /performance area, basketball courts, tot lot, skate parks, a splash pool, twenty new parking spaces, and a picnic area, in October of 2000 the site plan was presented to the City Council for approval, at that time the cost was estimated at $1.4 million yet a $1 million budget, and it was assumed that the City could use Proposition 12 funds or Bixby revenue to offset the costs, however the Council directed staff to bring forth additional information. In November 2001 the project was assigned to the Public Works Department where the costs were analyzed between $1.4 and $1.8 million, in January 2002 the City contracted with an inspection company to determine if the facility needed repairs, what the costs would be, and the necessary ADA upgrades, the estimate was $250,000 for that facility. Based upon this information the Tennis Club Site Committee met several more times, developed another plan, approved the new plan in September of 2002 which included repairs and upgrades of the facility, demolition of four courts, construction of a skate park, a small tot lot, and some landscaping. The Deputy Engineer noted that in January, 2003 the Recreation Commission was presented with this option and four other alternatives including demolishing everything except the clubhouse, spending the $750,000 for various improvements in College Park East, or rejecting the project and dedication of the property, approximately one hundred people attended the Commission meeting, about twenty -two made public comments, the Commission then recommended that the City Council accept the site as it exists and that staff be directed to obtain proposals from facility operators. The Engineer stated there are three basic options for operation, a full private membership club, a public /private hybrid, or a fully public tennis facility. If directed by the Council staff will prepare requests for proposals to analyze the different costs and scenarios, from the firm costs the Council would be able to determine what type of facility and operation they would prefer. The Engineer noted that if the City accepted the facility now without an operational plan the City would assume the liability and responsibility to pay the tennis facility operational costs, utilities, landscaping, etc., therefore it is not recommended that the facility be accepted until a tennis club operator is chosen. He mentioned that another discussion point for the Council to provide direction on is the $250,000 of upgrades that are required at the site, the Public Works Department can construct the upgrades with the available funding or may direct the operator of the facility to make the improvements, a situation similar to that of Ruby's, yet with a low operating profit that may not be feasible, staff is also requesting direction on the expenditure of funds in College Park East, those monies are designated specifically for use in the College Park East neighborhood, possible projects would include parks, landscaping, concrete repairs, street repairs. The Deputy Engineer reiterated the staff recommendations to Council. Councilmember Campbell noted that this process began four years ago, it has been a long road, if it had been known then that the money could be spent elsewhere this matter would not be before the Council for consideration now, things would have been done sooner. To the question as to why removal of any of the courts was looked at initially was because the courts were unutilized, there is an impaction rate with the courts, about thirty players per court, with a membership averaging about two hundred to two hundred ten that would indicate a need for only seven courts, removal of only four courts was being looked at. Councilmember Campbell mentioned that there are approximately fifty to fifty -five people from College Park East that belong to the Old Ranch Tennis Club, that is three percent of College Park East, there are three to four from Old Ranch and the Hill, with two hundred to two hundred ten members that means that approximately three quarters of the membership does not live in Seal Beach. She said she can understand the members of the Tennis Club wanting to keep and protect their facility, they have been there for a long time and love it, the fact is however that they make up only three percent of College Park East and a mere fraction of the City overall. Councilmember Campbell noted someone saying get the money and put it in the bank to earn interest, with today's rates of two to two and a half percent of $1 million that is only $20,000 to 25,000 a year, maintenance on the facility is from $60,000 to $90,000 per year, it is important to know what this is before getting into it, she must look out for everyone in College Park East, not just the three percent that use the facility, her goal was to get something that was for the majority of the CPE residents, that is why they continued to press for some usage of the courts even when it was realized that some of the money could be spent elsewhere, it was not desirable to put amenities in other parks because parkland is so important, the desire was to not diminish that, some feel that the tennis facility is an asset and should not have any courts removed, some feel it adds prestige to the community, she understands that but again she needs to work for all of College Park East, there is no question that this facility is an asset but is it an asset that can pay for itself, is it an asset that the whole community will use or just can use, that remains to be seen. With that in mind, Councilmember Campbell said she is willing to support going out to bid for an operator but with some caveats, there must be some provision for public use and special availability for Seal Beach residents, there must be provision for the Los Al High School tennis team which is ranked nationally, there must be some provision for use of the clubhouse by the community as a community center as that was high on the list for CPE, as much as the Tennis Club members would like to keep this a private facility there is no way that public monies can be put into a private facility. She noted having received a number of comments from CPE residents this past weekend, she also hung signs to inform the people of the consideration of this issue at this meeting, a comment she heard a number of times was to not spend any of the million dollars on the tennis facility because not that many people in the community use it, they wanted that money spent on parks and other improvements in College Park East, therefore she could not support putting $250,000 into a facility that is used by so few CPE and City people, especially since there is no assurance that the facility will make it, it is felt that the tennis facility should take the cost of improvements out of its revenues, if $250,000 were spent and it is not a success then that money is lost, Bixby is not making a sufficient return on their investment, that is why they are willing to part with it, and if it is not a success the City does not have the money to fund an operation that can not pay for itself. Councilmember Campbell suggested ways to look at a request for proposals, in the first the operator would make the capital improvements and would be provided a three to five year lease, after that time the City would earn a certain percentage of the net profit, assuming there are any, the second would be to go out for a one year lease with no cash infusion and the operator would need to prove that they can increase the membership and that it is a viable business, the capital improvements would be taken out of revenues or if the facility showed a profit after the first year the City could lend the operator the money for the improvements to be paid back out of revenues, the tennis facility is an asset that needs to be managed properly and one that needs to make a return, and given the financial condition of the City it can not afford to waste any money. Councilmember Campbell noted that she has received some good suggestions as to the use of the $1 million, some play equipment for Bluebell Park, a new shade cover there as well, possibly another survey could be done to see how the residents want the money spent within College Park East, the whole purpose of dedicating the tennis facility to the City was because of the impacts of the shopping center on College Park East such as two thousand more vehicles a day on Lampson, by owning this property there would be no future worries of Bixby using it as leverage to obtain approval for something they want from the City. Councilman Doane noted that he has had a discussion with Mr. Barrett, the Golden Rain President, as is known there are no tennis courts in Leisure World, there was a proposal a number of years ago to construct tennis courts yet that did not meet with favor, and in this case his preference would be the private /public hybrid Tennis Club, and if there were a senior citizen discount there are many younger persons residing in Leisure World that would like to play tennis. Mr. Barrett was enthused with this proposal in that he feels there are enough Leisure World residents that would be interested and make up the deficit that Councilmember Campbell has mentioned, it is believed all of the courts could be utilized not only by Leisure Worlders but by persons throughout the City, he would be supportive of retaining the bleachers which would open up tournament play, and he agrees with those who have spoken in favor of upgrading the clubhouse which in turn could be utilized for the different community events for a fee as is the case with the other community centers. Councilman Doane said he would ask the Council to support the request of Mr. Barrett to make the facility affordable so that Leisure World players would have a facility on which to play close at hand. Councilmember Campbell noted that when enlarging the clubhouse was looked into it was determined that in order to do that center court would need to be taken out, it was felt that was too important to the facility. Councilman Yost expressed his opinion that this is a wonderful asset, it is used by the community, to him it would be a crime to demolish tennis courts and take away an asset of the City, yet there are some provisions that he would prefer, having gone through this a few times in recent years, that the $1 million stay in College Park East for whatever improvements those residents choose, the use of the clubhouse as a community center, renaming the facility as the Seal Beach Tennis and Community Center and make it a jewel of the community, at this point he would tend to support a private /public hybrid use so that the public can also use the facility, and that the Los Alamitos High School boys and girls tennis teams are able to use the facility. Councilman Antos noted that he had attended the meeting at the North Seal Beach Community Center where the Recreation and Parks Commission met with regard to this issue, a number of correspondence have come in, all in favor of keeping the facility. Councilman Antos mentioned also that the City has a noise element in its General Plan which provides information about policies and the noise that there ought to be associated with outside activities such as in a park, with that in mind he reported that on Sunday between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m., with no wind, he was on Bluebell Street taking noise readings, one site was near the soundwall and the transmission towers where the tennis courts are closest to the street and then in two places at Arbor Park, the readings, based upon certain proposals to tear down tennis courts and construct other outdoor childrens activities such as skateboard facilities, etc., the ambient noise readings near the freeway were about seventy -five decibels, the Council would have a great liability if they tore out tennis courts and constructed outdoor facilities for children, ambient noise is without any cars, trucks, or whatever on the street, a little further down the street the reading was above sixty -five, the readings in Arbor Park were below fifty. Councilman Antos said in good conscious he could not support tearing out tennis courts under any circumstances to be replaced by youth facilities under the presumption that they would be safe, from what he has heard at the meetings, a report he had from his Parks and Recreation Commissioner, everything in writing, his belief is that the facility should be maintained as it exists, public and private use would be fine, there has also been a recent experience of requiring an operator to upgrade a City facility at their expense, that being the Ruby's lease, that could be explored with this operator to upgrade the facility, and the $1 million should remain in College Park East for improvements. Although not a public hearing, Mayor Larson invited members of the public to make comments to this item if desired, the speaking time allowed is five minutes, and noted that the recommendation is to retain the tennis facility as it presently exists. Mr. Ray Ybaden College Park East, chairman of the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood, noted that he needs to revise his comments after the statements that have been made. Mr. Ybaden said this committee was formed because there was fear that there would be irreparable damage done to the tennis facility, the facility has been a wonderful neighbor for thirty years, when word came out that there was consideration of bike parks and skateboard parks there was not much support for that kind of direction, there was concern also that once damage was done to the tennis facility and once the bike parks were there and then proved to be unsuccessful then where would the money come from to restore the asset that currently exists. The members of the committee started talking to people and hundreds of signatures were secured on a letter addressed to the Council advising the Council to not adopt that type of a plan, as it turns out the Recreation Commission had the wisdom to adopt a different plan and at this point it sounds as if the Council is in agreement with that direction, those present are in support of the Recreation Commission recommendation that the tennis club remain as it exists, they would support selection of an operator, they favor a mixed use plan. Mr. Ybaden pointed out however that those persons who are members of the tennis club now pay over a thousand dollars a year to play tennis at that facility and enjoy what comes with that membership, many people who use the facility are not looked at as outsiders rather assets as they are contributing sums of money to enable this City to keep and maintain and develop that facility, he would not want the membership to go down because they do not live in Seal Beach rather would like it to go up, the more members that are attracted and the better facility that is there, the better it will be for any operator and for the City, this will enable things to be done for the community. As was mentioned by Councilman Doane, they did contact Mr. Barrett and inquired if the facility would attract people from Leisure World to the tennis facility so they could sample what the experience is like, at this point there have been about a dozen and a half people who have come to the facility, have started playing tennis there, a couple of days a month have been set aside for the Leisure World players to come, they are being assisted with forming a club, and it is understood that somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty to one hundred people are going to start playing tennis at the facility, they feel the same thing will happen in College Park East when people understand that this is a facility that is available to them, there are tennis programs for children, people from the Hill and Old Town will be invited, the facility will be busy. Mr. Ybaden expressed his opinion that this is going to be a viable activity, a resource for the City, he believes everyone is prepared to get behind this plan and make it a success. A great majority of those in the audience raised their hand in agreement with the comments. Mr. Robert Tumelty, President of the Old Ranch Townhome Association, said there are sixty home sites, the homes are directly opposite the Tennis Club, he too agrees that the Club has been a good neighbor for over thirty years, yet noted their concern upon hearing of plans to modify the Club, they were delighted to think that this would be an expanded facility that would offer services not only to College Park East but to the entire City as well as the entire area, and identified others in the audience from their complex. Mr. Tumelty said they see this as an opportunity and a challenge in terms of what can be done to develop a regional tennis center, one must start with a dream of such a center, how this comes out lies with the policy direction that the Council must set, at the Recreation Commission meeting a dream was seen as beginning to form because this is planning into the future, every planning effort is futuristic where not everything will turn out just as planned, the recommendation is the start of a dream. Mr. Tumelty said he has no concern if there is only ten people from CPE that use the facility, he does care that there are tens and tens and tens that would utilize the Club but does not care where they are from, if there is need to expand the Club and reach out to other organizations and agencies to develop this regional tennis center he believes that there is a focus for that. There was a comment from Council that he had had concern, that with the economic viability of the Club, everyone shares that, yet his concern was more with the proposal to remove four courts, that would be twenty -five percent of the possible revenue base of the Club, he believes that was within the context of the comment. Mr. Tumelty stated that the people are all for some good planning, they will be delighted to work with the City, the framework that has been presented seems to be a good starting point, that is when the hard work starts. A member of the audience who had addressed the Council at the first Public Comment period was denied a second opportunity to speak on a two to three vote of the Council. Mr. Marty Mahrer, College Park East, said he agreed with most of the positive comments regarding the Tennis Club, however with regard to Alternative 5, a request for direction on the expenditure of funds for College Park East projects, his question would be who is going to be the overseer and what projects are going to be brought forth that the public does not know of at this point, of concern is that since the City is in a shortfall for money the $1 million could be used for many things. The City Manager explained that the Development Agreement states that the money has to be used for the benefit of the College Park East neighborhood, therefore the money can not be used in another area, once there is direction from the Council any capital improvement project proposal would be voted upon by the Council, as has been heard preference as to projects may be done by a survey, improvements have been mentioned at this meeting, at this point it is an open issue that is yet to be fully discussed. Councilman Yost expressed appreciation to the Neighborhood and Tennis Club Preservation Committee for the work they have done, a group a people who were not supportive of a proposal and in turn brought forth positive, constructive changes and did so with respect, dignity, and professionalism, suggesting that might be an example for others to take a similar lead who are unhappy with situations, the group deserves a hand for changing something into a positive. Councilman Yost said his hope is that this facility will be a jewel in the City as the Seal Beach Tennis and Community Center, there seems to be a great deal of division in the community that stops at the 405 Freeway, there are a number of people from District Three that travel to this facility to play tennis, it is hoped this can heal some of the division and this can be the meeting point between Seal Beach north and south of the freeway, also that the money be kept in College Park East to do with whatever is desired. Yost moved, second by Antos, to approve the recommendation. Councilmember Campbell stated that she would like to split the recommendations, she would have no problem retaining the tennis facility in its existing configuration, provide direction to complete the facility upgrades by the City or the operator, her feeling is that that needs to be addressed in the RFP rather than make that decision at this time. Councilman Yost said he would accept that as a friendly amendment to the RFP however would want some flexibility should it be problematic. Councilmember Campbell questioned whether $250,000 would go towards the tennis facility or the entire $1 million go to improvements in College Park East, she has a concern putting $250,000 into a facility where it is not known whether or not it can be successful, she would prefer to go out to bid for a year proposal to see if the membership can be built up, at that point either take the capital improvements out of revenue, possibly the City could lend the money, or the operator could put the money into the facility then provide the operator with a three to five year lease. Councilman Antos clarified his understanding of the motion, to retain the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in its existing configuration, direct the City Manager to obtain proposals from private facility operators, specifically to have the private facility operator pay for the cost of improvements, including ADA, in the same manner as the City did with the Ruby's lease, then the $1 million stays in College Park East, and as part of the RFP indicate that this is a combination private /public tennis facility, include language to allow the public to use the clubhouse as a community center at some point and amount, and a provision for the Los Alamitos High School tennis teams to use the facility. Councilmember Campbell included special availability for Seal Beach residents, including those who are retired, noted again that at such time as the City seeks an operator no money would be put into the facility at that point in that it has not been proven that it can succeed, it will need to be seen if the operator can provide the capital improvements or have a year to determine the success of the facility, there will be no money from the City for operational expenses. Mayor Larson suggested that alternate bids be requested because it must come out economically feasible for the operator, if the operator puts $250,000 into the center then there will be a greater charge to play tennis, the bids could reflect the charge to play if they put that amount of money into the facility or if they do not. Councilman Yost noted that the community as a whole will get some benefit by using the clubhouse as a community center, for classes, etc., it will not be solely for tennis but to the benefit of the residents of the community, he could support the suggestion of putting that into the RFP then the City can have a choice. Mayor Larson noted that the tennis facility in Long Beach has an operator, it is similar to how golf courses are run. Councilman Yost mentioned that there is a beautiful public /private hybrid facility in Santa Monica that functions very well. Councilman Doane said he would be interested in knowing if anyone has made any kind of inquiry as to operators, would they be interested. Councilmember Campbell confirmed that there have been inquiries, however the policy of the City is to go out for bids. In response to a comment from the public, Mayor Larson pointed out that the expenditure of funds is generally left to the determination of the Councilmember, whether it is fixing streets or whatever. Councilmember Campbell said what she would like to do, with the approval of Council, is send a survey to all College Park East residents seeking suggestions as to how they feel the $1 million should be spent, one suggestion was play equipment and a new overhang cover at Bluebell, with this pending action the money from Bixby will not be required to be spent on just the tennis courts, it can be spent in College Park East in general. Councilman Antos inquired if City staff can prepare the survey form, to that Councilmember Campbell stated she would work with them, there is a format, Councilman Yost too agreed that staff should be involved. With regard to a procedural issue, the City Attorney noted that the maker of the motion was Councilman Yost, the recommendations on the last page of the staff report can be used as a guideline, except that the word 'alternative' should be added to read 'alternative proposals', the first was to retain the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in its existing configuration, obtain alternative proposals from private tennis facility operators for a public /private hybrid facility, it is presumed that staff will be directed to obtain the money from Bixby, that being after a tennis facility operator is selected, the community center use and Los Alamitos High School tennis team(s) use, that being the motion. Councilmember Campbell mentioned senior citizen 97use of the facility. Councilman Yost suggested that a survey generated by City staff of the College Park East residents with regard to their suggested improvements for the area be included. Councilman Antos reiterated his second to the motion. AYES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost NOES: None Motion carried Councilman Doane thanked everyone for their participation in the discussion, and mentioned the efforts of Mr. Saunders of the Leisure World News. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk and ex- officio clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the City Council action at a regular thereof held on the 10th day of March, 2003. Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk City of Seal Beach ATTACHMENT C Tennis Center Facility Improvements and Operations RFP Schedule Activity Approx. Target Date May Completion of RFP Bid Documents (5/28) May /June Distribution of Bids, Bidder's Meeting, Facility Walkthrough (6/4 -7/9) July Bid Closing (7/16) July /August Review of Bids, Interviews (7/17 -8/13) Aug or Sept City Council meeting — recommendation (8/25 or 9/8) CPE Survey, if mailed September Complete Preparation of Survey, Mailing List (9/3) September Mail Survey to CPE (9/10) October Return Date of Survey (10 /1) October Survey Follow -up (10/2 - 10/15) October Park/Rec Commission agenda, if input desired (10/22) Nov or Dec City Council meeting — survey report (11 /10 or 12/8)