Gig Harbor Beach Volleyball Court Background
The first two beach volleyball courts were built in
partnership with the CoGH in 2008 and 2009. These were built without GHBV involvement in permitting
or formal MOU. While the courts were a
success beyond all expectations, there was concern regarding parking which occasionally
overflowed onto the street when large groups converged on the fun during the
summer. GHBV participated in the
planning of the 2013 Harbor Heights Park and 2017 Sports Complex where in both
cases additional beach volleyball courts were part of every plan under
consideration. However, the final Sports
Complex plan dropped the courts with a promise from mayor Kit Kuhn at a public plan
review meeting that, instead, two new courts would be built much sooner in 2017
at Crescent Creek Park (CCP). The CoGH rationale
was that the new courts should be built adjacent to the two existing courts at
Crescent Creek Park (CCP) to form part of a “Beach Volleyball Complex.” For several years the CoGH has had plans to expand
and improve CCP and the Master Planning phase was funded in 2019, which is now
expected to include an expansion of the beach courts. The CCP Master Plan may encompass additional
properties recently purchased, including the Masonic Lodge property, but it is
outside the city limits and therefore under the permitting jurisdiction of
Pierce County. The execution of the CCP master
plan is expected to be several years out as other new projects continue to out
prioritize it.
2019 CCP Two Court Expansion
In response to the mayor’s promise to trade four courts at
the Sports Complex for building two much sooner at CCP, GHBV took the next steps
to plan these two courts as a pull ahead project prior to CCP Master Planning. The Mayor was behind this effort and emphasized
its priority with senior staff. As one
would expect with the impact to the community, these two courts would be
subject to the permitting process and public review. While the CoGH invested $12,000 of the
funding and Public Works labor, GVBV secured the remainder of the funds and matching
volunteer labor, prepared the build plans and permits, and submitted them. It was quite a compliment to have a CoGH
Principal Planner state that the GHBV permits were a “Model Package.” GHBV invested hundreds of hours into this
effort as volunteers for the benefit of the general public in a CoGH park.
The design and permitting had numerous challenges. The letter cancelling the project highlights
some of the difficulties, but we believe it misrepresents them as discussed
below:
1. Funding.
GHBV was able to raise $40,000 in funds with another $40,000 in matching
labor and discounts. This amount was
marginal for two courts which made any increases in scope problematic. The CoGH insisted on expensive concrete court
borders and emphasized this by offering to take on a portion of the concrete
work. However, this is misconstrued in
the CoGH letter as GHBV asking more of the CoGH.
2. Site Fitment.
The city owned lodge property and the property to the north could not be
used for the courts as the CoGH has delayed their annexation into the city
limits. In addition, the barrier trees
to the north needed to be left in place to mitigate sound and visual impact of
the courts. In light of those
constraints, one N-S court and one E-W court were fit north of the existing
courts within existing CCP boundaries.
With much difficulty and working closely with a CoGH Planner, GHBV completed
site design and submitted permit requests for these two courts to accommodate
the steep slopes and still meet requirements for property line setbacks, ADA,
and cut and fill soil equivalence.
3. Parking.
By code any facility must accommodate parking for its users, and a
parking plan becomes part of the permit package. Parking outside the CCP property or on the
adjacent streets is often done in practice, but cannot be counted as
legitimate parking spots. While beach
volleyball by definition is primarily doubles (2 on 2), in recreational venues
there can be many more on the court. Compounding
the parking problem are people coming from a broad radius with low passenger
counts per vehicle. GHBV’s original
proposal was to include the existing CCP tennis court parking slots to the
existing volleyball gravel lot slots.
That was rejected by the CofGH due to distance from the courts. A second GHBV proposal expanded the existing
gravel lot to the north but code would require drainage and surface upgrades
which were far beyond our GHBV budget, and the CoGH did not choose to take this
on. A third proposal preferred by the CoGH was to share use of
the Masonic Lodge parking with Gig Harbor Preschool. GHBV coordinated an acceptable parking co-use
plan with the Preschool and drafted the required parking letter of agreement which
would be filed with Pierce County, necessary because the Lodge parcel is not
yet annexed into the city limits. But the
county informed GHBV and the CoGH that it required the existing parking to be
brought up to code to accommodate both Preschool use (building and land use
permits were never updated) and volleyball use which would likely involve striping,
parking blocks, possibly extending the parking surface. This long rabbit trail is fallout of going
through the formal permit process with the county and was beyond GHBV budget. It would require CoGH resources which they
were not willing to take on. The CoGH
letter which came out shortly thereafter misconstrues this.
4. Sand Hauling Liability. GHBV resolved liability issues with the City
of Westport by gaining agreement from the sand haulers to cover Westport
liability conditions while the sand was in transit. The CoGH letter misrepresents this.
5. Construction Liability. Since the project would be overseen by GHBV,
the CoGH required that GHBV sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to assume
construction liability. GHBV sought
insurance to cover liability but had not yet secured it and was concerned about
the additional project cost.
Additionally, GHBV leadership hesitated after consulting with a lawyer specializing in park construction who advised against signing it because it included liability statements which
would be interpreted to make GHBV liable for injuries at the site long after
the construction was completed.
6. Project Lead.
In light of the MOU difficulties, GHBV proposed a couple creative ways that
1 or 2 members of GHBV could work under the umbrella of CoGH which would assume
liability. GHBV made it clear that GHBV
and CoGH would have the same work split and the GHBV contributors would remain
under the direction of CoGH Public Works Director. This is misconstrued in the CoGH letter as forcing the CoGH to take the project lead role.
7. Project Scope.
GHBV worked diligently under the guidance of the CoGH to work through
the challenges associated with this project.
Both GHBV volunteer and CoGH paid staff have been impacted by the
increased scope brought about by the permitting process. Unfortunately, the letter only highlights the
impact to the CoGH paid staff. Late in
the process we proposed reducing the project scope and build just one court to
the north. This would greatly reduce
required funding, greatly improve site fitment and appearance, and greatly
reduce required parking. Unfortunately,
the CoGH letter only mentions GHBV scope increase, not our proposed decrease.
Conclusions
We respect CoGH choice to discontinue the project but disagree
with their rational. Frankly, we were exasperated
when the letter published, so the project cancellation was welcomed. In fact, we were so exasperated with the
ordeal that it took months to muster the interest to write this response.
Beyond the factual inaccuracies of the CoGH letter, it paints GHBV in a poor light, is mean-spirited, and is ungrateful for the volunteer energy spent.
