Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PR - 2001.01.18MEETING MINUTES Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, January 18, 2001 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ed Larios at T05 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Burlingame Recreation Center. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Heathcote, Larios, Lawson, Minderman and Muller; Youth Commissioner Zhao Commissioner Absent: Dittman and Erickson; Youth Commissioner Martindale Council Member Mayor Joe Galligan Present: Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director John Williams, Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz, Recreation Supervisor Mike Blondino, Recreation Coordinator Greg Milano, City Manager Jim Nantell, Police Commander Jack Van Etten Consultants Present: Representing DES Engineers were Tom Gilman, Phil Bona and Mariana Alvarez-Parga; Representing Callander Associates were Peter Callander, Ben Woodside and Steve Russell Others Present: 31 other persons signed the attendance roster for this meeting. The attendance roster is attached as Exhibit A. MINUTES Minutes of the November 16, 2000 meeting were approved, as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS The only comments received from the public were made during the public discussion portion of the review of Youth Center/Lions Hall/Community Center project. No verbatim minutes of this meeting were taken, but public comments are summarized in the text of these minutes. Persons with concerns about how their comments have been recorded are welcome to submit clarifying comments to John Williams, Parks & Recreation Director, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010. Clarifying comments will be considered with these minutes when they are reviewed and approved by the Parks & Recreation Commission on February 15, 2001. INTRODUCTION Parks & Recreation Director John Williams introduced new City Manager Jim Nantell to the Commission and the audience. Mr. Nantell assumed office in November, 2000 and also attended the public meeting regarding the proposed Youth Center which was held in the Recreation Center on December 15, 2000. OLD BUSINESS 1. Architect's Presentation of Alternatives and Public Discussion About Youth Center Project. Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz welcomed the audience and introduced Tom Gilman and Phil Bono of DES Engineers, Project Architects, and Peter Callander and Ben Woodside of Callander Associates, Landscape Architects. Architect's Presentation. Architect Callander reviewed the process undertaken to date by the design team and City staff. Two meetings have been held previously. At the first meeting, architects and staff met with representatives of the Historical Society, Lions Club, Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Commission and Youth Committee. The first open public meeting was held in the Recreation Center on December 14 and was attended by approximately 60 people. Many comments were received at the December 14 meeting and those comments have been considered by architects and staff in preparing for this meeting. An additional public meeting will be held as part of the regular Parks & Recreation Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m., February 15, 2001 at the Recreation Center. `-- If the Commission can reach a consensus at that time, one or more alternative plans will be forwarded to the Burlingame City Council for review and for further direction. If necessary, more meetings can be scheduled to review other alternatives and refinements. Callander noted that a wish list of activity spaces for the proposed building has been developed. This list of activity spaces has been the basis for the architects developing the first rough masterplan alternatives for the building. It appears as if a 20,000 square foot facility is needed to accommodate program requirements. Callander Associates studied 11 locations that have been proposed as possible building sites within Burlingame. A list of criteria was developed to compare sites. The Washington Park site appears to be the only location that meets all criteria (except parking, which cannot be met on almost every site that has been proposed). Accordingly, 5 alternative plans were developed for a new facility on Burlingame between East Lane and the existing Recreation Center. Callander will analyze additional sites, should anyone in the community wish to bring forward other suggestions. The City Planning staff has indicated that, should this project be developed by a private developer as a school or similar use, the City would require a private developer to include a minimum of 191 spaces. There are presently 79 spaces at the lot adjacent to the Lions Hall, in front of the Recreation Center and in the Recreation Center staff parking lot. A program analysis must be undertaken to gauge the amount of parking needed. All facilities 2 will not be used to their maximum capacity at all times and an average need should be determined. One of the major goals of this project should be to improve parking availability in the area, not to make it worse. In all of the consultant's proposed alternatives, underground parking is proposed under relocated tennis courts and/or new buildings. The five design alternatives were reviewed by Architect Gilman. All five alternative plans (Exhibit B1-5) call for an attractive new entrance to the park at the intersection of Carolan and North Lane, tying the park architecturally to the train station and the downtown area. A. Plans Al and A2 both call for placing a new 20,000 square foot Youth Center/ Lions Club/Community Center structure adjacent to the existing Recreation Center and relocating the existing playground and tennis courts. These plans preserve the North Lane/East Lane street triangle, but do offer more park open space at the west entrance to the park because of the relocation of the tennis courts. B. Plan B retains the current Recreation Center and playground in their current locations. This plan calls for a relocation of tennis courts (and underground parking) to the east and the construction of a new 20,000 square foot youth center building in the general area of the existing tennis courts. This plan also calls for the elimination of the North Lane/East Lane triangle (lost street parking spaces can be included in the new underground lot) and effectively adds 12,000 square feet of open space to Washington Park. Placing the new building at the west end of the park does locate the facilities closer to transportation and to Burlingame Avenue, C. Plan C calls for demolishing the existing Recreation Center and building one 40,000 square foot entirely new combined building at the west end of the park. This plan calls for the relocation of the tennis courts (and parking) to the east. The playground is retained in its present location. This plans also eliminates the triangle and ads some 9 or 10,000 feet to the west end of the park. This plan opens up Washington Park to view and use from Burlingame Avenue to the back of the park in the area now occupied by the Recreation Center. D. Plan D also proposes to eliminate the existing Recreation Center and build two 20,000 square foot new buildings at the west end of the park. The two buildings would be located on either side of the proposed new west entrance to the park and would add the same new area to the park. The tennis courts (and parking) are again relocated to the east and the park areas closest to the residential areas at the east end of the park are also opened up so that turf and trees replace the existing Recreation Center building and parking. Staff Comments. Director Williams addressed the group regarding funding and the review and approval processes. He noted that the City Council has budgeted money in this fiscal year for the current study of alternatives, along with funds to pay for the actual design of any approved project. These funds for design will not disappear and will be available for design work, no matter how long the review of alternatives might take. K No money is currently budgeted for construction of any new facilities. $2 million has been earmarked for this project in the City's 2001-2001 fiscal year and an additional $2 million is earmarked for the 2002-2003 fiscal year in the City's 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan. These funds could be budgeted by the City Council in future years if City revenues continue strong. At this point, no money is actually budgeted for construction of a new Youth Center/Lions Club/ Community Center project. Williams also noted that it had recently come to the attention of staff and consultants that it might be wise to look at the demolition of the existing Recreation Center, even though that demolition had not originally been a part of the work plan. The auditorium where the meeting is being held is 53 years old. Much of the Recreation Center is in need of renovation and/or repair. Considerable work needs to be done to bring the Recreation Center up to current seismic, building and fire standards. Staff estimates that from $1 to 2 million will be required in the next few years just to bring the Recreation Center up to a satisfactory level. The question arises: "Does it make sense to spend more money to renovate the old Recreation Center facilities?" Williams stated that the existing Washington Park playground area will have to be renovated to bring it up to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Seven (7) City playgrounds have already been brought up to the new standards. (Thanks to the Lions Club for their contributions in support of three of the projects.) Five (5) City playgrounds (including Washington Park) have yet to be renovated and it is expected that all of the Washington Park playground equipment will have to be replaced. The cost of renovating the existing playground can be avoided if the decision is made to relocate the �- playground. Commissioner Comments. At this point in the meeting, Chairman Larios asked members of the Commission to ask questions of the architects or comment on what had been presented. A. Commissioner Lawson asked Architect Callander how many parking spaces are currently in the parking lot west of the Lions Club Hall. Callander responded that there are 60 spaces currently available in that lot. B. Commissioner Muller indicated her interest in Alternative D. She felt that Plan D put the buildings in better scale by splitting the facilities into two buildings. She also like the opportunity to open up the east side of the park in the residential area by demolishing the existing Recreation Center building. C. Commissioner Heathcote stated that he likes the idea of moving the building towards Carolan Avenue. He feels that this would help make a better connection with the park buildings and downtown. El D. Commissioner Minderman asked the Lions Club representatives what the club's position was regarding the alternatives presented earlier. Lions Club Past President Chuck Pascal replied that he had been the president of the club when this project was first proposed and he noted that he and several other members of the club have been following the project closely. He stated that he likes the public input that has been brought forward to date; he is pleased that other sites have been studied in the process; and that he appreciates the public input process that has been developed. Commissioner Minderman thanked Past President Pascal for his participation in the process. E. Youth Advisory Commissioner Zhao stated that he believed that the new building proposals would enable many new recreation programs for Burlingame residents. F. Chairman Larios asked about parking requirements. Architect Callander replied that the numbers presented were the requirements that the City would impose on a private developer putting buildings with similar uses into this type of a setting. Director Williams noted that he had recently had met with the City Planner about the means of calculating what parking space numbers were appropriate for such an activity. Williams stated that parking space numbers needed more study. Gross square footage numbers are often inaccurate if program issues are not taken into �- account. For example, should a large party be scheduled at the Recreation Center and a wedding reception concurrently held at the proposed new building, parking space needs would be extremely high. By contrast, a dance class in the large auditorium might only have 20 participants using a space which could accommodate 400 persons. Williams stated that it was his hope that parking accommodations can be improved with this new project, not worsened. Larios also stated that it will be important to phase construction carefully if a plan is adopted that calls for the removal of the current Recreation Center. The new building must be completed before demolition starts on the existing building. Architect Callander agreed that phasing must be an integral part of any project that involves demolition of the existing Recreation Center. Larios said that teens — their programs and facilities -- are the Parks & Recreation Commission's top priority at this time. He wants to see a quality facility developed for young people. Public Comments. At this point in the meeting, Chairman Larios invited members of the audience to make comments on the proposals presented or to address any questions they wished to the Commission, staff or the project architects. The Commission will accept every comment — this process must be inclusive, not exclusive. Callander Associates notes, displays and summarizing comments are attached as Exhibit C. 5 A. Robin Liffman noted that Plans C and D will change the use of the eastern portion of the park (where the Recreation Center currently sits). She was concerned about the loss of the outdoor basketball court in all plans. She stated that pre school classes and activities would be located too far from the children's play areas in Plans B and C. She was concerned that Art in the Park would be held in the eastern portion of the park. B. Russ Cohen suggested that all should take a step back to look at proposed uses in the new building. He asked if a weight room was really necessary in a youth center. He stated that some other uses could be reduced or eliminated to help shrink the building. Cohan also proposed that renovating the Recreation Center should be closely looked at. Adding a second story on all or part of the Recreation Center could reduce the size of any new buildings. He asked how the community could assist DES Engineers in their study of the project. Architect Gilman responded that the consultants were hired to facilitate the process and listen to comments. He is comfortable with the process. C. Phyllis Whiteside expressed her concerns that the playground still would meet children's needs and that it be located in a part of the park that fits. She urged everyone present to think of the teenagers in the community. She further stated her concern that Washington park not be crowded with more facilities and expressed her feeling that this may not be the best place. D. Lisa Happich stated that she felt that the playground should be located as near to the main recreation building as possible. She noted that often mothers can take a younger child to the playground when an older child is participating in a recreation program or activity. She believes that the City of Burlingame does need a youth facility and that Washington park is a good location. She suggested that consideration be given to phasing in facilities. E. John Webb indicated that young people believe that the weight room is very important and that it would be a good draw for young people. He wondered if all the teens wishes have been heard. He stated that he felt that any discussion of Parking Lot F (Park Road, south of Howard) would not be fruitful because that parking lot is heavily used on a daily basis. F. Joan Barasone asked that teens not get lost in the focus with all of the other issues being discussed. She asked if other teen facilities have been looked at and noted that she was very much in favor of a weight room in the facility. G. Jim Whiteside asked if all the plans proposed can offer two story buildings. Architect Gilman replied that all buildings could be two story. rel H. Dan Anderson asked if other sites within the community had been studied since last month. Architect Callander responded that his firm had looked at two sites since last month, Parking Lot F and vacant lots at Adeline and El Camino. Parking is a major issue at all sites. Callander still believes that the Washington Park alternative is the most viable site, however, anyone who wishes to propose another site for review should contact Callander or Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz. Mr. Anderson is also concerned with the loss of the outdoor basketball court and that Art in the Park will be impacted. He asked if kids really want a gymnasium. He suggested prioritizing the facilities and program wish list. He is concerned about the safety of underground parking lots. Director Williams replied that Art in the Park will survive and that there are lots of options for organizing the event within Washington Park. Superintendent Schwartz noted that the present list of needed facilities is already pared down from a much larger original wish list. Facilities and programs on the list now are the priority for the young people. Chairman Larios stated his belief that and underground parking lot could be made safe for users. I. Jim Sosel urged that the City not rush to judgement --any new facilities developed will serve the community for a long time. He prefers breaking up the larger buildings in some of the plans. He would like to see Washington Park facilities kept at a low scale. He also would like to insure that in any plan chosen, there is a drop-off area in front of the building so that all drivers are not forced to use the underground parking garage for drop-offs. Sosel asked if the teen center and recreation center combinations are a good idea. Are we trying to put too much in one facility? J. Diane Wirgler noted that the concept of a teen center is important. She asked that all involved be careful not to lose the concept of a teen center. She recognizes that the Recreation Center needs to be upgraded and its unfortunate that both these projects have come forward at the same time. She wants to know what trees will have to go and which ones can be retained. She likes the Parks Yard as a location for the teen center and notes that if the teen center can be developed on a different site, the building can be smaller. She urged that Washington Park be kept a community park and does not like the concept of a grand entrance that might invite outsiders to use the park. K. Eric Winkler stated that public transit will be important for a youth center and wanted to know more about alternative sites on Rollins Road and at the northeast corner of the El Camino Real and Truesdale intersection. He complimented the City and San Mateo Union High School District on their cooperation on the new swim pool and asked if the City has considered working with Burlingame High School to develop a youth center site on the high school campus. 7 L. Stephanie Woodrow likes the Washington Park area as a potential site for a teen facility. She said that the group of young people has looked at lots of teen centers during this process. She reminded everyone that everything discussed so far is still all ideas. M. John Herlihy cautioned against mixing teens is a big new building and losing the feeling that the center is "teen turf." He suggested a T shaped building to better separate different uses. N. Mary Warden stated that Burlingame High School facilities are heavily used and not usually available for drop -in use. Students often cannot get into gyms and there is no indoor place to play during the winter months. O. Jim Nantell said that Washington Park is a treasure to be preserved. We cannot do anything to jeopardize the park. He urges that, in studying the teen center project, we look at everything with a holistic approach. Do not just jam more facilities into Washington Park. P. Grant Gilliam stated that we need gym space in this community. An indoor basketball court should be the number one priority. Q. Nick Gervasone advised the group that gym space in the community is impossible to schedule. More gym space is needed. �— R. In response to a question, Peter Callander stated that, yes, this project started as a teen center and that will be done. Other uses have come into the discussion. The facility probably should be more than just a hangout spot. S. Cathy Baylock proposed that a storefront site (the vacant former Route 66 site on California Drive) be used for a trial balloon. She believes that a trial teen program should be tried first to see how it goes. She thought a small gym in Washington Park might be appropriate. T. One person asked that all involved take the time to get the project right. Do not rush the discussions or review. Review of Process. Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz went back as far as the beginning of the Burlingame Together community action planning group in 1996 and reviewed the various discussion meetings and proposal that have been a part of the development of the alternative plans shown tonight. The Commission will review two or three revised alternatives at its February 15 meeting in the Recreation Center. Again, all public comments will be welcome. The Commission may, at that time, recommend one or more alternatives to go forward to the City Council for the Council's consideration. 2. Report on Youth Advisory Committee. Youth Advisory Commissioner Zhao reported on Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) activities. He reported on the middle school dance held on January 5 with 285 participants and he stated that trips are already planned to an XFL football game at Pacific Bell Park and to the Sierras for a ski trip. Staff and the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) are also beginning planning for other Spring and Summer activities. Due to the lateness of the hour, Youth Advisory Commissioner Zhao was excused by the Chairman for the balance of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. Aquatic Center Fee Waiver Request from Special Olympics. Director Williams presented a request for free use of the Burlingame Aquatic Center by Special Olympics for a swim meet for disabled participants (Exhibit D). Staff recommends that the Parks & Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council that the fee waiver be approved. The normal rental fee for the hours of use requested would be $1,088. It was moved by Commissioner Heathcote, seconded by Commissioner and approved by a 5-0 vote (Dittman and Erickson absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the request by Special Olympics for a waiver of rental fees for the Special Olympics swim meet scheduled for May 6, 2001 at the Burlingame Aquatic Center. 2. Report on Problems with the Burlingame Aquatic Center. Superintendent Schwartz �-- reported that one of the Aquatic Center pool heater elements had failed causing the closure of the pool for approximately five weeks. The failed part has been replaced and the pool is again operational. At this point, no one is sure as to the cause of the failure, but it is assumed that either a mechanical defect or a design flaw is responsible. The School District is pursuing the issue of responsibility for this problem. 3. Change of the Meeting Date for the Commission's Regular March, 2001 Meeting. Director Williams noted that he, along with Parks Director Tim Richmond and Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz, would be attending the annual California and Pacific Southwest Parks and Recreation Conference in Sacramento on the date of the scheduled Commission meeting in March and would be unable to attend a Commission meeting on March 15, 2001. Williams recommended that the Commission change the regular meeting of the Commission to 7:00 p.m., March 8, 2001 at the Burlingame Recreation Center. (Conference Room A at City Hall is unavailable on the evening of March 8.) It was moved by Commissioner Minderman, seconded by Commissioner Muller and approved 5-0 (Commissioners Dittman and Erickson absent) to change the regular March meeting of the Commission to 7: 00 p.m., March 8 at the Burlingame Recreation Center. 0 REPORTS 1. Capital Improvement Project Updates. Director Williams reported on the following capital improvement projects. A. The Dog Exercise Park is scheduled to open at 12:00 noon, Saturday, January 27 at Bayside Park (weather permitting). All the Commissioners (and their canine friends) are urged to attend. B. Commissioners Lawson and Minderman, along with Superintendent Schwartz, reported on the Trenton Playground Committee's review of recent plans for the tot lot renovation submitted by architect John Cahalan. All seemed pleased with the review process and the proposed changes. Director Williams stated that this matter will be placed on the Commission's February agenda for further review. If the Commission is satisfied with the proposed masterplanned changes, the masterplan will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Following City Council approval, the architect can begin work on final plans and specifications, with construction expected to begin in summer, 2001. F. The Aquatic Center (Oak Grove) parking lot project is underway. If the weather holds, concrete work should be finished within one week, getting the project "out of the mud." 2. Parks and Recreation Division Reports. A. The written 2nd Quarter Parks & Recreation Department report had been provided to Commissioners previously. B. Superintendent Schwartz reported that the Burlingame Senior Commission had discussed the proposed building alternatives for Washington Park and were supportive of all five alternatives. Commissioners urged that the need for more senior facilities not be forgotten in the process. C. Schwartz also reported that the Senior Commission had discussed bike trail safety on the existing and new sections of trail along the Bay and Sanchez Lagoon. Staff has asked Public Works Department staff for input and will research the matter further. 3. Commissioner Reports. A. Commissioner Lawson asked about the planned uses for the new ball diamond at Bayside Park. Superintendent Schwartz replied that the field will be used by adult softball teams, youth baseball teams, and for girls softball tournaments. During some periods of the year the outfield area could also be used for soccer or other activities. 10 B. Chairman Larios asked if there will be a telephone number available to dog owners who wish to check on the availability of the dog exercise park during periods of inclement weather. Superintendent Schwartz noted that the Recreation Division currently has an athletic fields hotline and an Aquatic Center hotline. It will be easy to add announcements about the dog exercise park. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Larios adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 91111.— ttl- Jo W. Williams Parks & Recreation Director Attachment: Exhibits A. B, C, D Next Regular Meeting of the Commission: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 8, 2001 (Rec Center) 11 1*114 on IIloll ATTENDANCE ROSTER - MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Parks and Recreation Commission Regular January Meeting Burlingame Recreation Center January 18, 2001 Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, Burlingame Joan Barisone, 2714 Hillside Drive, Burlingame Nick Barisone, 2714 Hillside Drive, Burlingame Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, Burlingame Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, Burlingame Clifford Flook, 1515 Broadway, #3, Burlingame Grant Gilliam, 2305 Ray Drive, Burlingame Hans P. Goebel, 741 Rollins Road, #1, Burlingame Lauren Harber, 1434 Columbus Avenue, Burlingame John Herlihy, 1424 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Lisa Happrch, 24 Arundel Road, Burlingame Ray Kliewer, 931 Crawl Avenue, Foster City, CA 94404 Diana Lee, 1284 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame Al Leyva, 1322 Carlos Avenue, Burlingame Robin Liffman, 401 Bloomfield Road, Burlingame Ken Newman, 1404 Carmelita Avenue, Burlingame C. W. Pascal, 845 Black Mountain Road, Hillsborough, CA 94010 Garrett Pene, 128 LaMesa Drive, Burlingame Ody Reyes, 36 Victoria Road, Burlingame Brian Shiller, 1440 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame Jim Sobel, 612 Lexington Way, Burlingame Bill Tokheim, 609 Burlingame, Avenue, Burlingame Mary Warden, 736 Acacia Drive, Burlingame John Webb, 720 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame Jim Whiteside, 732 Vernon Way, Burlingame Phyllis Whiteside, 732 Vernon Way, Burlingame Erik M. Winkler, 36 Victoria Road, Burlingame Bruce Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame Chris Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame Diane Wirgler, 1.536 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame Stephanie Woodrow, 1316 Drake Drive, Burlingame oid VA BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL PARKS YARD wx T s' 1 L1��32'{�R .. ' BASEBALL FIELD�� ' � 74I ;rJj ii" ��•y�Yy, � � Midi' #1 � I ' µ1y y_BOFiT�HAL�'IfIELID _ . - q r. sd E - M w -. s PLAY AREA a.•.01n B U R L I N G A M E A V E N U E CONCORD WAY SCALE 1=30' 0' 10, 10' 60' 100' �ZJ BURLINGAWE CITY OF BURLINGAME SITE PLAN o.�_.. COMMUNITY CENTEk / LIONS CLUB SCHEME A UI/16/UI BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL VERNON WAY VCORD WAY rr ' B U R L I N G A M' E A V B N U h SCALE 1=30' 0in n' I` F"1 BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME SITE PLAN y COMMUNITY CENTER / LIONS CLUB SCHEME A.2 1w, ul Ix:ui BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL P 10 'Ll 0*PARKS YARD BASF -BALL FIELD: SOFTBALLIFIELD 4 mft,- A# CONCORD WAY L wrdil) #9 B U R L I N G A M E A V E N U E SCALE 1-30' 01 10, 30* 60' low CITY OF BURLINGAME SITE PLAN COMMUNITY CENTER / LIONS CLUB SCHEME B m "@% r BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL PARKS YARD BASEBALL FIELD SOFTBALL F :'now I PLAY z-RD AY B U R L I N G A M E A V E N U E SCALE 1=30' 0 10' 30' 60 100 BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME SITE PLAN SCHEME C COMMUNITY CENTER / LIONS CLUB BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL VERNON WAY ORD i B U R L I N G A M E A V E N U E SCALE i=ao' n• lo• an• no• Ion' H BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME SITE PLAN COMMUNITY CENTER•/ LIONS CLUB SCHEMED tWlVol EXHIBIT C UR Callander Assodatf�s January 19, 2001 Community Center Public Workshop Notes —January 18, 2001 Page 1 of 4 On January 18, 2001 at 7:00pm, a public meeting was held to discuss site design alternatives for the community center in Burlingame, California. These notes are statements from the 25-35 attendees from the City of Burlingame. Concerns/Questions • Where is the parking? • What type of activities required 250 parking spaces? • Does the existing facility close down during construction? • What about the impact on the area that crosses the tracks? • traffic impact- pick-up, drop-off • The basketball court is removed in all schemes. • Will the access to indoor basketball courts be restricted? • Where are the little kids going to go? • Thought the project was for a youth center, not a full community center. For a weight room and outdoor basketball. • Single story buildings? • Were other sites discussed? • Art in the Park will end because location is lost? • Art in the Park was moved 30 years ago because of noise, now where will it go, back to where it used to be? • impact on neighboring residents • How secure will the underground parking be? • Concerned about change in scope • wants a teen center 311 Seventh Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401-4259 T 650.3 75.13 13 F 650.344.3290 vv mcaIlanderassociates.com 2941 Sunrise Blvd., Suite 130 Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 T 916.631.1312 F 916.635.9153 wvvw.caIlanderassociates.com Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land Planning Paik and Recreation Planning Environmental Planning Peter Callander, ASLA, Principal C. Gary Hyden, ASLA AICP, Principal Mark Slichter, ASLA, Senior Associate Brian G. Fletcher, ASLA, Associate CA Lic. # 1308 Community Center Public Workshop Notes - January 18, 2001 Page 2 of 4 • The teen center issue should be addressed immediately. • Only teen center, not a community center. • Teen center started everything, not a 20,000 S.F. facility. • Heritage trees and layout of park area a concern. • Wants information: specific tree sizes, demolition of trees, replacement of trees, etc. • Mixing use — something is overlooked, teens cannot use it all the time, when others are there. • specific items of use • For example, after school the weight room may be reserved for athletes, therefore not allowing other teens to use it. • Putting the two projects together (the teen center and community center); the scale is getting too big. • This place may not be appropriate for all these uses. • Why does alternative 4, Park and Howard Street, not work? • Has prioritization been done? What is most important, least important? Facts/Opinions • Scheme D preferred, entryway is good • Scheme D increases Washington Park. • No problem with the configuration of the property • Problem with Lion's Club facility moving • there is a submitted list of improvements for the Lion's Club facility • "we want to work for the City for what's best for the City" • Playground is useful, not in a complicated spot, for younger kids. • The play area serves several purposes: • gathering • when older children are in Recreation Center, younger are at play area • link to rest of park • scheme Al cuts it off • Park is currently user friendly, small scale. • Weight room is important. • Building broken into smaller pieces — good • Alternate site 1 is excellent — close to public transportation • address at next meeting • parking • bus service • Washington Park is accessible for teens • Kids are in school from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., they will not be using the facility. • Kids need a place to go after school. • Everyone wants something different. 00034 Workshop Notes 1-18-0Ldoc Community Center Public Workshop Notes — January 18, 2001 Page 3 of 4 • Activities list was generated by 12 people • more people, larger list • The indoor basketball court is very important. • It can be a place for dances, indoor soccer. • The current court is already overbooked. • These activities on the list are ones teens would like, not what they need. • Scheme D — splits uses- good • The Park Road parking lot is packed every day. • Area is central. • Open space is not compromised Suggestions • Overflow parking can be at the high school. • The play area should be near the building. • Do we really need all this stuff/activities (weight room)? • Rooms can be taken away. • Outdoor basketball improvements can be made. • Parking needs to be simple. • with a drop off area, easy access �-- • Accessibility for community • This project was originally for a teen center. • High school may offer parking. • Using school facilities? • School money; benefit of school and community center, also things such as weight room may be closed at certain times. • Long term use must be addressed. • Phasing • This is the only park in town this size. Do not overcrowd it. • Teens should say what is needed • Alternate sites would not need 20,000 s.f. • no Liori s Club • no senior citizens use • Go back to scenarios to look for another site that can provide for a smaller building. • Alternate site — building — former Route 66 Building — theater • across from Greyhound train depot • trial run to see if teens come • The site is near downtown. • The open space may be better utilized with enclosed space in area. • Gym needed, ping pong, snacks • Can building be redone and include all of these activities? 00034 WorkshopNotesl-18-01.doc Community Center Public Workshop Notes - January 18, 2001 Page 4 of 4 • Look at this alternative * • The time must be spent to get it right. • Pool tables, Ping-Pong is not on list. • Comparison to San Mateo park • keep it a community park • don't need a grand entrance • not an advertisement for others to come • Only need simple - gym, weight room, arcade At the next public meeting, scheduled for February 15 at 7:00pm the discussion will address site design alternatives for the community center. -END- 00034 WorkshopNotesl-18-01.doc ® ©®®mmm®omo®��®®��©©©®©©®®©©®©o���,�,�,o®o�m®��,�,��omo�- mrmw ■ NOON■N■■■■ NONE ■■■■E■E■E■SEVII ■■■■■■■■■■■■,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ e ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MI n■Chi■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■■ MEMOS ■■■�■■■■N■■■■■N■■■■■■■ ©.. ■■■■ ■■■E■■■■■■■EEO■■■■■■■■■MEN ■■■■;■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ e..:.,. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■C:i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ © ONOE■■■OE■E■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EN■O■■■E■■E SOMEONE EENEEEMENE■ e... ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■c:Eli■■■n■■EE■■NNO■■E■■N■■' MONSOON O■■NMOO■■OE ■.,. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■■E■■■■EN■■■■■■■■■■;■■■E■E■E■■■■■■■■■■ e ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.7 EON■EN■■■■■■■■MEN ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MONS e ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■EE■O■■MENNEN■■■■■■■EEEEEE■O■■ON ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■nnC:■■■■■■■■■■■■ NONE ■■■■■■■O■■■■■■ m ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NONE MEEMM m . ■NE■EEO■■■E■■■E■E■NNENN■NNEE■EN■EEE■EMO EE■■■■E■■■■E■■ ®.... ,... �E■E■E■■EEE■■EEO■■■■■■■EEn■E■■■NE■■E■E■■■■■;■■■■ I r ON ■ 11 City of Burlingame DES Architects + Engineers Callander Associates Project Schedule Community Center/ Lions Hall • Basketball • Volleyball • Indoor Soccer • Youth Council Dances • Catered Banquets • Cooking Classes • Catering for Dances • Conferences • Lions Club Board Meetings • Wedding Receptions • Parties • Research • Career Classes • Ballet & Tap Classes • Weight Training • Karate • Tai Chi Activities • Aerobics • Calisthenics • Gymnastics • Snack area • Assemblies • Social Functions • Homework • Studying • Computer Classes & Use • Lounging Area • Group Meetings • Video Games • T.V. • Movies • Parking • BBQ • Private Outdoor Functions City of Burlingame DES Architects + Engineers Community Center/ Lions Hall Callamler Associates v ;i'. f- F�s?` '�°,�� �.i��\d l,t �r'a�e r't '•_ hNgy'st.�.� �; .p '�gx ':'''�`' }i,';p'+d.., �'��•!•-3�>i�.1� Opp, y •".- -'y a''r q?`.` ,x ,M17-�*•:g-�'}c4 i .. - '•` - Y '�, '.� + l:a '`�i4,•4 •i, v;,.:� y/r '�Yt.'.{ kf.4+4 x ". ' t yy,,.. � .✓l�`@ #. .Ii M 1 • 1/'� y4 �F.1 ,:4 Y ' �` �,l 3 ,�p •Y" J� j j P' t4 �'S '1' 1 � � t ^Yt���F .� .y{ } fu yl4 �l'(1: F`. 't ; T �!� `y d S. G4,T ��. J�". troC �. ��• R.y,. � 5 A' �':.k., '_1�'9 e' 41 ? t c ., r- _ .4, 'pT, r' <[[` .`•. �� ry S 'taI YTS:: 1 p kic.'wv. Its t 4. --ma, Y<7jR d'` a. ` J',''.? T A S tR�vnn x • i *.. �; a : l i. 3, ,,r r e, �� *`r"4 '�'^�� ra.:,f :s� ,'/ i� i �' �r r�'r r< Y �° a�r�d�, �r� � �"�i,3r �.� r k•�: � 'jYG`"s:< �'?. i v�' V'� .%.i; 5 s.,f! .� tom- Tfr •� ;SF.i ;- ...Ph i-_', Yu, }St .�`.:.: �k; - 4. �3.; J s'' ,� s4 �.�}*' S fi,�s�. ":, �i u. �..: F..:`s 'QZP.- +l4°,rl4`+ '�,N•,- :., q. ' w'i �' t•� m -. :•fi% - : °r ��t �' ✓ �ya,� �� bn`�x � 1Yk , d i `'1 xx �._ �, • 4 : � � `<f ,."�`t' i.. � fit{ } = 1 a. ;.r, . R 1 Y� t,�-. Y.�� .,f ?,. v ,r:; � ;• •.z�atc �=' tr.}�'� " i+. x•• §` :3._..... ,',✓�t °`.+ � L `L 1 .,�, f' ,`i3-':k 3':i..f� d 'f.�Sr. if. /T. F•). � j .t1 : A. 4•'. . ;S: s•'.a'- t?k:: �'1 .>( ji� . J!-.+.t r: s:,., +i �s:➢ a• ' ,. :r�, � . �4.':; •. �. }:; . "a�+, ,.�r 'i� , � ' ' " ,�e ?�� f° ^•�.a..- ' '§^x,'C i� ';?s. a �'U' C::#" �c -. a •,:tr fi a�'. �4'. i.�:e� ''��.�... �^ i:. � 5 S� � '^. � . ti� "� . . '�...- � - y ' �';: R . $ ." s K 'F' �G k . ��� }. '�•, ki. �y� x � '�'Y^ 3 : .v, V ' ;'�;'?�°x•+'+ , r i a. ' •� s.i y tg'��i '�j. Y +. . -:i'n a• t �'s' '+:: �^ ��.`'$'Y �G�a v'�;+'.tk• - s.;�� y..a ,�.� � _ .c,'.. ?' .. d.r�{a. .C+�-.+ki' Cj :- a., s�+ �,$'. , -�'M ?i' .j t. - : W"s� t Y * ��at -`• '�i<;i, �. '�- •�`. �, �';v �T a � a` 3.`r� ;� ', - i� .,,,a�".".., t..�'5.�� •u' .T�is .,r.it �i.•t fT f. .. .. s* � 'g,-:ry y4*kr MY �%'' i s^ �¢ .};S"4' �,'kFrc'!kt ' � �� a F } i ,• ,.T. < �� ' �� • � -"�� _. ., r drt. 'F ��'^.� � tti .•sx 'i�.,�.~hr �r '.3 .a., �5:#°�i+�'-.. �u a ,_� .;,�- 'y+. . r� '° a ,,y a :#x a �v, aisrx'k';. � i �q4 :�: it � �, if .;►.a?Z ��' ,ryitt: {�+! ?1 �g ,,.mot i .;�t� +:<:,t �L 3 "t <�� ,e •.� r .v� ��, .. e„ rtPR ..dt �a, t* >,. ••�Z w �,,,x 3. ti,.g £ :$- `4.!3P r• ie.� . �� - 'CK.u'�',�`41,T„ lip S.x.?+F,e'�:.�pe tia1�:y 't"�' . {t a r + j;. � # tx Z: a y�lipi+ M .J fT 5�. }" �•: � P f.i'' 'r} �� SJr7, �Ya.' uyF'ft ,�'.. �� 4,Y,� ��.�1 * _ � � � �I +vim � � x s=r . $ � ,� ' a s rx r °4 � '•f - ,may Sa��f� .h . �.` �✓ a ..4 °' ie yx �F+� .� *8a n tb. i:.t y:aY� ,C Vi ILI '1 •7 �'. a ^� .. � t � .^Y .' ..s.•.�: �i'.Y� - . � � (�� r - ,,� �': •. �: ssr . 1rF� . .fit, +•.. t ,[r y f eY�t�, ! "�' Ate"^ �41. r ,r'.. .r (..•.� "`�' _ _. ,. �.�1 '_.. ..?,�xr.'.If�yrir�i:..�`+�.,a.±�..�.i�� _i•:s�lt .. - 17 :i. "^i•4��, � 1y�j•l 4. �W.vnx � � a �` f K, � '.r i. �.�nlK1.l. :'r• �:�!. 9 yy