City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

Back to Parks and Recreation CommissionParks and Recreation Commission

Calendar of Events | Current Agenda | Past Agendas | Meeting Minutes | Members
Members Photos | Parks and Recreation Ordinance | Service Request

February 22, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
734 Third Street
Brentwood, CA 94513

CALL TO ORDER: 7:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL:  Director Craig Bronzan introduced new minutes recorder Betty Jo Whincup and requested her to call the roll.  Present were Chairperson Karen Rarey, Vice Chairperson Jan Melloni, Commissioner Lanny Brown, Commissioner Scott Shepherd and Commissioner Jeffrey Cowling. 

Others present: Director Bronzan; Sue Barry, Recreation Supervisor; Poldina Scherff, Recreation Supervisor; Janet Hansen, Park Planner; Ken DeSilva, Park Manager; Barry Margesson, Park Services Manager; Mac Kaiser, Recreation Supervisor; Tim Taylor, Recreation Services Coordinator; Tammy Homan, Administrative Secretary; and Pam Ehler, Acting Finance Director. 

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Karen Rarey.  Director Bronzan then introduced Tammy Homan, new Administrative Secretary. Tammy will handle all of the Director’s scheduling, handle phone calls and correspondence, etc.  Will also support Commission in relation to getting agendas out, getting schools and travel and all other related Commission needs.


CITIZEN COMMENTS: Jim Brannan, President of East Diablo Soccer League, introduced himself. Reason he was present was on behalf of 119 soccer teams and they are scheduling games and looking for places to play. Has been working with Oakley, Knightsen and Byron and is concerned about what fields will be available. It appears they do not have any fields available in Brentwood. Last year had to pay $10,000 to use Freedom High School field. Stated that this very difficult for volunteer organization to accomplish without raising fees. Questions raised included where will they be able to play, when are the parks new fields coming on line, and when will they be able to use Bristow School, etc. Just received word that they will be able to use new park in Oakley to play games. Now officially have more fields in the City of Oakley than in Brentwood. Have between 1500-1600 kids looking for place to play. 

Director Bronzan responded by saying that they are looking at Apple Hill Park and now the school will be looking at requests. Not sure about Bristow and this time. He has discussed this matter with others and will get back to Mr. Brannan in a week to let him know availability of various fields. There are two soccer fields coming on line at Garin. The problem is that they are being built by Signature and there is no requirement on Signature on when they have to be completed. Best guess is that they are promising that the parking lot will be done in time for the opening of the gym and the School District is expecting that the gym will be open in late June or early July. Worse case scenario would be 3 months before fields are ready. There are other practice fields in Heritage Park in Spa L, which is a Morrison development, and once again, no ending date necessarily. They had done most of grading and had to stop because of drainage problems. 

Mr. Brannan then asked if there would be a soccer park about Summerwood. Director Bronzan said it was a neighborhood park so they could not go in and line out fields and schedule activities. But, in going through Park Master Plan have identified that there are a lot of neighborhood parks that don’t allow for structured play. Commission is going to look at that policy. The difficulty is that they are having to make up for a lot of lost time in neighborhood parks. As they open neighborhood parks we do hear some saying that if it is a neighborhood park, why are people coming in for scheduled activities? There will be a lot of fields within the next 6-9 months. 

Mr. Brannan expressed concern about local kids, some in age groups 4-9, many in Bristow and Brentwood neighborhood park area. Director Bronzan will work with him in any way possible to help him especially mentioned recent request for Bristow, will work on Apple Hill and if area available in Sunset. Need to define issues, requests for practice as well as scheduled games. Morris Carlson is field director and has put in request. Chairperson Rarey asked if Loma Vista had been utilized. They are rebuilding, will be one area for practice ball field on one side and soccer field on the other. Not sure of policies as which will be playing and which practice fields. Director Bronzan will be working more closely with schools to clarify uses. Mentioned need for letting fields heal after rains and heavy usage. Hope that by end of April the Parks and Recreation Commission will have the framework of an agreement with the schools on how they reserve fields and how people in community have access to those fields. Vice Chairperson Melloni mentioned that Bristow may have to put in more portables and that will require chopping up more field and that may be one reason why not sure when fields will be ready. Unsure of time frame at this time.


Discussion of removal of items 1 and 3 from consent calendar. 

Motion to accept Consent Calendar items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Cowling. Motion carried unanimously.

Item No. 1
Minutes, page 11, Commissioner’s Comments Craig pointed out that Karen Rarey has been appointed as Chairperson in Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Board, it is instead Contra Costa County Transportation Citizen’s Advisory Commission. Vice Chairperson Melloni then stated that on page 1, the last paragraph I was the one that asked what was happening with Dupont. Instead of Karen Rarey it should be Jan Melloni. There being no other changes, Chairperson Rarey asked for motion to make those changes and then accept the corrected minutes. 

Vice Chairperson Melloni motioned that the changes be made as requested to the January 25th meeting and to accept the minutes. Motion was carried unanimously.

Item No. 3
Annette Rains, President of ECHO, 3751 Holmes Road, Oakley, reported there is public meeting scheduled next Tuesday, February 27, at 6:30 p.m. at Freedom High to present what there plans are and what they have found. Ms. Rains brought three things before the Commission. The first is that County has been able to add the distinction of adding another Millennium Trail. It is the Mokolumne Coast to Crest Trail. Now the De Anza is one and now the Mokolumne Coast to Crest Trail is the second. That should be able to assist in getting some more funding for EBMUD (East Bay Municipal Utilities District). The second thing is we attended the Historical Society luncheon and the Kiwanis approached us wanting to know if ECHO would be interested in joining in the new club they are forming in Brentwood. ECHO is interested and is going to start working with them. The Historical Society is going to have the distinction of ECHO as their first and only club member and they also wanted to join ECHO. It works into the mission statement about maintaining the heritage of our region. The third item is damage control relating to the fact that equestrian trails should not be asphalt or concrete for more than short distances. They are working on putting a package together, with all supporting documents from different equestrian organizations as to what the damage is to horses ligaments, etc. She will provide all this information at a later date. Referred to Brentwood News article and cartoon. Please no hard trails when it comes to equestrian. Vice Chairperson Melloni asked if decomposed granite would work on these trails and Ms. Rains said that would be perfect. 

Commissioner Shepherd motioned to accept Ms. Rains report, Mr. Brown seconded. Motion carried unanimously.


Item No. 9
Discussion of award of bid for Skate Park. Janet Hansen referred everyone to an updated Staff Report that was circulated before the meeting began. It is in follow-up to the report that was presented in the agenda packet. Now that the bid opening has taken place and additional information has been received, we are here tonight to review and discuss and want to come up with a recommendation for the City Council to look at or review for next Council meeting. Report goes through previous actions and background and held one last community meeting last November 13, and as a result of that meeting the Skate Track construction documents were completed and the project was put out to bid on January 22, 2001. At the bid opening last Tuesday, February 20, there were a total of three bids received. The bids are as follows:

Contractor                               Base Bid          Alternates       Total Project Bid
A. J. Vasconi Gen. Eng.     $668,650.50     $69,215.00         $737,865.50
Diede Construction Inc.        784,583.47        63,306.47          847,889.94
Altman General Eng.            839,114.80        52,204.00          891,318,80

Project Budget:  Legal            $5,000
Construction:                       $517,000
Project Adm.:                        $52,000
Total:                                    $574,667

Based on this information, staff has brain-stormed and come up with the following recommendations for consideration or options:

1. Reject all bids and not to build the skate park.

2. Reject all bids, redesign the Skate Park so it can be built within the budget amount of $574,667, including the 10% contingency. It is estimated by Land Image, Landscape Architects, that this option would require an additional $6,000 in design fees and would take 8 weeks before the redesign would be ready to be put out to bid again. There would be approximately a month to bid the project and then start over looking at the numbers. 

3. Recommend award of bid to the low bidder, A. J. Vasconi General Engineering, award the project at their base bid of $668,650.50 with a 10% contingency $66,865.00 for a total contract amount of $735,515,50. This base bid schedule includes $198,854.00 for landscaping. Costs are directly associated with areas outside the Skate Park, and that area is between the Skate Park and the pool. Those areas include between the Skate Park and the pool, the park area directly behind the Skate Park, and the area between the Skate Park and Griffith Lane. These areas need to have landscaping, irrigation, hardscaping, which includes sidewalks paving, and the construction of the trash enclosure for the pool, whether or not the Skate Park is built. The area is designed to be a park and landscaping will have to go into that area, regardless of whether that area a skate park is built or not. 

The next phase of the Aquatic Complex was to start on the park development that surrounds the pool. The project currently has approximately $1,500.000.00 set aside for development in the next two years. Since the cost of these items mentioned above are more directly related to the development of the park and interface with the skate park, funding could be provided from that budget. 

If the landscape, irrigation and trash enclosure are funded in the amount of $198, 854.00 from the CIP budget for the Aquatic Park Project, that would leave a balance of $536,661.50 for the skate park construction cost. This falls within the Project Budget of $574,667.00. Park and Recreation staff will then be able to provide the majority of the project administration /management in house. And what that refers to is the $52,000 that was budgeted for project administration, that cost was factored into prior to Parks and Recreation being as well staffed as we are currently. With current staff, we feel we can manage the construction of the project in-house, with minor outside inspection services. Commissioner Shepherd questioned amount of costs. Ms. Hansen stated that they feel that they would not exceed $10,000.00 (roughly) in outside costs. Mr. DeSilva said they actually have a Public Works Inspector on staff and have the capability of using Public Works - actually their own inspectors to do the work, plus park staff. Mr. DeSilva distributed two articles from Sunday’s newspapers regarding skate parks. Mentioned that since they were considering not putting in landscaping or fencing, an article stating Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District in Livermore built a skate park facility without those amenities, and now they are looking at having to spend another $169,000 to put those in. 

Commissioner Cowling asked about the bulk of the disparity between the engineer’s estimate and the bids. Mr. De Silva replied one of the things found was the contractor had estimated around $31,000 to $32,000 to import soil, which is already on site. That is one item that really shouldn’t have been that high. The major discrepancy with the architect’s cost estimate was the fact of the landscaping outside and some of the hardscape elements. Ms. Hansen also responded by saying the skate park itself, the unit costs when compared the bid to the engineer’s estimate, was really pretty much accurate. Those costs are basically associated with the other site amenities including the fencing, other concrete landscaping and additional soil work involved in mounding. In response to a number of the community meetings, the community spoke out and wanted to have a screen or buffer between the skate park itself and the residences. Commissioner Cowling then asked if these are unit price pay items or lump sum pay items. Would they be measured for payment? Mr. De Silva responded that they are unitized. Commissioner Cowling then asked that if the soils are mostly on site, would we have to pay for that? Mr. De Silva, that is something that legally first we would have to find out what we can do through our City Attorney. Whether or not we can negotiate these costs he was not sure. Ms. Hansen said that they do feel that there are ways, once we have the contractor on board, they can do some value engineering.

Commissioner Cowling asked what experience these companies have in building skate parks. Ms. Hansen responded that all three bidders have experience with building at least one skate park. It was a requirement in the bid documents. The apparent low bidder has done a number of skate parks in this area including the one in Antioch, the one in Livermore, and the one in Dublin. Ms. Hansen was confident in their bid and the numbers that they have put together. They were also on the list of experienced contractors received from Land Image, as well as the other two. The other bidders, number two just recently completed the Stockton Skate Park and Altman Engineering has also done a number of skate parks around the state as well. Chairperson Rarey asked if the other cities had been contacted to verify how these contractors have been to work with and to find how their deliverables are? Ms. Hansen that she had not done yet. Commissioner Cowling asked the value of the imported fill bid item. Mr. De Silva estimated between $31,000 and $32,000. Commissioner Cowling asked if any significant amounts in the bid for weatherization and what would the construction schedule be. Mr. DeSilva stated it would be done during the summer so there wouldn’t be any necessary weatherization. Ms. Hansen stated that in the contract documents, the contractor has 120 days to build the skate park. 

Chairperson Rarey, Originally, as you stated before, it was the concern of the neighbors and that is the only reason why we added in the landscaping to this, and it was always supposed to be a part of the park. Always assumed that the back part of the park was going to be landscaped anyway. Did not realize that when it was added to the costs, that it would not be taken out of that budget. It seems right that it actually comes from where it should, that is the Park budget, not the skate park budget. Skate Park was only supposed to be within the walls of the skate park. That is why we went to City Council and said there are some decorative things that we can do, but it was based on whether you want to approve more money for this and if not, then we don’t put on the decorative railing and don’t put in the trellis. There are several things that we weren’t going to put in there, but the outside amenities should have always come from the Aquatic Park Fund. Vice Chairperson Melloni asked if the A.J. Vasconi Company does their own concrete work or if they sub out the concrete work. Ms. Hansen was not certain.

Comment from citizen Rodney Hill who works for A.J. Vasconi. Stated they do their own concrete and do not sub it out. Indicated that they just completed the skate park in Livermore. Ms. Hansen responded, that again in the contract document the requirement was that the prime contractor do 60% of the work themselves. Commissioner Brown questioned why the disparity among the bids. Ms. Hansen indicated that she has seen bid situations where there has been $200,000 plus difference between the low and second low bidder. It does cause concern. It concerns the bonding company because anything over 10% difference between the low bidder and the second low bidder causes them a lot of concern. They wonder what was missed -- there is a good possibility that something could have gotten missed. These people are doing all of their own concrete and that could be the difference right there. There were further comments regarding other contractor’s rates, whether or not they used sub-contractors which could cause variance in rates. Also comment from citizen that design of skate parks, amount of labor involved, etc. also changes costs. Experienced skate park builders have more knowledge on how to design and build and more efficient use of labor. Stated they had built the Tracy skate park. Questioned as to whether they came in on budget in Tracy and replied that they had and had also built Antioch’s skate park. Vice Chairperson Melloni asked if they had done estimating on project or if someone else had done that. Citizen replied that he had worked with them on that but that he was more in the field. His position more of a field supervisor. Vice Chairperson Melloni asked if he knew of any issues that might come up that might cause extra work. He replied that he did not, it is mostly in the landscaping, didn’t think there was anything in the actual skate park that would change the numbers. The palm trees make this type of landscaping is very expensive. Vice Chairperson Melloni then asked if they were to take the landscaping and put it back where they originally had it with the construction of the other part of the park, then would you anticipate any material changes due to architect error or anything like that? Response was “no”. 

Chairperson Rarey asked if they did go back to have it redesigned would they then have to go back to design review process again? If so, and then if it went back out to bid, what are the time frames that we are looking at? Ms. Hansen said that Land Image is aware of the actual budget number and we have had a discussion based on the bidders line item bid schedule, which gives you an idea of where you can more easily cut back to meet that budget. As far as a design review, I think that they would simply send that to us in Parks and Recreation and baring structural or concrete mix changes, and I don’t anticipate that those types of things would be changed. Would not have to go through a full plan review. Commissioner Cowling asked if it would push it out into the next rainy season that would make a difference. Chairperson Rarey, then noted the presence of skateboarders in the audience and asked them if they would like to make any comments at this time?

Robert Porter said that he felt that they needed a company that doesn’t do pools or that kind of construction because some skate parks he had been to are just impossible to skate at. Chairperson Rarey asked if he had skated at other skate parks such as Antioch and Dublin. He responded that he had skated in Antioch and other skate parks, but not in Livermore or Dublin. Asked how he felt about Antioch skate park as far as being able to skate in it, Robert said he was able to skate in it good, but just felt it was too small. He was then thanked by Commissioners. Mr. Stange, on the Skate Board Task Force Committee indicated he was at the meetings where it was discussed that some of the architectural stuff was going to be absorbed by the monies reserved for the park. On previous contacts with the Mayor, Mayor mentioned that he had some soccer people that were angry about the money being spent on the skate park and they wanted to see soccer fields come in. He stated that he was aware that the soccer people need facilities too, and he would recommend that they go forward with the skate park, and not do a redesign on that, but look at the park area behind it and see if some redesign there could then be utilized to fill the soccer players need.

Richard Curtis commented that he had been at most of the skate parks. He has skated at Livermore, Antioch and Dublin, and they are all good parks. Livermore is the best one because it is really smooth. He was asked about the Tracy skate park, if he had been there. He indicated not that much but his brother has been there. He stated that he had been there though. Chairperson Rarey said that considering that the Tracy contractor is the designer contractor Brentwood is currently looking at, asked him he saw any problems with that park. Response was no. 

Bill Hill of the City Council then came forward with a question. He asked if the $198,000 that was being considered to be taken out of the Park Fund, wanted to know what the scope of the work? Was that $198,000 included in the bid package, and was it contemplated in the $574,000 budget? Ms. Hansen responded that amount was included in the bid package that item came off the line item bid. The engineer’s estimate of $574,000, was that scope of work included in the corrected by one of the commissioner’s and said yes, $517, but the total budget $574,000. Question referred to Director Bronzan since he stated he has been involved since the first meetings. Very briefly he stated that in the first meeting in September of 1999 to build a skate park, at that time task force had not even positioned it yet, it was considered that it would probably go next to the pool. The original number when discussing a skate board park was $400,00, because that is about the amount we understood other people were building a skate park for then. When we looked at Livermore, there was no landscaping, and no fencing. The direction from Council was they wanted to make sure that this skate park is fenced. It needs to integrate with the pool, and following right behind the pool. The original $400,000 ended up at $517,000. This was done last year at the beginning of the CIP process because at the time this was what the engineer was estimating was going to happen. As it got finalized at the final meeting, at that point the neighbors were saying you have got to berm behind and all of that. We did not go back to City Council to revise the CIP budget, but we were hoping that still in the design of the skate board park and including the landscaping and the fence, it would still fall in the budget. We didn’t have an idea really on what that would be, so if it was a part of the scope the landscape architect in his best estimate included those quantities and still thought we would come in the $530,000 range.

Commissioner Shepherd asked where did the extra costs come from? Director Bronzan replied that basically that if you compare all the bids, every bid in every item is all over the place. There is not a consistency that any of the other contractors were l0 or 15% above on every item. In the two years I have been here, other than the Loma Vista redesign, there has not been a City project that came in on or under budget. This is a tough time to figure out what costs are because this is a busy environment. I talked to our City Manager and he asked why our architects continue to miss their estimating? Director Bronzan indicated he doesn’t know. Most projects are going up 20,30 or 40% from what people are expecting. Ms. Hansen said there seemed to be a significant amount of that in topsoil, architect had it at $30 per yard and low bidder had it at $90. Going through line item by line item these differences do appear. Same situation on the aggregate base that goes underneath the sidewalk and the concrete at the skate track. Chairperson Rarey asked about trash enclosure cost. Ms. Hansen said she would have to check on that, but believes roughly $10,000 to $15,000. Commissioner Cowling asked what the alternates consist of. Ms. Hansen said alternates consist of additional seating in two areas of the skate track, the concrete stain of the skate track which provides some color (otherwise the skate track would be all gray), the third add alternate was the trellis that is above the columns at the entry, and the fourth add alternate was the word Brentwood on that trellis. At this point we are not suggesting funding any of those alternates. 

Chairperson Rarey asked how long before we start building the park. Director Bronzan said that they are expecting this summer to bring forward a contract to hire a contractor. They have the conceptual design and that has been approved by the Commission and by City Council. It is estimated, depending to what level the park is built, it being a two to three million dollar park; so they have the conceptual design the job this summer will be to hire the architect who will do the construction documents in the next phase of the park which will take a couple of years. Best case scenario on starting construction of the back part of the park is probably the Fall. Chairperson Rarey asked what type of liability would be involved if they don’t landscape that area now, and landscape it along with the park when it should have been done. Director Bronzan, not sure if there is necessarily liability, but will have to come back at some point, even if they decide not to build a skate park, will still have to landscape this area. The money will have to come out of the budget for the park as it was intended. One of the things currently dealing with at the pool, because of all of the dirt areas, are having to ports on the pool heaters an awful lot more because unsettled ground. Therefore, it behooves us to get the entire park built because it does create problems with the heaters, the gas ports fill up faster than they should. Vice Chairperson Melloni commented that it will be more expensive to come back and do that landscaping after the park is built, unless it was done fully in conjunction with one or more phases of the park development. 

Pam Ehler, Acting Finance Director, was requested by Director Bronzan to address funding issues. She stated that there was about one million five for this year, we are not going to spend that because you have not moved forward on planning that part of the park. That will just roll over with the funds for next year. Have already started the CIP budget process this year, and will relook at all the estimates in all of those projects. We will be bringing those to you at the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting in March. 

Vice Chairperson Melloni commented that as a footnote from a contracting point of view that she uses engineer’s estimates, but does not rely on them. She thinks they are okay as a minimum and use it to let bonding company know what our bonding power has to start at. Her company has not in the past five years put out a bid that has come in on an estimate - it has always been maybe 20-50% higher. 

Ms. Hansen said she didn’t know if the Commission was thinking of doing the Skate Park, and postponing the landscaping, but if they bid the project without that as part of the bid, they cannot pick and choose and say, okay we will award a bid , and don’t want you to do this, this and this, etc. Unless they were a part of the alternates. If they are going to build just the skate park, then will have to put it back out to bid.

Chairperson Rarey stated she had concerns when first looking at this, and her understanding that they were taking the funds from the back park, and landscaping it so that it had paths for the kids to go through, with some shading because it does get very hot out there in Brentwood, and overwhelming concern of the neighbors around here that they would have sound from the skaters. Also, thought originally that skate park would be lighted, which they will not be doing at this time. Always her understanding that it was coming from that other (Park) fund. Chairperson Rarey said that she was on Task Force with Vice Chairperson Melloni and does remember that conversation that yes we do need to get this landscaped and we were going to do it with the park, but instead we are going to do it with the skate park. She too, felt that those funds would be transferred from the aquatic park, over to the skate park. Director Bronzan stated the best way to go back is that they started this in September 1999, and did not bring conceptual designs to the Council until April of 2000. It wasn’t until after community meetings and talking about size and design that the architect was able to bring something forward and said that now this is what it is going to look like. Some neighbors then indicated a need for buffering light and sound. At the same time we were doing the community meetings on the back part of the park. What is interesting is that we had two separate architects working side-by-side but overlaying. When we came forward with the presentations and heard from the community about not lighting, adding berms, more trees, etc. The reason Land Image was directed to put this into the park was the back park became farther behind the skate park in design. From a staff perspective, we were directed to say, you can’t build a skate park, the neighbors are not going to let it be built if you don’t have trees, berming and all those types of things. So we went forward with the architect and said you have got to figure out a way to feather it together. Questions were, do we want the fencing to match the pool, and both this Commission and at City Council it was absolutely! Make sure the pavers match, make sure that the two side-by-side look that they were done at the same time, same materials, etc. Therefore, from a staff perspective sitting right now and listening to the conversations, we probably should have gone back and said, that it is unrealistic from a skate park perspective. From a Task Force for the skate park perspective, they have been looking inside the fences of the skate park. That’s traditionally how people build skate parks, with that going in and with the neighbors insisting we do the landscaping, we should have taken that back as a recommendation and adjusted the budget as such. We had an original budget, the first design came forward, the architect adjusted his numbers when we were looking at this in April of last year, so when we redid last year’s CIP we got the numbers where they are. You are dealing with CIP numbers adopted July of last year. 

Commissioner Cowling said we have three options and suggested utilizing a process of elimination. Commissioner Cowling does not think that Option 1 is an option since we have people waiting for the skate park. Option 2, as far as rejecting all bids and rebidding it, there is a lot at stake there, we don’t know what we are facing as rebidding it. We don’t know if we would be pushing it out into the rainy season which would certainly affect the cost of the project, weatherization costs etc., not to mention the schedule. Personally, thought Option #3 having some research done on A.J. Vasconi, check out the City of Tracy and some of the other cities that they have done work for, and find out what their experiences were with this contractor. See if they had similar problems such as we had on the aquatic complex, with certified payrolls and items such as that. Scope out the clients that A.J. Vasconi has worked for, and during that investigation, would recommend to the City Council that we award the bid, without the alternates to A.J. Vasconi. Vice Chairperson Melloni then asked Ms. Ehler if money could be pulled from the Park budget itself and then be added to the Skate Park? Ms. Ehler responded that if you recommend to go ahead with this, at the same time that it goes to City Council, what we would have to do is amend the original budget, the CIP Project Budget, and at the same time we could amend the original Park budget. Or just go through the appropriate time when we do this annually anyway, because when we looked at this again this year, we were going to have to look at the existing, what was left for the park complex. We would probably reduce it because we had already landscaped or finished off that part of the property. So that would just go in our annual review. But we could do both at the same time. There are a couple of options on how we do it. You are kind of hitting at the same time that we are doing the whole budget anyway. We look at every single project again right now at this time of year. We will be looking at the pool complex, the back park project, so that is something we would look at. We will be looking at those harder because construction costs have gone up. Chairperson Rarey commented then for Option 3, could take $198,000 from the other - would probably just amend both of those projects at the same time? Ms. Ehler concurred. She further stated the park complex item was based on so many acres, you’re taking some of that down by doing this project anyway. This was never adjusted last year, so we would be doing that anyway when they look at overall project. 

Chairperson Rarey asked Commissioner Cowling if he then has a motion to go with Option 3. Commissioner Cowling then said he would make a motion to recommend to the City Council that the project be awarded to A.J. Vasconi General Engineering for the base bid of $668,650.50 with a 10 percent contingency and asking an administrative transfer of CIP Budget for the pool related landscaping funds, based on an evaluation of their current work in other cities, with other clients. Director Bronzan commented that is part of what they do anyway, they do check-ups on the people bidding on projects. Chairperson Rarey questioned how soon, if they award this as motion states, how soon before they would be able to get started on the park? Mr. De Silva commented there is paper work to get in and whatever other bonding etc. and 10 days after Notice to Proceed, so legitimately a month before anything even starts and 120 days for construction after that. Both Director Bronzan and Mr. DeSilva responded. Chairperson Rarey then stated, possibly by the end of summer? Director Bronzan said after scoping it out, probably best case scenario, late July

It was moved by Cowling to recommend to the City Council that the project be awarded to A.J. Vasconi General Engineering for the base bid of $668,650.50 with a 10 percent contingency and asking an administrative transfer of CIP Budget for the pool related landscaping funds, based on an evaluation of their current work in other cities, with other clients. Commissioner Melloni seconded the motion. Motion carried with Commissioner Brown voting no. 

Director Bronzan reported that this will go before the City Council next Tuesday. Director Bronzan then stated that he would like the Commissioners to attend anybody from the Skate Board Task Force that would like to talk.

Followed a discussion of the trees with question being poised by audience member. Director Bronzan responded the trees are outside the Skate Park and that they are there because the neighbors, through the process, have urged us to make sure that at least the neighbors in the vicinity don’t see, hear, or necessarily have to look at the skate park, which is why we are berming and putting trees in. It is also a part of the larger 16 acre park, the pool the skate park and all the land in between. Questioned about leaves being a hazard to skaters. Director Bronzan responded part of Park & Recreation’s job to see that it remains leaf free as far as possible. Mr. De Silva, Parks Manager, works with contract maintenance, so will make sure job is done. Vice Chairperson Melloni commented that last year during all process of task force, etc., the current Mayor and Quintin Kidd, the former Mayor, and other council members made promises to these kids and in my opinion promises are made and promised need to be kept. We made promises to you guys and we are going to keep them. Commissioner Cowling said that is “integrity”. 

Chairperson Rarey then called for Commission to move on to item Number 10. 

Item No. 10
Discussion/recommendation regarding design of neighborhood park/detention basin in Yamanaka subdivision. Mr. De Silva stated the presentation would be by John Nichol and his assistant from William Lyons Homes. Conceptual images being presented tonight of a retention basin that has a park component that is part of it. Have one facility on Fairview that is in the Richmond America Subdivision, which was very successful. Working with John and Lyon Homes, we came up with a couple of options that we would like you to look at tonight. Also, as part of this, not just the presentation, but more of a policy, we probably should have some dialogue regarding future uses of retention basins, there are quite a few of them in the City. This afternoon we met with DaSilva Group (no relation) and in their project that is south of Sunset, close to where the Community Park is, they have retention basins there too, that is more or less of a lineal park there. First to speak was Sue Shaffer of William Lyons Homes. We have a tentative map being reviewed by the city right now. It is the Yamanaka property tract # 8424 located off Garin Parkway, between Sycamore Drive and Chestnut Street. Within that development we are proposing a neighborhood park and a drainage basin of about 10.4 acres of that site. Why I am here tonight is to get direction from you on how you would like to see this park and drainage basin interrelate and function together. They function differently on here and I will let John Nichol, our landscape architect explain the differences and how they interrelate. Then presented John Nichol, Landscape Architect , 3581 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette. Mr. Nichol presented two conceptual plans for the project. Mr. Nichol explained how his firm was asked by staff to essentially look outside of the box in terms of how a 5 acre park and an adjoining 5.4 acre drainage might connect with one another to basically heighten or add to the natural resource qualities of the park itself. To provide visual or esthetic enhancement, and also to further our goals of ecological enhancement for the overall 10.4 envelope that we have. Have had a meeting with staff, since we could not bring this forward without the input of the civil engineers, Carlson, Barbie & Gibson who are not here now, but have a working understanding of the hydrology that underlines these two schemes, particularly Scheme B which is on your right and am prepared to answer questions about the hydrology, but would just like to give an overview of the comparisons of the two projects and discuss them briefly. There are basic grading situations that do make them different. Sycamore Drive is to the north of the project and Garin Parkway extends north/south. There are also two trail elements within the subdivision that essentially run north and south, they come to the project essentially on the east side and the west side. Explained where trails lead to open space, the overall project lies to the south of the project. There is off street parking around the park, estimate about 53-54 cars can park around the 5 acre park. Both schemes are similar in the placement of the active component of the park. In the first scheme a parking lot has been located with an in or an out 1 way entry/exit off Sycamore Drive. 20 spaces shown in this parking lot, while the path system is essentially a loop, 10’ paved pathway which connects to the parking lot, with future rest room that is located just out of the main south site line into the park from the intersection. Located a play lot at mid point between the southern users and the parking lot, which is at the north side of the park. A group picnic area is located along the pathway in this position. Also indicated two social areas basically they could be raised planters with plenty of seating at the two main entrances to the park. Also have a loop path system coming back to meet the parking lot in this location. One thing in either scheme that could make a handsome addition, is to raise the grade 2 or 3 feet, relative to the rest of the park and have an overview of the detention basin pond to the east. That would be handicap accessible and an alternative ramp access relative this so it could be accessed either by stairs or ramp. The concept here would be in Scheme A that we would take the 5.4 acre detention basin that is given to us by the civil engineers, that contain 67 acre feet of flood waters and ease the transition between the park and the drainage basin, while we plant that interface and also plant a trail corridor that would be provided under either scheme in a 25 or 50 foot wide area for storm drainage as well as trail easement. The elevation of Scheme A is a perimeter of a park that we set at about the elevation of 60. This park would be essentially at that elevation of 60. The aquifer, the water table or what is the exposed water system in the drainage at around 45. So we would have a 15 foot differential between the park and the floor of the drainage area. Moving to Scheme B, different configuration and impacts that might have in terms of development of the park. Scheme B elected same active park components in north and western areas of the 5 acre park and have established a mid-point tray approximately 8’ below the street elevation. A couple of elevations shown plans given out to commissioners, where the turf meadow, 300 x 430 which would slope toward the detention area at about 1and half percent, showing elevation of 54 and 52 and down to 50. That elevation then, is essentially designed to take the flood incidences between a 10 year flood. A ten year flood event would remain in the fenced pond. Incidentally both projects would have a fenced detention pond. Turf meadow in Scheme B would be subject to flood events between a ten year and the 100 year flood level. Non of the hardscape features with the exception of the pathway that is on east side of lawn would be subject to flooding. Everything else is above it. This has currently been done in other areas, we have developed a park similar to this in Lathrop, there are many considerations in those flood events. There are maintenance responsibilities and we can’t recommend to you one versus the other. We do know that waters that come up and drop down will deposit sediment into the turf area. Scheme B shows a high point in the detention basin, that high point we are indicating as potential bird habitat and dense trees. That would be at about elevation 45, so the high point above that could rise about 48’. The civil engineers have indicated the idea of an island could be developed in either concept A or B without serious impacts on the perimeter or the overall area of the drainage basin. There would need to be hard surface access into the basin for periodic cleaning of the floor, Carlson , Barbie & Gibson have discussed in general terms with flood control, there is willingness to allow planting within the detention basin, only have this information to give you can’t say with assurance or authority what vegetation can be planted. Hoping for high branch clusters of trees could be brought in and used successfully by birds. Mr. Nichol then asked if there were any questions. 

Commissioner Brown asked if there will be water in this all year round, Mr. Nichol responded there will be. Can be deepened to reduce likelihood of cattails and bulrushes from moving in and growing across the floor of the detention basin. That can be crafted so that there can be clear water or a sheet of water year round or at all times. Chairperson Rarey mentioned the 6’ chain link fence looks like it goes all around the park. Vice Chairperson Melloni wondered why the areas fenced in? Mr. Nichol responded their understanding that it does have to be fenced with six foot fence, completely sealed from public access for liability reasons. Some discussion of this among Commissioners and Director Bronzan. Also some discussion of stocking for fish, possible contamination of water by run-off and liability issues. Commissioner Cowling asked if this would handle a 100 year flood. Mr. Nichol said yes and indicated area where turf meets slope area of detention basin. Carrying capacity of lower basin broad and deep enough to handle 10 year event. Grass would be inundated in 100 year storm. Scheme B appears to offer a larger useful envelope. Further discussion of grass slope, and sports use. Chairperson Rarey asked if soccer field has been considered. Response about 1 soccer field, also other types of sports. Consensus was could probably accommodate 2 age brackets, have swing sets, etc., and possibly 1 soccer field and whatever Commission felt. Chairperson Rarey asked Director Bronzan how this scheme fell in the 5 acre neighborhood park in meeting its requirements. Director Bronzan, have not gone into that yet, the aquatic parks are looked at as a lost opportunity. They are fenced and are left for no one to look at and no one enjoys. There will be others at Sunset and other areas, want to look at making them more useful and attractive. Certainly do need the soccer fields, could be probably more for younger teams. Commissioner Brown thought good idea and would hope it would not have to fenced. Discussion on how to deal with fencing problems. Discussion of Scheme A vs. B, seemed to feel B would offer more variety of use. Discussion of what phase of development. Reason here tonight to get feedback, new option for detention basins. Moving trails to be done before house starts, therefore want to look at parks done in first half of development in new home developments. Discussion of accessing of park taxes, not taxed up front, start paying on second billing of taxes. 

Ray Shipley, 582 Red Rome Lane, suggested we try to stay focused on what we have. It is a neighborhood park, not a championship soccer field and shouldn’t be designed as such. It should be for little kids to get around and knock around a ball and those kinds of things. Practice is good, baseball is good. Sunset is going to take care of that kind of problem, and that is what we should be designing Sunset to do. The idea of a trail around it is nice for people to get out of the neighborhood and walk around, look at water and water fowl. That’s more important than fishing and those kinds of things. Many communities that he and others have looked at where this is regarded as an amenity as it adds to the quality of life in those communities. Mr. Shipley is Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Vice Chairperson Melloni asked Mr. Shipley if this had come before his Commission yet. Mr. Shipley responded, yes. Vice Chairperson Melloni then asked if they had approved it yet. What also about sidewalks within developments, understood there was no longer to be trees, dirt and then sidewalks and then curb? Was that correct? Mr. Shipley said there are only talks about changing the City standards. Mr. De Silva said if less than 10 feet been putting smaller trees. There are three different options currently looking at and no standard has been actually adopted. Mr. Shipley agreed it has not changed as of yet. Some further discussion of easements and small yards. Mr. Shipley expressed some of these decisions were made years ago and are working to change some former decisions. Vice Chairperson Melloni had some questions also regarding park fees. Director Bronzan said now currently working with developer to work at reimbursement fees. Chairperson Rarey brought fact of a need for more shade trees. As a parent and being out at many different parks watching parents, none are out in middle of the day because it is too hot to be out there. Need to get shade around the playgrounds, even in clusters around the playgrounds, as sun goes around it beats on them all day long. Mentioned in park next to her, people don’t come out until 6:30 at night when it cools down. Kids get burned playing on playground equipment. 

Commissioner Cowling asked Director Bronzan if he needed a yay or nay on the concept of the two schemes presented by Mr. Nichol. Director Bronzan said yes, and then if the Commission could give them direction on which of the two to go with, they could come back with what the design would look like. 

Bill Hill, 5450 Balfour Road, then came forward and said he has rejected the concept of using the detention basins as parks, only for one reason, that is because the developer typically has always tried to utilize that to manipulate the park impact fee. So they have an obligation to mitigate the drainage to their facility and for creating a detention basin, then they try to get us to reimburse them for that mitigation by creating a park. He is very skeptical and looks to see just how this developer does if you mitigate their impact that they are required to do by law, which is for their storm drain, at the same time deliver a park, and not try double dip in the process. So, as much as this concept is very nice and looks great, when it comes to real money issues, and these facilities then tend to cost you twice, because they tend to double dip the process. Mentioned wished Ms. Ehler was still there. Director Bronzan said he will defer to her in all of this process. Vice Chairperson Melloni also said that is why she was asking about developer’s fees and how they were going to be reimbursed and guidelines for this project. Commissioner Cowling reflected that since there would be no use of flood area during dry season, he was now more in favor of Scheme B. He felt it has a more esthetic value than Scheme A and would be the way to go. 

Commissioner Cowling motioned to favor Scheme B. Motion was carried unanimously.

Item No. 11
Appointment of subcommittee for sports field/design development/funding. This was presented by Director Bronzan. Recommendation that we put together a sports committee that is in place ready to go when Sunset gets anchored and we start looking at design for that, but at the same time as soccer has suggested, we need to be more proactive in looking at other facilities and other possible places. Soccer has offered some support in trying to find some funds and my recommendation, if you are supportive of that is to put together a committee that would have one or two Commissioners to work with staff on Pony Baseball, youth soccer and anybody else that you wanted to be a part of that, and we could always add to it as we go along. But to get this group up and going and look at other possibilities, looking at funding and being prepared to move forward when Sunset gets anchored. If you are amenable to that we will move forward. 

Commissioner Brown made a motion to establish a subcommittee that will deal with the Sunset Park and develop the funding within the committee. Commissioner Shepherd seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Brown expressed concern over which causes more wear and tear on field - soccer or football? Soccer less because all over field. Some discussion regarding needs of various sports. Ms. Sue Barry, Recreation Supervisor, recommended Gilbert Dominguez for member of this committee also. Also could include ECHO as they are looking at a sports arena. Director Bronzan will put committee together and get moving.

Item No. 12
Consideration of a Budget Workshop for March 29, 2001. Director Bronzan said part of the reason for setting this up was that we were to bring to you the Capital Improvement Program budget and our general operating budgets to at least let you see what they are when they are in there draft form. Then if there are any comments or recommendations before it goes on to City Council to approve budget you could do that. Primarily at the time the city and the district were negotiating on the agreement between the two there was an insistence from the district that they wanted to make sure that the money that was being collected, which is 3cents on the dollar, for Parks and Recreation, stayed with Parks and Recreation. That was also the condition from the county, so went we wrote the ordinance for the Parks and Recreation Commission, even though the council approves the budget, you are kind of the group looking out for Parks and Recreation interest, so it was put into the ordinance that you should be at least reviewing the budget and making comments. You don’t approve the budget, but you need to know what our budgets are, Pam Ehler, Acting Finance Director can come and give you a budget workshop on March 29, 2001. This is just before she starts making the initial report before the City Council. My request for you is if you would be willing to come in at either 5:30 or 6:00 so that Pam can come and give you the workshop ahead of time and we can get pizza and drinks so that if you’re here you give comments and recommendations and my hope is that the budget that is being presented to you will meet your needs and recommendations. 

Moved by Commissioner Cowling with Chairperson Rarey seconding. Motion carried unanimously.

Director Bronzan stated the workshop will be at 5:30 p.m. and regular meeting will start at 7:00 p.m.

Item No. 13
Update on Priority Use of Fields Subcommittee. Mr. De Silva reported that they had a meeting February 14. Vice Chairperson Melloni and Commissioner Shepherd were in attendance along with himself and Poldina Scherff. First meeting discussed direction to take and primary focus of work trying to determine if it sensible to base field usage on what percentage of users are Brentwood residents. At the next meeting, survey form will be available that we will send to each league and ask what their current use is as far as numbers/percentage of those Brentwood residents. Find out if possible within their structure to have different fees, also room for comments and suggestions. Will have another meeting in near future to go over responses. Commissioner Shepherd commented that they have received a small percentage of complaints as compared to overall number of participants in program. Possibly leave it at putting those complaining on teams that have only Brentwood residents, and resolve problem of practices outside of Brentwood. In the short-term try to get those individuals that they want to practice only in Brentwood keep those on exclusively Brentwood teams. 

Item No. 14
Discussion/Recommendations on Department/Commission Web Page Improvements. This presented by Tammy Homan, introduced by Director Bronzan. Director Bronzan gave a brief explanation of what has been requested by the commission, working towards having all minutes, agendas, and staff reports on net page. Park inventories, pictures of parks, all will be on web page so person can click on web page view park, pictures, maps, rules and regulations, all be effective on web. Ms. Homan showed web site, showing agendas, minutes, etc. She will be working to get all up-to-date, currently is not showing most previous actions. Some problems were noted and Ms. Homan will discuss these with webmaster and correct problems.

Discussion of installing area on screen where public could click on and through e-mail complete a form describing problems, thus eliminating waiting until offices are open and trying to call in various problems. Chairperson Rarey has some other suggestions and questions regarding information supplied on web, names and email addresses, etc. Ms. Homan will check out all suggestions with webmaster. Discussion of sending agendas through e-mail. Commissioners would prefer continuing to have agendas and attachments mailed to them. Discussion of mission and purpose statement, commissioners would like these on web, also would like e-mail addresses on web page.

Item No. 15
Discussion of California Association of Park and Recreation Commissioners and Board Members Annual Banquet. Director Bronzan presented that commission is a member of the California Association of Parks and Recreation. Commissioners and Board Members have previously attended training conference. Most attended last year. Everyone is now signed up for March conference which will be held in Sacramento. Also have invitation to each as members that they do have an annual installation of officers and awards. 

Item No. 16
Update on Sunset Park Batting Cages/Concession Stand. This report presented by Mr. DeSilva. He stated they had a 5-year contract with concessionaire Pat James had expired, and that Pat James decided he did not want to renegotiate with the City. Currently have a draft of a proposal for concessions at Sunset Park and the Aquatic Complex. Will then also along with that find out if anyone is interested in doing the batting cages at Sunset. Pat is in the process of removing everything but the structure which has to stay there. Should be cleaned out by the end of the month. Chairperson Rarey asked what the plans were to replace all the cages, etc. Mr. DeSilva says that would be up to whoever is interested running the concession, that would be part of their responsibility as it was with Mr. James. Probably looking at a year-to-year contract. 

Item No. 17
Discussion to set date for department/commission open house. Mr. Mac Kaiser reported on merging of Delta Community Services with Brentwood Parks & Recreation which was started nearly a year ago. The office is together and functioning, and have a new service area. Want to now have an open house so that people will be welcomed and informed of new combined service. Full service/one stop shop now and lots of action now in community center. Want to have open house on April 16, inviting Delta Community Services to be part of this, bring the press in get public informed as well. Shea Homes donated about $15,000 into the kitchen and want to officially recognize them at this time as well. Plan to have event at 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. Will do promotion in flyers, papers, etc. Official name is Brentwood Community Center, Department of Parks & Recreation. Delta Services still exists, however they are a non-profit community organization. They will also have a presence at the center. 

Item No. 18
Update on Aquatic Center customer feedback process/form. Sue Barry, Recreational Services Supervisor presented a customer services survey/comment form she had put together for patrons of the aquatic complex. The one she presented was an interim form until final format being designed is completed. Asked for comments or suggestions. Forms will be at front counter. Commissioners discussed different format, check-off form for various problems, such as water temperatures etc. City working on end of the year evaluation survey. This is an interim comment or suggestion form. General consensus to have a new form with check-off area at top of form and room for suggestions to be written in at lower portion. Ms. Barry will redo form as directed and have at next meeting.

Item No. 19
Approve staff recommendation to develop late registration fee policy for department programs. Mr. Tim Taylor noticed numerous late sign-ups by parents for their children. Wants to develop a late fee to deter these people from coming in late on a consistent basis. Discussion by Director Bronzan and Commissioners resulted in changing it to a positive idea. Motion to establish an early registration and a regular registration, and break fees down by reducing fees for early registration.

Motioned by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Shepherd. Motion carried unanimously.

Item No. 20
Approve staff recommendation to develop coaches inventive program for youth sport programs. Mr. Tim Taylor presented need for larger pool of coaches and would like to establish incentive program based on number of children in programs. Suggest half-off fees for parents of children in this category. Commissioner Rarey asked how we would handle if both parents coach. Discussion of fees currently less than surrounding cities, not making a big profit at this time. Need to bring in families and incentives to full family participation. Commissioners discussed related issues, coaches not showing up, complaints, etc. 

Commissioner Brown moved that Mr. Taylor develop an incentive program to encourage parents participation in various sports programs such as coaching, and bring program back to Commission. Commissioner Melloni seconded and motion carried unanimously.

Item No. 21
Establish subcommittee to develop policy/procedures for dedication/opening of new facilities/parks. Director Bronzan sees a need for established procedures and possibly subcommittee to work on this. Commissioners felt this would be very community building to invite neighbors and interested parties for these events. Chairperson Rarey cited her experience and felt very positive. Commissioner Melloni and Chairperson Rarey volunteered for this subcommittee to work with Director Bronzan on openings.

Commissioner Rarey moved to establish a subcommittee to establish procedures for opening new facilities and parks. Commissioner Brown seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Item No. 22
Introduction of asset-based research for use in department programs. Director Bronzan discussed assets of getting youth involved. Research was done out of the University of Minnesota. Utilizing all community churches, and all local organizations. Positive results from working with all other providers, such PAL, schools, etc.  Discussion with other commissioners regarding interrelated programs.  Will be put on agenda for next Youth Commission meeting as well. 


Update on California Pacific Southwest Park and Recreation Training Conference March 14 - 17. Director Bronzan requested all to please confirm with Tammy Homan what days you would be going and any transportation needs. Need to make sure have all information and also have packet for you to look at before you go. Director Bronzan announced that we received three first place recognition’s: one from Youth Commission logo, design of aquatic complex came in with an Award of Excellence for first place, and marketing program, Team R&R which we are just getting ready to kick-off is in our brochure. Also and Award of Excellence, that is beyond everything else, Sue Barry’s Team R&R program is one of three statewide programs that they have recognized for innovation and excellence. Very proud of staff for being recognized for small city. Also wanted to discuss Park/Landscape City Tour. Expressed gratitude for Mr. Shipley being present. Over the years some mistakes have been made in design and looking to correct these. Since Parks and Recreation are going to be responsible in future for design and upkeep, wanted to identify issues problem areas. Work with Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation, possible tour of city to view various types of design. On April 19, Mr. Shipley doing tour of the City and is also looking at later date in July. 


Commissioner Rarey would like to see Parks & Recreation Commission get together with PAL, possibly as a separate meeting in April. Commissioner Cowling would like to discuss the possibility of getting an all-weather track. He believes in to be a potentially revenue generating and there are not a lot of them around here. Director Bronzan suggested getting together with Roger Wilson to talk about this, see if he can come and talk to the commission about that possibility. Next meeting will be 5th Thursday, March 29. Director Bronzan will not there as he is going to Hawaii. 

ADJOURNMENT:  Commissioner Brown motion to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously and meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 

Betty Jo Whincup
Minutes Recorder

City of Brentwood Park and Recreation Commission
35 Oak Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5444
Fax (925)516-5445