Infrastructure Committee Meeting: August 2, 2017 – Park & Balboa Park Condition Assessments
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Infrastructure Committee Meeting – August 2, 2017
The Infrastructure Committee met on August 2, 2017, with a full committee present (Vice Chair Ward, Councilmembers Zaf and Gomez). The meeting covered non-agenda public comment, a consent agenda item, an action item on utility agreements for the Mid Coast Corridor Transit Project, and two informational reports on park condition assessments and Balboa Park asset conditions. Decisions included unanimous approval of the consent agenda and the utility agreement amendment.
Consent Calendar
- Approved minutes from the July 12, 2017, meeting.
- Motion by Vice Chair Ward, seconded by Councilmember Zaf, to approve the consent agenda (public works contracts for construction management services related to environmental services). Vice Chair Ward noted the city’s reliance on private contracts due to unfilled public works positions (173 added in FY17) and requested a future report on contract performance. The motion carried unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Martha Welch (non-agenda public comment, 2 minutes): Expressed strong opposition to using private companies for road repairs, asserting that quality will decline and that the city is not addressing potholes adequately. Cited specific examples of cracked roads and potholes, including on Broadway.
- Tomas Herrera Misler (CEO/President, Balboa Park Conservancy, speaking on park condition assessment): Expressed appreciation for the study but surprise at Balboa Park’s low PCI score of 5 (good condition). Noted that only 416 of 1,200 acres were assessed, raised concerns about loss of trees, poor signage, uneven sidewalks, and heavy usage (5th busiest urban park in the U.S.). Urged the committee to consider the park’s unique status as a national historic landmark and economic driver, and to allocate resources accordingly.
- Peter Kamiski (Executive Director, Balboa Park Cultural Partnership, speaking on Balboa Park condition assessment): Stated that the $79.2 million facility condition index figure is insufficient and does not account for ADA compliance, seismic retrofitting, or operational needs. Provided a packet with additional analysis showing 17% more priorities. Emphasized the need for a higher standard for Balboa Park’s historic buildings.
Discussion Items
-
Item 2 – First Amendment to Wet Utility Agreements with SANDAG (Action Item): Presented by Abby Palosi (Assistant Deputy Director, Public Works). The amendment increases the Mid Coast Corridor Transit Project agreement from $3.9M to $5.2M (due to bid results) and the heavy rail (Elvira to Marina double track) agreement from $9.1M to $11.27M (due to bid results and added scope). Vice Chair Ward expressed frustration that the city must absorb relocation costs but accepted the explanation that the city only pays for relocations where it lacked prior rights or for betterments. Motion to approve carried unanimously.
-
Item 3 – FY16 Interim Park Amenity Condition Assessment Report (Informational): Presented by Andy Field (Assistant Director, Park and Recreation) and Jim Winter. The report covers 76 of 250 parks (1,200 acres) assessed, including 75 community/neighborhood parks and Balboa Park. The Park Condition Index (PCI) uses a scale similar to the Facility Condition Index (FCI). The average PCI for assessed parks is 16 (good). Balboa Park scored 5 (good), community parks 15 (good), neighborhood parks 21 (fair). The total backlog for park amenities in the 76 parks is $25 million, plus $79 million for Balboa Park buildings (from FCI). The report is interim; remaining parks will be assessed by 2019. Discussion highlighted the need to consider equity, ADA triggers, and the fact that the PCI does not capture improvements or code upgrades. Councilmember Gomez requested detailed park-by-park data.
-
Item 4 – Balboa Park Condition Assessment Report (Informational): Presented by James Nagelboard (Public Works Director) and Naveen Anton. The report consolidates data on 118 buildings (average FCI 18, $79.2M needed to reach target FCI of 15/20), park amenities (416 acres, PCI good, no additional investment needed based on target PCI of 15), and water/sewer pipelines (31 miles city-owned, 3.3 miles of water lines replaced, 3.6 miles scheduled, 8.5 miles assessed as non-priority). Vice Chair Ward noted that the $79.2M does not include ADA, seismic upgrades, or improvements; a multiplier of 1.5 would bring the cost to ~$120M. Councilmember Zaf questioned the Starlight Bowl and Botanical Garden costs. Councilmember Gomez asked about lease maintenance tracking. The committee acknowledged the need for a comprehensive asset management plan and ongoing investment.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Agenda: Approved unanimously (no roll call noted).
- Item 2 (Action): Approved unanimously to forward to full council.
- Items 3 and 4 (Informational): No action taken; reports accepted as information. Staff committed to providing detailed park-by-park data and further updates as assessments continue. The committee emphasized the need for a clear roadmap for Balboa Park and broader asset management, with attention to equity, ADA, and life-safety priorities.
Meeting Transcript
Well, good afternoon, everybody. We're going to go ahead and get started. Welcome to the August meeting of the infrastructure committee. Today is in fact August 2nd, 2017. Let the record reflect that we have a full committee present, including Vice Chair Ward and Councilmember Zaf and Gomez. We also have our City Attorney Representative Mark Mercer, our IBA representative, Jillian Cassie, our Mayoral Representative Alejandra Givalden, and our infrastructure committee consultant Lee Friedman. I'd like to thank the members of the public who are with us today or watching on City TV. We will of course get started with non-agenda public comment. And we have one speaker, Martha Welch. You have two minutes. And rules we found out that we're not going to have civil part and no more. Also, I found out you want the private company do that. How could they do quality? That's not right. Someone has set out somebody else to do it, but that's not right. If if you do this, um this private company do that, it won't it won't quality will go down. We always found out that some rows don't three years only now. And we'll have more of those right now because we found about how they build the roads. And we found out some of them only three years instead of eight years. We'll have more of those now if we have quality, we won't we'll have more cracks and everything if we don't have quality about that. Because the private company can't do this because they're doing the work and they can't do they can't step back and say what they're doing. That's not right either, you know. Because I saw uh the city um beat has a pothole every week, and it's every week they have worse ever I've seen. And I've talked about it in the meetings. There's so many of them I can't tell t list them all, but it's it's really bad. Everywhere you do is potholes. And it's gonna go on for years the way the city is gone and have a pothole every week. Because we found out it's private. We don't have city workers. Also, we found that out is private. So we just can't these you can't call the call the city and have a pothole unless they're on call or something to pet potholes, and I don't think that's going on because I see them cracks and potholes everywhere I go in this city, and it doesn't look like it's it's changing. Broadway so uh cracked up uh uh on the 10th and and 11th, it's it's crazy. It's all cracked up and got potholes over the place and uh everywhere I go I see these cracks and it looks worse and worse to me if no quality um care will take care. That concludes non-agenda public comment. We will turn to the committee. Any commit committee members needing to speak? Seeing none. How about city attorney IBA or mayoral staff? No. Moving into our adoption agenda, our meeting minutes from our July 12th meeting will stand approved as distributed, unless there are any objections. Hearing and seeing none, those are approved. We have one item on our consent agenda today. And Mr. Ward, do you want to make a comment on it? I did, and I'm happy to um move the consent agenda, but I wanted to uh make a brief um I guess statement of observation. Uh we've seen a lot of these public works contracts that are uh in the seven figures starting to come through before council, and I know this one in particular is meant to help supplement city staff. Uh we do that from time to time when we have our our public-private partnerships. Uh in this case for uh construction management services related to environmental services. Um, you know, the the reason they're contracting this service out uh related to energy efficiency is because the public works department is just unable to provide due to staff capacity. Um, I would note that the same function was performed by city crews some years ago.
openpublica.com