Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bruno council warned Crestmore Fields could top $10M as basin design forces changes
Summary
City staff told the council that combined construction and 10-year operating costs for Crestmore Fields may reach $12M–$13.4M after stormwater requirements, design changes and rising inflation; council directed staff to proceed with a larger shared stormwater basin and return with funding options and partnership outreach.
City staff said the Crestmore Fields athletic complex — on the former Crestmore High School site at 300 Piedmont Avenue — faces sharply higher costs and a nonnegotiable stormwater treatment requirement that has reshaped the project.
"Since December, three things have affected this cost: stormwater, design, and Toll Brothers proactively flagging that the current authorized budget is tight," Community Services Director Travis Carlin told the council. He said the city’s earlier authorized budget that reached about $8.55 million with lighting now understates total life‑cycle costs. "Taken together, staff's assessment is total project cost could reach or exceed $10,000,000," Carlin said.
Carlin walked the council through a lifecycle estimate that includes construction, operations and a turf replacement reserve. He said recent quotes raised the stormwater line item from $200,000 to $305,000 and that transferring final design work to the Toll Brothers team increased design costs but reduced the city's exposure to change orders. Staff estimated annual operations and maintenance with lighting at $150,000–$175,000, turf maintenance at $75,000–$100,000, lighting at about $75,000 and a turf replacement reserve of roughly $1.8 million, producing an estimated 10‑year ownership total of about $12 million to $13.4 million (not including future inflation on operating costs).
The council focused on the stormwater basin after experts told them soil and slope conditions prevent the fields from being self‑treating. Geotechnical and project engineers explained the only regulatory‑compliant options are to build a lined, engineered basin or use underground measures; both approaches trade construction cost for preserved field area. Maurice Coffin, the developer/engineering representative, said the partially excavated temporary pit on the site is not a finished basin and that an enlarged, lined facility would perform as designed once complete.
Several council members said the enlarged, combined basin is the least impactful option for field area and the most protective against repeat winter flooding; the council gave staff direction to bring a stormwater reimbursement/agreement back to council promptly and to continue exploring value engineering, partner arrangements with user groups, and additional grant or philanthropic support. Staff agreed to return next month with the basin agreement and more detailed funding options.
