|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Neighbors of McKelvey Park say they have a “win-win” solution to the controversy about how to revamp their neighborhood park, but youth baseball leagues aren’t entirely happy about it.
Ever since the Santa Clara Valley Water District proposed rebuilding McKelvey Park so it’s 15 feet lower, in order to use it as a Permanente Creek flood basin, residents of the St. Francis Acre neighborhood have been seeking more useable space in their neighborhood park. McKelvey has been taken up completely by two baseball fields for over 50 years.
Last week the Voice reported on a new proposal from park neighbor Lloyd Yu that would completely remove McKelvey’s two baseball fields in favor of a smaller multi-use sports field for football, soccer and lacrosse. Yu argued that city policies say the neighborhood should lead the redesign of the park, and pointed to a petition signed by 200 neighbors that “would like McKelvey to be transformed from a single-use baseball facility to a multi-use neighborhood open space.”
But since then a different group of neighbors has presented another idea to the Voice, which neighbor Elizabeth Thompson said has been discussed for over a year. It involves trading the larger of the two baseball fields at McKelvey with another Little League-sized field proposed for the Shoreline area along Garcia Avenue. The result would be two Little League fields at McKelvey and two major league-sized fields at Shoreline Park.
Thompson said that change would leave plenty of room at McKelvey for neighborhood enjoyment and Little League baseball, while also eliminating noise and the bright lights used for nighttime baseball games on the larger fields, which kids play on after they turn 12.
“It seems to work out really well,” Thompson said. Little league teams will have two fields at McKelvey and “we get a pretty decent space to have neighborhood park.” It makes for a more “neighborhood-friendly environment.”
“We don’t want to displace” the baseball teams, Thompson said. “We understand that there is 50 years of history” of baseball at McKelvely.
But one of the main users of the larger field at McKelvey was not pleased with the proposal. Elaine Spence, president of Mountain View Babe Ruth Baseball, said that the 12 and older kids “would lose field time” under the proposal for a number of reasons. One is that the Shoreline ball fields in the works have already been designated as multi-use fields, which means that baseball teams would be “lobbying soccer, softball, lacrosse and everyone else for field time.”
The proposal would also split up some families when their 8-year-old is playing on the Little League fields at McKelvey and their 13-year-old has to play with the bigger kids out at Shoreline, she said.
“Having both fields together near downtown Mountain View is a plus for families that play baseball,” Spence said. “Mom and dad can watch both games.”
She added that McKelvey’s central location allows a lot of kids, including those who play Marauders football at McKelvey, to ride a bike to their games and practices. The Shoreline fields make kids more dependent on their parents to drive them there. And a lot of parents may not even want to face the traffic on Shoreline Boulevard and Rengstorff Avenue, especially during concerts at Shoreline Amphitheatre, Spence said.
Spence reiterated comments made last week by council member Laura Macias that the .7-acre carve out for a playground and neighborhood park in the latest design for McKelvey is actually larger than other neighborhood parks in the city, including Mercy-Bush Park.
Community Services Director Dave Muela said that an alternative proposal from neighbors won’t be the proposal city staff brings to the City Council for approval, unless the council specifically asks for such a design.
Muela said city had not considered the added cost of building two major league-sized baseball fields at Shoreline. The city has budgeted $9 million in Shoreline tax district funds for the Shoreline ball fields while the Water District says it will cost $9.1 million for its latest proposal at McKelvey.
City Council meetings on both the Shoreline and McKelvey fields are expected sometime early next year.
How about no change at all and just let the neighborhood flood instead? I mean… c’mon…. if everyone is against any change, then guess what should happen? No change.
Funny that the proposer calls it “Win-Win” When that happens, its usually just “Win”(for the proposer)
The point about the families with different aged kids is very valid. In all common sense, though, anyone who moved into that neighborhood in the past 50 year did so with full knowledge of the fields and their usage. Just because things are up for review doesn’t mean that its time to grab something away from the traditional users. Is Eagle park that far away?
@John the Man: “if everyone is against any change,”
Actually, EVERYONE isn’t against ANY change. What this issue is comprised of is one group _wanting_ some changes and one group wanting to keep traditional usage. If the issue was as you stated it, though, then yes your statement would be valid.
This is no “win-win” for youth baseball or for those facing the potential of a flood down stream. It is only a win for a few selfish St. Francis Acres neighbors headed up by Mr. Yu enforcing their will upon the people of Mountain View in order to eliminate the lights, which they knew of when the purchased their homes, for their own self enrichment.
John, the issue is not having no change and letting the area flood. The flood basin is being built regardless. It is either going to be built with the same baseball fields, no baseball fields, or some modified arrangement. So it is not that being afraid of change will lead to floods, it is making sure the facility meets the city’s needs (which does not necessarily mean just the local neighborhood.
Do some homework and stop with the inflammatory stories pitting baseball vs neighbors. Public meetings were held on this a year ago. PRC approved a plan in January. Council approved the plan in March. The plan replaces the two existing fields with two new fields. Fairly simple. All of this is documented in PRC and Council minutes. At this point, meetings should be to tweak diagrams.
City & Water District: We’d like to lower the fields by 15 feet to save a bunch of residents from a 100 year flood. OK with you, Baseball folks? The new fields will be improved over what’s there now.
Baseball Orgs: OK sure. We’ll just need an interim place to play.
City & Water: All right…we’ll move forward (note PRC & Council minutes)
Done deal.
This is replacing what’s there now…nothing new. If the Water District hadn’t come along with the request, everyone would happily be playing baseball. And unless the City and the Council don’t intend to stand by their original agreements/stance, someone should stand up and say it’s time to move on.
I agree C’mon Voice. Council and PRC were very clear. There is no new direction unless council offers new direction and no one from council has stepped forward. When this goes to council it will be too late to start over and say lets try a new idea. Of course there are always a few who will be afraid to stick with their original stance.
The article is way too biased toward the neighborhood. If the offer to get rid of the larger field is a win-win, then everyone should agree. The fact that the field groups are rejecting the offer tells you it does not work for them. My reading of the WD plan suggests the BB group is the one that has offered the sacrifice/compromise, by reducing field size and allowing a large mini park
The big field at McKelvey is an exciting thing for the little leaguers. It gives them something to look towards as they get bigger. Losing it would be harsh. I support the current Water District plan that replaces the existing fields in kind and adds the mini park.
I agree, what the Water District has proposed is wonderful! They did a great job. With their plan, we are fortunate to have big McKelvey and little McKelvey, while gaining extra play areas. The playground they have on their current drawing board is the perfect size. Plus, it’s not like the field’s lights are on all night, and there’s noise constantly blaring out of the speakers.
First, Mr. Yu has only a few people that support him. Most of the neighborhood wants to keep the baseball there. Many of our kids USE IT..
Secondly, selfish? Really? There are over 300 small children that have not had a place to play in 50 years. The baseball fields have had 100% of the park for that time. The neighbors can not even have a picnic there, we have to close a street. The “park” either has a game or is closed for field renovation.
Thirdly, the teams are not getting smaller fields. Obviously you have not been going to any of the meetings. They are not giving up ANYTHING, except field time during construction. What about the neighborhood that has to deal with that 24/7.
Finally, the neighborhood are asking for no lights or loudspeakers. Not unreasonable.. and move the parking lot to Miramonte, more parking, less traffic.
The water district plan is great. We would just like the city council to have an opportunity to look at an alternative plan that benefits the ENTIRE city, not just the water district.
ANOTHER SFA NEIGHBOR