From: K Silva
To: Norvell, Bernie; Morsell-Haye, Jessica; Peters, Lindy; Albin-Smith, Tess; Rafanan, Marcia; Lemos, June Subject: Public Comment - 28 March 2022 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 8A. Bainbridge Park proposed Soccer Fields Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:10:48 PM
Dear Mayor Norvell and Fort Bragg City Councilmembers;
I like living near Bainbridge Park and love the sounds of people, especially children, having fun there. I am writing to support Per Capita Grant Funds to be spent on amenities and improvements as decided by the community during the workshops, surveys and meetings while creating the Bainbridge Park Master Plan. How about using the funds for Wiggly Giggly renovations and use the TOT for soccer field improvements? Building new soccer courts at Bainbridge Park is not consistent with the Master Plan and disregards the considerable public input in the planning for the park. Perhaps most, if not all of you want to build soccer courts at Bainbridge Park, but please read the following so you will be informed of some of things your decision entails:
Figure #1 of the Bainbridge Soccer Fields Report shows a 48-foot long pavilion fitting along the 20-foot length of angled fence in the NW corner of the park. It is impossible. Even a smaller pavilion will need to be located much further south to fit in the park with room to walk around it. And that is one big problem with putting the soccer courts in the western half of the park. It removes a large part of the area meant for parties, gatherings, and audiences for the pavilion. The pavilion was most-wanted feature during the public workshops for the Bainbridge Park Master Plan. If the soccer courts go in there, the pavilion will not work in the small amount of space left. That completely disregards the Bainbridge Park Master Plan and it disregards the many members of the community who took part in developing that plan.
The Master Plan intentionally kept the open space as lawn area for passive recreation like family and community gatherings. It is a popular place for everything from birthday parties (especially with Wiggly Giggly nearby), to volleyball, badminton, frisbee, to the quilt show, Paul Bunyan Day festivities, library events, etc. The lawn fills up with those parties and events regularly already. The Master Plan recognized that it will be used even more in the future as people add ADUs (and now tiny homes) and will need familyfriendly outdoor space to get together. Keeping that space available for people to gather is a main reason that a draft of the Bainbridge Park Master Plan that shows possible active recreation extending beyond the basketball court was rejected. Placing the pétanque courts in a part of the south end was a compromise that would not permanently interfere with using that area as open space and would not have an impact on the homes just a few feet away. In fact, page 11 of the Master Plan states "The entire Western half of the park will serve as a lawn for seating or other open space activities." That sentence is very clear. Why do you disregard that?
Why is the north side of the C.V.Starr Center property not being considered? It's a place where active sports is its main purpose, whereas the west half of Bainbridge Park is meant to be a public gathering space and open for passive recreation of all kinds. The C.V. Starr Center was mentioned as a possible location for the soccer courts at the Community Development Committee meeting but no follow-up was requested by committee members. Instead, Bainbridge Park is being radically changed without soliciting input from those who expected that the Bainbridge Park Master Plan was indeed a plan with the amenities desired by the community. I am also surprised and disappointed that the pétanque courts, volleyball/badminton poles and storywalk have been suddenly removed from the Master Plan without soliciting community input. Soliciting public participation was said to be needed if the CV Starr Center property was considered as the location of the soccer courts. But an invitation to participate in the decision to ignore the Bainbridge Park Master Plan and hugely alter the Bainbridge Park was not afforded the large number of community members who worked with staff to create that plan. Contrary to the Bainbridge Soccer Fields Report, making a major change like this is not consistent with the General Plan Policy OS-10.4: "Public Participation:
Actively solicit public participation in the selection, design, and facilities planning for existing and future park sites." Allowing public comment at City Council and Committee meetings is not actively soliciting public participation.
During Phase I of the implementation of the Master Plan, a fence and new sidewalk from the west entrance were added, along with a double bench on a new square concrete pad at the west side of the basketball court. The west entrance of the fence is actually located quite a bit farther south than shown on the Figure 1 layout, much closer to the numeral 6 on that layout. If you decide to build the soccer courts at Bainbridge Park, half of the new sidewalk and some of the old will need to be removed or it will be laying under the soccer courts. And the remaining half of the new sidewalk from the west entrance will end at the west side of the soccer courts, leading to nowhere. The new concrete pad that holds the double benches to the west of the basketball court will also have to be removed, along with the benches and a small tree nearby. The layout shows a much narrower spot for a single bench west of the basketball court. These are issues that have not even been discussed. How do you justify destroying the recently added features created using Phase 1 funds to now create the soccer courts that are not consistent with the Master Plan? To solicit and then completely disregard the wishes of the community is surprising and extremely disturbing. And to remove features added during Phase I in order to add the soccer courts is fiscally irresponsible.
One consideration in developing the Master Plan was to avoid adding more nighttime noise and light affecting the neighboring homes, especially those abutting the south side of the park. There is not even a street or sidewalk separating them from the park. Adding lighted soccer courts, where a dynamic sport will be played at night just several feet away from those residences, also runs contrary to the Master Plan. And the narrow strip of lawn that would be created to the south of the proposed soccer courts is ideal for people who want to hang out doing things they don't want to be seen doing and is too narrow to be used for anything else. Constant illegal, unsafe activity was the reason for the added fencing behind the utility shed.
And that narrow strip of lawn is narrower than shown on Figure 1. There is a wide privacy hedge on the south side of the park property west of the utility shed that is not shown on Figure 1. The C.V. Starr Center location would not place the courts anywhere near as close to any homes as the current plans at Bainbridge Park. How about considering the community as a whole?
Building athletic, one-sport courts in a location that has been and is intended and desired by the community, to remain the more passive recreational space for people to gather for events and family gatherings is not right. It's the only city park we have where large families and groups can comfortably meet. That is why the pavilion was the number one desired feature. The Per Capita Grant funds would be more wisely spent on the features in the Master Plan: a pavilion, pétanque, storywalk, and muchneeded renovations at the 18-year-old Wiggly Giggly playground. It is overdue. There is also the concern with repairs and maintenance at the park. It is difficult to keep up with what is currently at the park and it will be an even bigger challenge to maintain with an additional artificial turf court, which needs much more regular attention than mowing the lawn. Adding new amenities is more glamorous than addressing maintenance but those costs and time involved need to be factored in. I don't see an ability to keep up with the maintenance needs that already exist before adding high maintenance artificial turf enclosed courts.
I respectfully request that, should you choose to spend the Per Capita Grant funds on Bainbridge Park, you first read the Bainbridge Park Master Plan and consider the amenities and renovations which many community members have taken part in planning and have been patiently awaiting. And spend that money on the long-overdue repairs/renovations in the Wiggly Giggly playground. If you are adamant about spending the funds on soccer courts, please consider building them at the much larger, more logical location; the C.V. Starr Community Center. Please don't remove our only large-enough family picnic and gathering area. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathy Silva
Fort Bragg resident
Coast Youth Soccer League
PO Box 694
Fort Bragg CA 95437
RE: Item 8A. 22-136 Receive Report and Consider Adoption of City Council Resolution ApprovingBudget Amendment No. 2022-20 to Appropriate Funds from the Transient Occupancy Tax Special Projects (Account No. 110-4390-0619), Funds from Asset Forfeiture Funds (Account No. 167-7999-0799), Funds from the State Department of Parks and Recreation Grant (Account No. 329-7999-0799), and Funds from Facilities- Internal Service Funds (Account No. 520-7999-0799) for the Implementation of Two Soccer Fields at Bainbridge Park
City of Fort Bragg March 27, 2022
416 North Franklin Street
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
City Council Members and City Staff,
The board of the Coast Youth Soccer League would like to express our support for the proposed budget amendment to facilitate the installation of 2 artificial soccer fields.
CYSL believes that this allocation of funds is a great service to the youth of our community and fully supports the investment into Bainbridge Park.
As a non-profit youth organization that services the families of the North Coast, CYSL is available to collaborate on future projects that will enhance the facilities available to the youth in our community.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Brandy Moulton
Vice President
[email protected]