I’d say about 30 people showed up at the meeting tonight to generate input for recreational development of the park in conjunction with an application for Prop 84 grant money due on Monday. We didn’t have much time to plan this out – maybe three weeks, and we weren’t effective at getting the word out. But we had a decent and diverse turnout anyway, with some advocating that we do very little to develop the property and maintain it as a preserve, to a very detailed proposal for ball parks/soccer fields/swimming pool/recreational field house proposal from Jim Truitt. We heard support for more extensive trails, non-motorized boat access, cooking facilities, running water with pit toilets, tennis courts, visitor center, and yes, outdoor music venues. There were calls for poison oak eradication, a crosswalk, fire safety (water storage), and tulips.
More as it develops.
Addendum: Here are a couple of shots (click on them to enlarge) of Jim Truitt’s proposal, courtesy of John Rogers. Whatever you think of the idea (and there was some opposition tonight), Jim poured some money and some thought into it and deserves considerable credit. The survey alone cost a pretty penny.
The area is the pasture to the left as you come in the dirt driveway towards the ranch house/barn area – used for parking when we were holding events at the barn. The green squares are baseball fields/soccer fields. The blue rectangle is the proposed location for a swimming pool. The beige rectangle is the proposed location for a recreational house for basketball, indoor soccer, etc., perhaps with showers. Parking would be provided towards the bottom of the screen below the fields.
Obviously, this would be part of a long term vision. It would probably cost a couple of million dollars in its more ambitious form. Right now we are trying for a grant of about $500,000.00, and everyone agreed that the potential water development would pretty much define what we could do – never mind what we want to do. The green could be grass, or perhaps artificial surface.
Frenchy surprised me by suggesting that such a proposal would be better off down by the Kimtu entrance. I don’t agree with that suggestion for several reasons, but he offered more than a simple “no,” and I appreciated the flexibility which I had not attributed to him. Sorry about my doubts Frenchy, and thanks for adding constructive substance to the conversation. The stakes are high in these discussions, and we often misjudge each other. I hope we can move beyond that.