HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1997 0203 PR REGCITY OF MOORPARK
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA
February 3, 1997
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER:
CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE TO
NEWLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
Commissioners David Badoud, June Dubreuil, John Oberg, Janice Parvin,
and Sandra Thompson.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL
PRESENTATIONS:
A. Consider Nomination and Selection of Chair and Vice - Chair.
S. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
7. CONSENT CALENDAR:
�:� II• ••• • •. • •• •
Iff •
B. Parks and Streetscapcs Quartea Status Report. Staff
Recommendation: Receive and file the report.
Any member of the public may address the Commission during the public Comment portion of the agenda. Speaker Cards
must be received by the Recording Secretary prior to the Public Comments portion of the meeting. Spears will be beard
in the order that their Speaker Cards are received. A limitation of three (3) minutes shall be imposed upon each speaker.
Copies of the reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in the office
of the City Clerk and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any Agenda item may be directed to the
Community Services Department Secretary, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA, 93021, (805) 529 -6864, ext. 227.
PARKS & RECREATION AGENDA
February 3, 1997
Page 2
8. DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEMS:
A. Overview of Information Binder, Staff Recommendation: Receive
and file.
I: 11. Preview of • • 1 Agenda - 11 s: 1) Infortnation on
Dervelopment Projects and Pr000sed Dedicated Park Land, Including
' • • • :.•1 Park: AVCP Phase and • l •
Design, 3) 1997/98 Goals and Objectives-. 4) Joint Meeting with
City Council on March 26.1997, Recommendation: Review
• discuss items.
C. Proposition 218 Discussion, Staff Recommendation: Review and
discuss.
1761
Attendance. Exoenses. Benefits. and Budgeted Amount. Staff
Recommendation: Staff to provide Commission with C.P.R.S.
Conference information from 1996, and Commissioners to decide
attendance to the 1997 C.P.R.S. Conference.
E. Schedule a Commission and Staff Park Tour, Staff
Recommendation: Commission and staff to schedule a date to tour
all City parks.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regularly scheduled Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
will be held on March 3, 1997.
d EM —.
MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Moorpark, California
1. CALL TO ORDER:
December 2, 1996
Chairman Hall called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m..
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner
Thompson.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Commissioners Dave Badoud, Jim Hartley, Sandra Thompson,
and Chairman John Hall.
Staff Present:
Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager, and Patty Lemcke,
Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of November 18 1996. Staff.
Recommendation: Approve as presented.
B. Cost Evaluation of Vandal Proof Drinking Fountain.
Staff Recommendation: Receive and f-le the report..
MOTION: Commissioner Thompson moved to pull item 7.B for
discussion and approve item 7.A. Commissioner
Badoud seconded. The motion was carried 4.0.
Commission and staff concurred with the report that
the cost to repair the existing drinking fountains
Minutes of the Parks and
Recreation Commission
Page 2
December 2, 1996
was much less than was anticipated, and to replace
with the new design would be too costly.
MOTION: Commissioner Badoud moved to receive and file item
7.B. Commissioner Thompson seconded. The motion
was carried 4 -0.
8. DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEMS:
A. Community Programs and Classes For Disabled Report.
Staff Recommendation: Review report and provide
staff with input.
Staff gave a brief overview of the report.
MOTION: Commissioner Hartley moved to receive and file the
report. Commissioner Thompson seconded. The
motion was carried 4 -0.
B. Review Plans For Poindexter Park. Staff
Recommendation: Review plans of Poindexter Park
for possible installation of a half basketball
court and additional lighting.
Commission and staff agreed there is no available
space to install a half basketball court at
Poindexter Park, unless major changes were made.
Different options need to be reviewed for use of
existing courts in the downtown area.
Additional lighting was not discussed.
MOTION: Commissioner Thompson moved to receive and file the
report. Commissioner Hartley seconded. The motion
was carried 4 -0.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Each Commissioner thanked the public, City Council
and staff, for the support they have received
during their two (2) year term.
Commissioner Badoud suggested the following topics
be addressed after the new Commission has been
appointed:
1. Supply a copy of the Commission Source
Document and the Brown Act.
Minutes of the Parks and December 2, 1996
Recreation Commission
Page 3
2. A brief summary on prior CPRS Conference
attendance, expenses, benefits, and budgeted
amount.
3. A Park Tour be scheduled.
4. Status report on new community developments
contributing to park facilities and issues.
5. Budget Review for each park zone.
6. Schedule a seminar on proper decorum, rules
and regulations for Commission meetings.
7. Present an organization structure of the
Community Services Department.
Commissioner Thompson also suggested a Park Tour
and an introductory class for the newly appointed
Commission.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Hall adjourned the meeting until the next
scheduled meeting of January 6, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.
The time was 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Patty Lemcke
Administrative Secretary APPROVED:
JOHN HALL, CHAIRMAN
'I errs -- - -7, 1� .— .�..._._.
City of Moorpark
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Mary Lindley, Interim Director, Community Services
Department
PREPARED BY: Allen Walter, Maintenance and Operations
Supervisor
DATE: February 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Parks and Streetscapes Ouarterly Status Report
October through December, 1996.
OCTOBER - PARKS
Arroyo Vista Park:
ADDITIONAL TRASH CONTAINERS ADDED: The opening of soccer and
football seasons has brought additional use of the park, and to
aid in maintenance, 8 additional trash cans have been added. The
cans are not permanently installed, only chained to goals and
fences for removal and storage after the season ends.
HAND DRYERS FOR RESTROOMS: Vandal proof hand dryers were
researched for use in the restroom located by the softball field.
The same model is currently located at Poindexter Park and has
been maintenance free. The cost for the vandal proof model is
$547.25 or $1094.50 for two.
Virginia Colony Park:
ON -GOING GRAFFITI PROBLEM: The Park monument (Moorpark Business
Center) has become an ongoing graffiti problem. City Park staff
is removing graffiti from the Park sign attached to the monument
on a weekly basis. This problem is a result of the continuation
school bus stop being located at the Park monument. Maintenance
is continuing to keep it graffiti free, but is becoming costly.
Poindexter Park:
ON -GOING GRAFFITI PROBLEM: The Park benches located in the
pavilion have become a weekly graffiti site. Approximately 8
Hours per month have been expended since the Park opened.
OCTOBER - STREETSCAPES
Tree Removal:
REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO REMOVE 28 TREES: Varsity Park Townhomes
requested a permit (in writing) to remove 28 trees. The mature
trees have grown between fences and curbs, damaging irrigations,
curbs and lifting the roadway asphalt. Investigation shows the
1
request was valid. A permit was issued with the understanding
that 28 replacement trees would be replanted at the complex
property.
NOVEMBER - PARKS
Poindexter Park:
IRRIGATION DAMAGE: Fourteen drip line valves and one, 1 1/2 gate
irrigation valve was dismantled by vandals. The repair required 8
hours of labor to allow system to return to full operation and a
cost of $100.00 to replace damaged parts.
Arroyo Vista Park:
3 ACCESS GATES: Three entry gates into Arroyo Vista (yellow) have
been modified to accommodate a series of 5 locks. This system
will allow other entities to have access through the new system.
Note.: The chain system failed due to locks not being locked
together, but to the chain, barring access by all non -key holders.
SOCCER GOALS: All soccer goals have been anchored to the turf
with 1/2" x 18, steel rebar shaped in a hook. this was added
after repeated problems with goals being tipped over and staff
having to reset. This also prevents goals from striking patrons
during misuse of equipment.
MESSAGE BOARD LIGHT INSTALLATION: Research into installation of a
light for the message board to the entry of Arroyo Vista, has
located an electrical junction box 30' from sign that can be
adapted to service the message board and be regulated (on -off) by
the security light timers. Cost, S445.00
FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION: VCFD, inspected Arroyo Vista
buildings and 4 deficiencies were noted. 1) Door stops on kitchen
doors - corrected; 2) No exit signs over lobby door - corrected;
3) Items stored within 18" of fire suppression sprinkler head -
corrected; and 4) Repair exit lig'nzs over door in gym - corrected.
Tierra Reiada Park:
ADDITION OF SAFETY BARS: The new :nought iron fence (west side)
required safety bars installed to prevent access under fence.
Installed by City Park staff. A plan to install small shrubs
along the street side (1 gallon Raps) of the fence should be
completed in December.
TENNIS COURT DAMAGE: Tennis court fence windscreen has been
vandalized in several areas by cutting and burning. Park staff
has repaired the screen, but repairs are becoming unsightly.
Replacement cost is approximately 55,500.00. The tennis court
surface has begun to "pit." The pitting is the same as
experienced at Mountain Meadows ?ark basketball court. The
pitting is caused from concrete aggregate reacting with the
concrete mixture forming holes (pits) in the surface. This is due
to the wrong concrete mix used for this type of surface.
Resurfacing will not repair this problem. The court also requires
repainting of green base and white lines. Approximate cost is
$1,200.00.
E
Country Trail Park:
HANDICAP ACCOMMODATION REQUEST: Citizen contacted the City
requesting special accommodation for special wheelchair access
into the playground. Director Gilbert addressed this
accommodation with a design that incorporated the existing Fibar
into an 8" bordered ramp providing ADA accommodations.
Peach Hill Park:
TRASH DUMPSTER DOORS: Ongoing use has again caused the dumpster
doors to become unattached from the block wall enclosure hinges.
An extra strength door with a wheel attached to the bottom has
been designed. The doors will be attached with extra strength
hinges and reinforced attachments should correct *this problem.
The cost, $420.00. The alternative is to completely remove the
doors, however, this would be in violation of the MMC.
Griffin Park:
FIRE: A small brush fire was started when dry leaves came in
contact with the City Landscaper's riding mower. A deep pile of
leaves along the fence line at the park were blown up onto the
lower base near the muffler which caused the leaves to ignite.
The leaves caught a small area on fire (4x4). the Ventura County
Fire Department responded and extinguished the fire. The
Contractor has modified all mowers to prevent further fires. A
fire extinguisher has been installed on all mowers.
NOVEMBER - STREETSCAPES
Inglewood Landscape - Zone 6
BACK -FLOW DAMAGE: The backflow at the Inglewood planter was
damaged by juveniles using the device as a step to 'gain access to
a 6' block wall. The continued climbing has stressed the pipe
joints causing them to leak. This has occurred on two other
occasions requiring repair. A back -flow cage has been requested,
fabricated with extra strength expanded steel to stop damage.
Cost, $225.00
All Parks and Streetscaves:
IRRIGATION "ON" DAYS: All irrigation controllers during the
winter months will only be activated Mondays (after 9:00 /10:00 pm)
through Thursdays (7:00 am). No water will be turned on Friday,
Saturday or Sunday nights. This still allow for better control of
irrigation problems.
Special Training:
LANDSCAPE AND TREE CONTRACTING SEMINAR: Allen Walter attended the
Landscape and Tree Contracting in the Public and Private Sector at
the University of California, located in Riverside. The seminar
explored many aspects the City should and is already applying to
its landscape and tree contracts.
3
StreetscaAe PC -3 Zone 10
CONTRACT TO REPAIR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DAMAGE TO WALL: Three bids
were received and the bid was awarded to Rosen Construction, the
original builder, for $1280.00. The contract is being processed.
Repair should be completed by January 1997.
_Peach Hill Wash - North End Property:
CCB PROPERTY: The property has had an additional wall added to
the rear of the shopping center. The construction has damaged
irrigation and landscape. As soon as it is repaired by CCB, City
will add the property to the Landscape Contract for maintenance.
COMMUNITY CENTER
Conference Room Re- carpeting:
CONFERENCE ROOM RE- CARPETING PROJECT: Three bids were received
and the low bid of $813.00 was from a Chatsworth Carpet Company.
The contract was awarded to Diversified Carpets. They will
install Pacifica 4461, conservation recycled carpeting, as
selected by the City Council. the contract is being processed.
Parking Lot Security Light;
ELECTRICAL PROBLEM: An electrician has located a wiring problem
in wiring conduit. Three light standards were affected, all were
rewired/ repaired except one light standard located at center
parking lot on far east side. This will require more detail
diagnoses at a cost not to exceed $400.00 to repair.
DECEMBER - PARKS
Poindexter Park:
BBQ'S: Citizen reported the BBQ handles become extremely hot.
The manufacture was contacted and no other complaints -of this
nature have been received. The design of the BBQ's at Poindexter
Park are different than at other parks, in that they have handles
on the coal pans and not on the grill. This allows radiant heat
exposure when adjusting the grill heat. Temporary signs have been
posted at the Park warning of hot BBQ handles. Permanent signs
are being manufactured.
MAXICOM IRRIGATION: The Maxicom Irrigation system
representatives, Pacifica Technical Services, inspected the Park
for proper installation of the Maxicom system per plans. Maxicom
contacted me due to no contractor advisement of completed
installation was received. Inspection of the Park discovered the
Contractor failed to install the system. Maxicom is researching
and will advise of missing equipment and cost.
BALLFIELD was ripped and brick dust imported to improve field play
areas. Several low areas and proper elevation was repaired.
4
Arroyo Vista Park:
FOOTBALL FIELD: Received additional soil to reduce flooding and
improve drainage. Reseeding will follow when soil temperature
allows for germination.
FLAG POLE: Struck by a vehicle unloading equipment for church on
Sunday, Dec. 22, 1996. Driver and vehicle have been identified.
Pole was unrepairable by park staff and will have to be replaced.
City cost estimate to replace is $971.50. All costs will be
billed to the driver's insurance company.
Peach Hill Park:
TREES: Seven 24" box trees were added to the Park. This project
will continue into January 1997, to help upgrade the Park's tree
Population with larger shade trees.
Campus Canyon Park:
WARMINGTON HOMES: Warmington Homes completed the tree
installation on the north hillside per City agreement. Thirty 15
gallon trees were planted and staked, and HOA water supply was
installed. Supervision on this project is completed.
CITY WIDE
Weather conditions of rain and wind were extreme throughout the
City of Moorpark in the early portion of December.' City
properties incurred only minor damage. City trees withstood the
turbulent conditions with only minimal limb loss. The City's pro -
active tree program has provided conditions that reduced overall
tree loss and damage. No historical Pepper tree loss or damage
occurred. Majority of tree loss and damage was to private and HOA
trees. These trees impacted the City by their interference with
City right -of -ways.
City Building Fire Extinguisher Service:
All City Building Fire Extinguishers were inspected, serviced and
certified per fire code regulations. Three additional fire
extinguishers were added to City Hall copy room and City storage
bins at the Field Office.
-------------------------
Tree permits for removals from private properties for this period:
68
Tree permits for removals that require replacement trees for this
period: 65
Rainfall recorded for this period: 6.73°
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the report.
5
ITEM SAr �
CITY OF MOORPARK
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Interim Director of Community Services , I
DATE: January 29, 1997 (P & R Meeting of February 3)
SUBJECT: Overview of Information Binder
In the past, each Parks and Recreation Commissioner has been provided with an Information
Binder. The Binder contains basic information about the Community Services Department and
the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commissioners are asked to review the Binder and direct
any questions they may have to the Director.
Receive and file.
ITEM (?- i�
CITY OF MOORPARK
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Interim Director of Community Services j'i``�
DATE: January 29, 1997 (P & R Meeting of February 3)
SUBJECT: Preview of Upcoming Agenda Items
Attached to this staff report are several documents including: 1) information on future
development projects, including the conceptual design of the proposed six acre park; and 2)
AVCP phase H. These items are being presented at this time in an effort to provide members with
some background on issues and projects that will be coming before the Commission in the next
several months.
In addition, staff will briefly highlight the upcoming 1997/98 Goals and Objectives process and
joint meeting with the City Council which is scheduled for March 26, 1997. It is not stag's
intention to delve into these issue in an in -depth manner, but to begin bringing the new
Commissioners up to date on items that they will be asked to consider and comment on in the
near future.
Staff recommends that the Commission review and discuss the aforementioned items.
C ADOCSTOMSERVTRE VIE W. COM
C
CITY OF MOORP
AGENDA REP -1
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Christine Adams, Director of Community services
DATE: March 14, 1996 (Meeting of April 3, 1996)
SUBJECT: Consider Parks and Recreation Commission Recommended
Priority List of Improvements for Phase II of Arroyo
vista Community Park and Recreation Center
SUMMARY:
The Parks and Recreation Commission has completed a five month
process exploring the possible alternative park features to be
included in Phase II of Arroyo Vista Community Park. This report
summarizes the Commission's recommendation, and provides the
Council with additional information, prepared by staff.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted a set of goals and objectives for the
City in July, 1995 for 1995190. As part of the goals for the
Community Services Department, the Council directed that staff
"develop a proposed funding plan and recommended priorities for
completion of Arroyo Vista Community Park, and reconcile phasing
plans with conceptual master plan."
On September 20, 1995, staff presented the City Council with an
action plan to address this goal, which was approved by the City
Council. This action plan included six steps:
1. As a Commission, create a possible "wish list" of park
features and elements for further exploration. This
list would not necessarily be contingent upon available
funding. Instead, the list would consist of features
that the Commission has deemed important to include,
which, in their opinion, would best meet the current and
future needs of Moorpark.
.2�� Invite community residents, including representatives
from neighborhoods, community groups, and sports groups
Lo future Commission meetings, to provide input as to
perceived recreational and leisure needs in Moorpark.
3. Take the "wish list" developed by staff and compare it.
to the feedback provided by the community, and develop a
merged list of features for consideration. Some items
1 ,
��t1�ll�i
Or features may - ff `he .._st at his print
✓_. C�� -eJJ for }< - _ „y ' -:she -ommission: anc.
f f lr.ill _;1 !L _: F. ?at - ._ 3t ., Of t:n0Se _
1s _nformat_Or. r.
_Ommission. S t a f t w< also endeavor to pro, --c
anticipated revenue fOr the Park Improvement Fund for
community park purposes to be received from anticicatted
development.
5. Utilizing this merged list with approximate costs, the
Commission will prepare a final recommendation of Phase
II improvements for the City Council to consider and
prioritize. The Commission should address how funding
should be allocated, based on an established priority
list.
b. Upon development of a final priority list, the City
Council may consider contracting with a landscape
architect to develop a new conceptual design for the
undeveloped 30 acres of the park and /or a design for the
additional improvements in Phase I, depending on the
outcome of the public meetings and the prioritized list
of improvements.
To date, the Commission has completed Action Steps #1 - #5. Staff
has provided cost estimates for park features that were determined
to be a priority by the Commission to be improved in the next one
to three years. Staff is still researching costs for those items
listed as priorities for improvement in the next three to ter.
years.
The Parks and Recreation Commission began hearing public testimony
from residents in December, 1995, regarding the public's desire
for specific features in Arroyo Vista Community Park. This topic
was an agenda item for three months, to insure that all interested
persons would have an opportunity to provide input.
Based on the public input, and with additional information
provided by staff, the Commission has prepared a proposed list of
park features, listed in priority order, for the City Council to
consider. The priority list, recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Commission is as follows:
Short Term Improvements ( 1 - 3 Years)
1. Youth Football (with assistance from Packer Football)
(Temporary Field)
2. Pave Access Road OW2 (JJL
3. Multi- purpose Court Licht -ng
s
4. Tennis Courts ( 2 - 4
5. Pave Parkina Lots tt2 and ¢3
6. Furnish Kitchen
Intermediate Improvements ( 3- 5 Years)
1.
Lights for Diamonds #2 and 43.
2.
More and Possibly Larger Picn-_c Shel�ers
3.
Soccer Field Lighting
4.
Third Softball Diamond
5.
Additional Parking
6.
Balance of play equipment in existing play area
7.
Teen Center
8.
Other playground locations and equipment
9.
Basketball Court Lines on Multi- purpose court, and basketball
poles and rims (8 total) (With assistance from MBA)
Long Term Improvements ( 5 - 10 years)
1.
Exercise Jogging Course
2.
Phase II - Gymnasium, Plus Shower 1 Locker Facility
adjacent
to Gym.
3.
Aquatics Complex
4.
Tennis Courts ( 4 - 8 )
5.
Sand Volleyball
6.
Horseshoes
7.
Band Shell (Permanent Outdoor Stage)
8.
Lawn Bowling
The
Commission recommended removing the proposed lake
and the
passive picnicking and paths from the current plan.
Also not
included was a proposal for an archery area that was
brought
forward by a Moorpark senior.
000200%
3
upon Cour.c«
adrptiC^ of `:
eta ed priority list staff wil:. to
_n ,95/97
wi. _h a
s_ape c-
re,are a
revised park desicn �..�
,ha e I
:,o _ra
-. .i n_ Fark.
As this plan is
--
with researc .ing ._cs_
Est_ ma_Je,.
-or a_1 r o s e j
:,ark __3tsres,
and future anticipated
`_undo. s rc- -ark _ ✓er.e `s
Staff estimates tat There ::ill be approximately $100,000 in she
Comm,inity Zone for park improvements at Arroyo Vista Community
Park In 1996197.
In their review of the improvements for Arroyo Vista Community
Park, three issues became a critical part of the Commission's
discussion. Staff is including background on the discussion on
each of these issues for the Council's information.
Football
Mooroark Packer Youth Football gave testimony at the Commission
meeting in December, requesting that the Commission consider the
inclusion of land set aside to provide Packer Football with a
permanent location for their practice and playing fields. This
request was made since the School District had notified the
organization that the District was moving forward with their plans
to sell the property of the old community high school to a
developer.
In March, Packer Football had received new information from the
District, which indicated that there would be no available fields
for the football program in 1996, as grading of the property would
begin during the summer. After researching other alternative
locations, the organization approached staff and made a
presentation to the Commission that Packer Football would donate
Gabor and materials to improve six acres to the immediate east of
the developed park area for a temporary football field and
practice area.
Staff supported this proposal. Even if a new conceptual park
design is developed by a landscape architect, the inclusion of
these developed six acres fits into the previous park plan, and
would allow the City to expand their sports turf area at Arroyo
Vista Community Park, without additional capital expenses.
The Commission also supported this proposal, and ranked it as
their number one priority improvement for Arroyo Vista Community
Park.
This donation was approved by the City Council at a special
meeting on March 13. Construction work began on March 23.
000203
•
Mul`i- Purpose Court
�3 w °_re_ ar- _ _C C 1 L:nci1 _Or t'- e
ified that she _'J _ ,_ ec h:_ ,here could be the
pc_ential for 'Mult_p_e _., -', '.. vjI _ety of activities
..cU ld use `he court .
rdhen a private organization stec:ed forward in 1995 to install
permanent roller hockey side boar --z, in exchange for exclusive use
of the court for roller hockey leagues and games, the City Council
re-�ected the offer, indicating there previous position on a
"multi -use" facility. The City Lnvested in portable side boards
and goals, and in January of 1995, began offering roller hockey
leagues for youth and adults. The first league had a total
registration of 75 youth.
In order to extend the hours of use of the court, the Commission
recommended the inclusion of court lighting at this location, and
this is one of their priority items as well.
At the Commission meeting in February, 1996, Moorpark Basketball
Association gave testimony to the Commission regarding their
organization's need for more basketball courts, especially those
that would be available for evening practices during their season.
Moorpark Basketball Association has made financial contributions
to the improvement of the Boys and Girls Club gym over the past
three years, which benefited the club as well as the basketball
program. Moorpark Basketball Association has made an offer to the
City to add a different color basketball court striping and the
installation of eight (8) basketball poles, boards, and rims to
the multi - purpose court at Arroyo '.'ista Community Park, at no cost
to the City. The total donation would be phased over two years,
at an estimated total contribution of $10,000. MBA has offered to
install all court striping and Install four (4) of the eight
poles, backboards and rims during _996/97, with the remaining work
to be completed in 1997/98.
The Parks and Recreation Commission rejected this proposal as a
high priority, stating that adding basketball usage on the court
would dilute the ability for the City's roller hockey program to
grow. Staff feels that with the inclusion of court lighting, the
hours of use can be extended and both sports could be accommodated
on the multi -use court. It would be staff's responsibility to
appropriately schedule both activities on the court.
Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the donation by
Moorpark Basketball Association and work with the organization in
scheduling the installation. Currently, MBA pays the City a use
fee for their use of the gymnasium during their season for
practice and games, of approximately $1,700. MBA would need to
work with staff to schedule the outside court during their season,
5 v00204
but would not be charged fir .,o sr- rental, except for hourly light
-:na r
Tennis
in �.i.r�*;1;,• 'i •-"-rc ,_Yn.a .:r ':.:: .'. °i. _ `:lrec• Commission ::',eetl. ^CS the
carp k _ter... _�.. �av �._ ... .y to _'ne Commission regarding
the need for additional tennis courts in Moorpark. Currently, the
Tennis Club, -.,i-.ich i:as been _: operation for three years and has a
membership of 240 residents, is utilizing the tennis courts at
Tierra Rejada Park and at Moorpark College for their tournaments.
The Tennis Club provided information to the Commission regarding
the popularity of the sport, and the benefits of the sport.
Their proposal in December requested that the City build, at its
own cost, eight (8) tennis courts at Arroyo Vista Community Park,
and pro shop, which the Tennis Club would maintain, operate, and
collect fees for lessons and playing time. The net proceeds from
these proposed fees would be returned to the City as additional
park revenue.
Staff was not supportive of this proposal for two reasons. The
first involves the high capital investment on the part of the
City. Staff estimates that an eight court complex, with a pro
shop could cost the city over $400,000, or more. The Tennis
Club's proposal in December, identified a net return annually to
the City of $22,000.
The City currently offers tennis lessons at Tierra Rejada Park on
an on -going basis. Since 1993 enrollment in the tennis classes
has fallen off. If part of the net proceeds are to be derived
from tennis instruction, provided by the Tennis Club, staff feels
that the estimated return figure is unrealistically high. (Staff
has also learned that in the last year, Oakridge Fitness Center in
Simi Valley tore down all of their tennis facilities and
racketball facilities to expand their parking lot areas. A
representative from Oakridge informed staff that racket sports
were not drawing large number of participants as they had in the
I
ate 1980's.)
The second objection by staff of this proposal has to do with how
the annual proceeds would be raised. The Tennis Club offered to
.maintain and operate the proposed tennis complex, but would do so
by charging "membership dues" and charging fees for court time to
non- members. Other revenue would be derived from pro shop profits,
tennis lessons, tennis camps, and tournaments. The total proposed
yearly costs and revenue is a--tached at the end of this report.
Staff is concerned about limiting use through membership for any
public facility. The use of tennis courts should be free to all
residents, and not be restricted to only those with the ability to
pay.
(}W205
Since December, the Tennis Club has attended other Commission
meetings, and has modified t -neir i::itial proposal. At the meeting
c` the Cc,-,miss-,on in February, the club requested that the Cite
'-wild cne tennis court and the Tennis Club would build a second
court at :.rroyc lvista Community Park in 1996/97.
S�aff recommended, in a staff report prepared for the Commission
in February, that inclusion of funds for a tennis court be delayed
until at yeast 1997/98. At that time, the Tennis Club would be
able to have a year to demonstrate their ability to raise funds
(approximately $50,000) for one court, and the City would have a
new conceptual design of the park, and where the tennis courts
would best be sited at the park.
The Moorpark Tennis Club has indicated that they would like a
commitment at this time, from the City, that the City is
interested in pursuing the construction of additional tennis
courts, in order that the club can begin fundraising efforts.
The Commission rejected the staff's proposal and recommended to
include $30,000 for one tennis court in 1996/97 in their
recommended park improvement list that will be forwarded to the
City Council as part of the budget process. The Commission
further indicated that the court should not be built by the City
until the Moorpark Tennis Club provides the funds for their
proposed court. The $30,000 proposed by the Commission is based
on an estimate that the Tennis Club received from a qualified
contractor. However, the price quoted in this estimate, did not
include necessary grading, drainage, electrical work, water lines,
and other infrastructure work required for the proposed court(s).
Including these costs, staff feels that a minimum of $50,000 is a
more realistic cost estimate for the construction of a tennis
court, with fencing, screens, nets, court surfacing and striping,
and lights.
In any event, staff does not support the Commission's
recommendation for the inclusion of a tennis court as part of the
park improvement schedule for 1996/97, for reasons stated above.
Finally, it should be made clear that staff is supportive of the
inclusion of additional tennis courts in Moorpark, and supports
the inclusion of four to eight courts in the conceptual re- design
of Arroyo Vista Community Park, that is being proposed. However,
tennis court construction is permanent, and staff feels that this
type of improvement shouted be deferred until the revised
conceptual plan of the park is completed. Staff informed the
Commission that the Specific Plan for the Carlsberg development
includes a neighborhood park, which indicates the inclusion of two
tennis courts. This improvement could meet and satisfy some of
the concerns regarding the 'lack of tennis courts in Moorpark.
CONCLUSION
The Parks and Recrea -ion = :rT�s.__on a ; ,om^ :eted 1 --
develoc_ng a prior_ li e _` -. --
or r...n� ,✓ r;c -o reccr�ren: _-.._der _ -ne
~af.. i:, 'Z u ^port1.vC- C t= -- -= _ e .n, -. I'
Improveme n_s, istec- ear. _er _:. -..ice _ CC r:. Staff : :-
recommending the inclusion of the multi -use cc „rt 'lighting, the
asphalt paving of the access road, -he contracting of a landscape
architect for a conceptual design c Phase II of the park, as we!-'
as accepting the donation from Moorpark Basketball Association for
the improvements for the multi -use court, to the City Council as
part of the budget process for 1996/97. Staff will also forward
the recommendation by the Commission for one lighted -ennis court
to be included in 1996/97 Park Improvement budget at Arroyo Vista
Community Park, but staff is not supportive of this
recommendation.
Staff is also working on a report concerning a Teen Center. Staff
anticipates recommending that funding be appropriated in 1996/97
for a modular building to be placed at Arroyo Vista Community
Park, near the Recreation Center. This recommendation will be
submitted with the budget and will include additional information
regarding current and future teen programs.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Review the Priority List of Park Improvements for Phase II of
Arroyo Vista Community Park, as recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Commission; 2) Consider adoption of Priority List with
recommended changes by staff (i.e. deferring tennis court
construction until after revised conceptual design is completed,
acceptance of donated MBA improvements in 1996/97, and *roving Teen
Center up in order of priority to Short Term Improvements); and 3)
Direct staff to advertise for Receipt of Bids for a qualified
landscape architect to develop a conceptual design for Phase II of
Arroyo Vista Community Park, which would incorporate the priority
list of Park Improvements as adopted by the City Council. (Funds
to be appropriated in 1996/97)
Attachment: Moorpark Tennis Club Proposal
8 OWZ07
A.
C.
a
MOORPARK TENNIS CLUB /CITY OF MOORPARK
TENNIS COMPLEX PROPOSAL
OVERVIEW
1. The City of Moorpark has a severe shortage of tennis courts. There are only
3 unlighted courts at Tierra Rejada Park and 6 poorly lighted courts at
Moorpark College with limited availability.
2. There is a need for a place for youth to gather and have supervised
activities after school.
3. We propose that the City of Moorpark build an eight court lighted complex
with the Moorpark Tennis Club assisting the city in the daily operation
while providing a steady stream of revenue for the city.
ADVANTAGES
1. Will provide a daily supervised afterschool youth program and numerous
other youth programs.
2. MTC provides the maintenance of the facility.
3. Security is enhanced and vandalism is reduced.
4. Reservation system for courts.
5. Increased tennis opportunity for all tennis players.
6. Lessons provided.
7. Provide steady stream of revenue to city for other programs.
8. Fulfills the city's need for more tennis courts.
9. Will bring visitors and revenue to city.
DISADVANTAGES
A small fee charged for play —for people who cannot afford fee for play,
the 3 courts at Tierra Rejada Park are available.
HISTORY
The youth of the community have very limited activities and this complex
will provide a place for them to enjoy a supervised after school tennis
program. This facility can provide a place to gather, a place to play, a place
to have a soda and talk, and a place to practice tennis in a wholesome,
supervised atmosphere.
2. The City of Moorpark has only
3. Moorpark College has 6 courts
daylight hours when not being
3 unlighted courts.
that are available to the public during
used by the college.
•
4. Presently there are no tennis courts available where you can reserve a court
time. This creates disintegration within the tennis commur,i:,.. Play �,r� . r
going to others cities and C:bs to °t their tennis
Many communities use loc,ll tennis clubs to assist in the or oration of their
tennis programs. Examples are Oxnard. Port Hueneme, Sar. Diego.
Burhank anc'. Calabasas.
0. Using local tennis clubs to assist in the operation of the tennis facilities,
tennis programs change character instead of requiring city funds and
resources. They provide a self perpetuating program that provides income
for the city to use on other programs.
E. SCOPE OF OPERATIONS
1. The city will build the facility with fundraising assistance from MTC.
When complete, MTC will enter into a rent or lease back agreement to
assist the city in the operation of the complex.
2. MTC will establish the "Moorpark Tennis Academy" for an after school
youth program. It will operate from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily. MTC will
subsidize this program. The cost will be $1.00 per hour.
3. MTC will implement a "Tennis for Tots" program for kids ages 6 -8 to
teach essential basic skills for beginning tennis players. This program will
also be subsidized by MTC.
4. MTC will provide a "Summer Tennis Camp" which is a series of two -week
tennis camps for area youth in the summer during the hours of 9:00 a.m.
through 1:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
5. MTC will provide USTA Junior league play for boys and girls in
established age divisions and skill levels.
6. MTC will provide league tennis for men's and women's singles, men's and
women's doubles, mixed doubles and seniors.
7. MTC will make every effort to host at least two Ventura County Juniors
tournaments.
8. MTC will set up a court reservation system in 1 1/2 hour blocks to insure
participants of court time.
9. MTC will make every effort to host two Ventura County Grand Prix Tennis
tournaments.
10. MTC will operate a small administration building to house the storage of
equipment, reservation system, small pro shop, and provide snacks and soft
drinks. Hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week,
except during inclement weather. We may close at 9:00 p.m. during winter
months.
11. MTC will seek individual and corporate sponsorship to help defray
construction costs. MTC will conduct an aggressive fundraising program
that will honor tennis complex donors with permanent displays.
F. YOUTH PROGRAMS
1. MTC will conduct daily, superviseC' after school tennis clinics. Instructors
will conduct tennis instruction, drill;, and organized play curing tl,e school
year. The clinic will be open as soon as school is out and run until _5 or 5:30
p.m. This should be a great aid to families where both parents work.
Instruction will be tailored to all ages and skill levels. Cost will be 51.00
per hour. For financially disadvantaged students, there will be no charge.
2. Financially disadvantaged youth will be given free of charge, a youth
membership in the tennis club, and as such will enjoy all the privileges of
paid membership. MTC will work with the city of Moorpark, the Moorpark
police department, the school district and the Moorpark Boys and Girls
Club to identify disadvantaged youth to work with.
3. The youth programs will be advertised in local papers, flyers, recreation
bulletins and in the schools to ensure all youth are aware of the programs.
4. MTC will collect used rackets and balls from members to provide
necessary equipment for youth who do not possess the required items.
5. Fees charged for play, instruction, membership and pro shop profits are a
necessity to provide the revenue to MTC to fund the youth programs. The
fees also provide the revenue to periodically resurface the courts, replace
windscreens and nets, and provide onsite personnel to insure security and
prevent vandalism. MTC is of the opinion that organized, scheduled and
supervised tennis training is vastly superior to just having a court available
for youth to play on. As skills and knowledge increase so does the self
esteem of the youth.
G. PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE
1. Membership: entitles a member to reserve a 1 1/2 hour long court time as
often as desired.
Youth: up to age 18 yrs. $ 75.00 per year
Adult: 18 yrs. & over $150.00 per year
Family: $250.00 per year
2. Court fees for non - members:
Youth: up to age 18 yrs. $2.00 for 1 1/2 hours
Adult: 18 yrs. & over $5.00 for 1 1/2 hours
Senior: 55 yrs. & over $4.00 for 1 1/2 hours
3. Tennis instruction will continue at the same rates currently being charged
by the city. The Moorpark Tennis Academy (after school youth program)
will be subsidized by the club. Cost will be $1.00 per hour payable
monthly. The "Tennis for Tots" program will also be subsidized.
H. PROPOSED YEARLY COSTS AND REVENUE (First year)
`lcmberships
75 youth Co, $75 /year S 5,625.00
150 adult @,S150/year 22,500.00
70 family @ $250 /year 17,500.00
Total: 295 memberships $45,625.00
Non- member court fees
2000 @ $5 /adult $10,000.00
800 @ $2 /youth 1,600.00
1,000 @ $4 /senior 4,000.00
Total: $15,600.00
Pro Shop Profit $ 8,000.00
Instruction 36,480.00
Tennis for Tots 1326.00
Moorpark Tennis Academy 12,800.00
(after school youth program)
Youth Tennis Camp 15,000.00
Tournaments $6,400.00
Total revenue: $141,255.00
Costs
Labor
$59,000.00
Instructors
39,520.00
Insurance
3,000.00
Electricity /Utilities
11,000.00
Maintenance
1,000.00
Misc. 1,000.00
Equipment
1,000.00
Reserve for maintenance
3,000.00
Total cost $118,520.00
Total revenue to city $ 22,705.00
Second year revenue $31,830.00
Third year revenue $42,780.00
�V<%L -s4i
0
tA
7
MOORPARK TENNIS CLUB-ARROYO VISTA PARK ATELIER
Architecture & Planning
805-529-3467
fa l
LrI
-- ----------
2401
C0
10000
PATIO
-- ----------
2401
j
gr;
DRIVE
�ING
C0
10000
PATIO
CLUB
F,HOUS]E
IC)
16.2)&
j
gr;
DRIVE
�ING
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
op
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Christine Adams, Director of Community Services
DATE: February 5, 1996
SUBJECT: Consider Information of Future Development Projects and
Proposed Dedicated Park Land.
BACKGROUND
To assist the Commission in their discussion on Agenda Item #8 -B,
staff has prepared an overview of proposed land development
projects in Moorpark, along with the proposed park land for each
project. It is the intention of this report to give the
Commission an understanding of the potential future growth of the
City.
In the discussion regarding the future improvements to Arroyo
Vista Community Park, which has no available funding at this time,
it may be helpful to look at other proposed park projects, where
certain amenities may be appropriate.
It is the intention of the City to condition the developers of the
individual developments to not only provide park land, but to
construct and improve the park land to City specifications. The
City's Park Improvement Fund is comprised mainly of in -lieu fees
imposed on new apartments and mobile homes and
commercial /industrial projects, park land lease revenue, park fees
on certain residential planned development projects and interest
income on the fund balance, and, is referred to as the City's
Quimby Ordinance. The City currently requires developers to
dedicate 5 acres of land for parks for every 1000 people in that
development, or provide the equivalent amount of money or some
combination.
Neither the Quimby Ordinance or other conditions required by the
City of developers includes annual park maintenance costs. These
costs are funded through the City's park assessment district and
the City's General Fund. As the amount of park land increases, so
does the maintenance cost. When making recommendations to the
Council on park designs, the Commission may want to keep in mind
the overall maintenance impact that different designs may
generate.
Carlsbera Specific Plan
The Carlsberg project is located to the east of Spring Road, north
of Tierra Rejada, south of L.R. Avenue, and west of the 23
freeway. --
The project has an approved Specific Plan. The current owners of
the property are looking for buyers of the property to act as the
merchant builder of the housing and commercial buildings.
Carlsberg, or its successors, is obligated to build the park and
the main infrastructure for the development, such as the
connecting streets, water, and sewer lines.
The Planning Commission will be reviewing the subdivision maps
within the next two months. It would be appropriate for the Parks
and Recreation Commission to review the park site at the same
time, and staff is recommending that this park site be reviewed by
the Commission in March or April.
The Specific Plan includes the precise location and size and
amenities to be included in the 6.5 acre park. When directed by
the City Council, most likely sometime after the tentative tract
map approval and about when the first phase of the final map is
approved, the Parks and Recreation Commission will have the
opportunity to recommend alternative designs, and the developer's
architect would be responsible to prepare a new park design based
on recommended changes, approved by the Council.
Following review of the subdivision map by the Planning
Commission, the City Council will consider approving the map. The
developer must record the subdivision map within three years of
that approval.
Staff estimates that the park development will be approximately 3
years away.
This development is the only one in Moorpark that at this time has
an approved Specific Plan.
Morrison Ranch (JBR)
The Morrison Ranch project is located north of the proposed
extension Spring Road. The Specific Plan is about 1 year away
from being considered by the City Council, and could conceivably
begin construction in 1998, if approved in 1997.
The development includes an approximate 10 acre park, and there
has not been any work done on the park features at this time.
The Commission will be looking at park features sometime during
the next year, and will be making recommendations to the Council
as part of the Specific Plan process.
Hidden Creek (Messenger)
By far the most ambitious project, Messenger includes over 4,300
acres of land, and is expected to dedicate over 66 acres of park
land to the City. This would include five parks (22 acres, 15
acres, 13 acres, 8 acres, and 7 acres) , and a proposed private
golf course.
The development area is located to the northeast of the Campus
Park area, and is outside of current City limits. The development
of this project is contingent upon annexation of this land to the
City.
Staff will be providing a presentation to the Commission this
evening to assist in their consideration of the various park
features for this development. The project applicant and staff
from the Planning Department will hopefully be in attendance to
assist in this discussion.
Lew
The Levy Development is located to the northwest of the old high
school. There is one 10 -20 acre park that is proposed to be
located at the end of Casey Road, southwest of the Boys and Girls
Club. The Specific Plan may be approved in June or July of 1997,
and the property owner is also looking for a merchant builder for
the project.
When directed by the City Council, the Commission will be provided
materials to assist in reviewing the proposed park land and making
park amenities recommendations.
:• -• -
The Bollinger property is located north along Moorpark Avenue,
past Casey Road to the east. The proposed development includes
216 individual lots, averaging 1 acre in size. There are no parks
planned for this project, but through the Quimby Ordinance, the
developer is required to pay the City fees in lieu of land.
Because of the prices of the homes, the fees could be substantial,
which would benefit the City's community park improvements, but
would be incremental as each house is built one at a time.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and File the Report.
Attachments:
Excerpts from Carlsberg Specific Plan, related to park improvement
Map of Carlsberg Project.
Excerpts from Messenger Specific Plan (not approved), related to park
improvements.
Map of Messenger Project.
Carlsberg Specific Plan (Approved)
which follows are also allowed by the overlay zoning.
3. Sub-Regional Retail /Commercial (SR /C)
Tie sub- regional retail /commercial overlay zoning has
been applied to allow flexibility in the final design and
size of development with this use. The Plan requires a
single user - tenant if the total 73 acres is to be
developed for BP uses, otherwise, a minimum of 40 acres
of the available 73 acres is to be for sub - regional
retail /commercial use. A maximum of 795,000 square feet
of buildings on 73 acres are permitted in the sub -
regional retail /commercial configuration. Its use is
intended as a retail shopping center, perhaps with one or
more large anchors, to meet the shopping needs of the
local and surrounding communities. Support retail and
service uses will be encouraged.
4. institutional _(I)
This 7 acre site identified as Planning Area I is for
uses such as a school, church, library, museum, or like
uses permitted in the zoning ordinances.
D. OPEN SPACE /NATURE PRESERVE /RECREATION PLAN
The Open Space and Recreation Plan for this property (see Exhibit
8 ) provides for the protection of views and the preservation of
natural features and habitat areas and the provision of recreation
areas. The final design and extent of the trail system shall be
determined by the City Council. A total of 220.4 acres, excluding
the 9 acre nature preserve which is deemed to be park land, or
approximately 48 percent of the site is classified as "Open Space".
The open space area meanders through the site and will be retained
in its natural condition.
A 9 -acre nature preserve and a 6.5 -acre park site is proposed in
the central portion of the project. Within the boundaries of the
Specific Plan Area, the property owners shall dedicate at their
sole cost and expense, park land and nature preserve land to the
City of Moorpark as shown on Exhibit 7. At their sole cost and
expense, property owners shall make improvements to the park land
and shall provide maintenance as set forth in this subsection. The
park improvements shall include, at the City's sole discretion, the
following:
Softball field with a minimum of 300 foot outfield radius
with no obstructions, backstop, foul line chain link
fencing, fenced dugouts with concrete floors and
bleachers on concrete pads to seat 150 people;
Regulation soccer field, '225 feet wide and 360 feet long
8
with no obstructions, that does not overlap onto the
softball field area, except as approved by the City
Council, and two (2) semi - permanent goals;
Two (2) tennis courts;
Full basketball court;
Children's play equipment/apparatus and tot lot similar
in size and area as the City's Tierra Rejada Park;
Concrete block restroom with tile roof;
Picnic shelter with solid roof and matching tile roof to
the restroom;
Off- street parking with a minimum of 30 standard sized
parking spaces.
Final design, plans and specifications shall be as approved by the
City Council, including applicable handicapped requirements, and
shall include but not be limited to grading, drainage, hardscape
(walkways, bike paths, etc.) landscape (trees, shrubs, groundcover
and turf), security lighting for the park and parking lot and
miscellaneous amenities in the quantities as determined by the City
(tot lot and park perimeter fencing, trash receptacles, trash bin
enclosures, bike racks, barbecues, picnic tables, pay telephone,
identification monument signs, and other signage, etc.). In
addition to water, sewer and electrical services, the improvements
shall include stub out into the park at a location determined by
the City for natural gas, telephone and cable television services.
At their sole cost and expense, property owners shall: (i) design
the park and submit conceptual plans for City approval, (ii)
prepare final design, plans and specifications and submit the same
to City Council for approval, (iii) submit the approved final plans
and specifications to City for plan check along with appropriate
fees, and (iv) pay the City for inspection of park construction.
The park shall be dedicated to the City improved and available
(open) to the public prior to the occupancy of the 227th dwelling
unit within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. After the park is
opened to the public and prior to its formal acceptance by City,
owners shall provide a minimum of one year's maintenance for the
park land and improvements, including all labor, materials and
water, in accordance with the specifications used by the City at
its parks. The nature preserve land shall be dedicated to the City
of Moorpark at such time as is elected by the City. The above
described improvements along with the dedication of the above -
described park land and nature preserve shall be deemed to satisfy
the "Quimby" requirement set forth at California Government Code
Section 66477 et sea. for all subsequent subdivision maps within
the Specific Plan Area for a maximum of 552 residential units.
Owners shall secure the above described improvements and one year
maintenance requirement by execution of City's standard subdivision
agreement prior to the approval of the first final tract map or the
9
I
first final parcel map within the Specific Plan Area.
As a condition of the issuance of a building permit for each
commercial or industrial use within the boundaries of the Specific
Plan, users shall pay City a fee, in an amount set by resolution of
the City Council to be used for park improvements within the City
of Moorpark. The amount of the fee shall be the same as that paid
for other commercial and industrial uses, but in no event shall the
fee exceed fifty cents ($.50) per square foot of gross floor area.
Institutional uses shall pay on the same basis as commercial and
industrial uses, except that institutional uses which are exempt
from secured property taxes shall be exempt from the fee.
E. CIRCULATION PLAN
The Circulation Plan ( see Exhibit 9 ) for the Carlsberg Project Area
establishes the roadway network and basic standards for safe
vehicular movement within the area. Alignments for arterial and
local roadways and typical cross - sections for these roadways by
street classification are provided herein.
1. Regional Access
Regional access to the site is provided by way of two
state highway corridors: the Simi Valley Freeway (State
Route 118) and the Moorpark Freeway (State Route 23).
The Simi Valley Freeway provides access to the City of
Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley to the east.
Route 118 continues through the City of Moorpark as a
conventional roadway, eventually terminating at the Santa
Paula Freeway (SR 126) in the City of Ventura to the
west.
The Moorpark Freeway enters at the southeast portion of
the City and connects with Simi Valley Freeway at the
eastern limits of the City. Route 23 provides access to
the Ventura Freeway (U.S. 101) eight miles south of the
City.
2. Connector Plan
Local access will be obtained by five planned or future
roadways, as follows:
New Los Angeles Avenue - classified as a primary
highway, six lanes, 118 -foot right -of -way with
striped median
Science Drive - classified as a secondary highway
with a varied right -of -way ranging from 104 feet to
108 feet.
Spring Road - classified as a secondary highway,
two lanes, with dedication for a 94 -foot right -of-
10
0
•
Q LAND USE PLAN
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY OF MOORPARK
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
IAND USE
DWELLING
ACNFS
UNITS
FAMIIY
400
145
ASINGLE
3 / UNITS PE16 ROSS A CA F
BSINGLE
FAMILY
460
138
3 UNITS PFR GROSS ACRE
CSINGIF
FAMILY
320
160
5 UNITS PFR GROSS ACRE
DSINGI
F FAMILY
37 0
109
3 UNITS PER GROSS ACRF
SUB REGIONAL RETAIL/
730
SIyC,7Br
COMME RCIAU
BUSINESS PARK
1:1:1
INST I T U I IONAI.
7.0
11 i
NAIIIRF PRESERVF
90
Up--]
PARK
65
OS
OPEN SPAC.F
2204
SUBTOTAL
4709
552
PRIMARY ROADS
175
-_-
-TOTAL
4884
552
EXHIBIT 7
(RE-VISED 7118194)
(2)
(3)
Messenger Specific Plan (Not Approved)
of 20 DU /AC may be provided to accommodate affordable
housing, provided that no additional dwelling units
over the density limit of 3,221 shall be approved.
Commercial Land Uses
Commercial land uses are planned at four locations
within the Hidden Creek Ranch area as follows:
(a) Community Center - A 17.5 -acre Community
Commercial Center has been shown at the main
entrance to the area, near Moorpark College, and
will serve as the primary commercial site. The
Center is planned to include uses such as
retail, office, educational, child care, and
community services. A transit stop is also
planned within the Center, and as an air quality
mitigation measure, a telecommuting center is
required. The site is large enough to provide
community level services, such as a grocery store
and a drug store, as well as daily neighborhood
retail, commercial service, and restaurant needs.
An outdoor marketplace design has been proposed
to encourage community interaction.
(b) Neighborhood Commercial (Village) Centers - Two
Village Centers are planned for the western
portion of the Specific Plan area, adjacent to
residential uses, and are intended to provide
commercial uses at a neighborhood level. In
addition to community service uses such as police
or fire stations, community halls, churches, and
recreational amenities. Permitted uses are
proposed to include dry cleaners, postal
services, shoe repair, hair salons, insurance and
real estate offices, small retail shops, child
care centers, and restaurants.
The third area designated as a Village Center is
the golf course clubhouse site. The clubhouse
site totals 10.5 acres and is located north of
Hidden Creek Drive. The Golfcourse Village
Center is proposed to include small retail shops,
ancillary to the recreational use, such as
clothing and pro shops, restaurants, and other
golf course related uses, including a driving
range. At a minimum, the clubhouse would include
a dining room or snack bar, a lounge, a pro shop,
locker and shower rooms, toilet facilities, the
Manager's office, a caddy -cart storage room, and
a maintenance storage room. Banquet and
conference facilities may also be included.
Parks /Recreation and Open Space Land Uses
(a) Parks - The five proposed parks range in size
from 7.0 to 22.4 acres and are planned adjacent
7
(4)
to school sites and /or higher density residential
areas.
(b) Recreation - An
that is proposed
to the general
encompass 174.9
Specific Plan.
described in
discussion.
18 -hole golf course is planned
to be privately owned, but open
public. The golf course would
acres in the central area of the
The proposed clubhouse uses are
the preceding Village Center
A 9.6 -acre equestrian center has been proposed
that is intended to be privately owned and
operated, but open to the public. The equestrian
center is planned to include facilities such as
barns, stables, pasture and training areas, and
a trail stop. The trail stop would include
facilities such as a water faucet, picnic tables,
and the like. Residents and visitors alike would
be able to board horses at this center on a space
available basis.
Open Space
(a) Natural Open Space - is defined as the 1,824 -acre
open space preserve located in the northern
portion of the Hidden Creek Ranch. Public access
will be limited to the trail system.
(b) Passive Private Use Open Space - is defined as
the privately owned open space within development
areas, either within subdivided lots or within
open space lots owned by a Homeowner's
Association. This open space will not be mass
graded, and uses will be limited through open
space easements or covenants, conditions, and
restrictions.
(c) Passive Public Use Open Space - is defined as the
area within the arroyos. Uses within this area
will be limited to trails and storm drainage
facilities such as detention ponds and culverts.
(d) Private open Space - is defined as the 690 acres
located in the eastern portion of the Specific
Plan area, and is proposed to remain in private
ownership as one large Planning Unit (No. 45) .
Uses to be permitted within this area are an
issue that must be resolved. The Hidden Creek
Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR assumed that the
easterly open space area was to be preserved as
Natural Open Space, with no grading, because the
applicant elected to not pay for Phase II
archaeological testing as well as complete
biological and tree survey work. Further
discussion follows in Section IV, Issues, of this
report.
0
!HIDDEN CREEK RANCH
CITY OF MC' -PARK, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LEGEND
LAND USE 1
L
iTEM r C
CITY OF MOORPARK
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Interim Director of Community Services
DATE: January 29, 1997 (P & R Commission Meeting of February 3)
SUBJECT: Proposition 218 Information
Attached is an outline of the provisions contained in Proposition 218 which is being provided for
your information. As you know, Proposition 218 was approved by the voters in the November
general election. While we still have many unanswered questions about the Proposition and city
attorneys are still in the process of interpreting its requirements, we anticipate that it will have
some impact on the way cities generate revenue to pay for on -going park maintenance.
Staff recommends that the Commission receive and file this information.
F. MACKENZIE BROWN'
WARREN B. DIVEN
DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE
ROMRT E. HEssELL
CELIA A. BREWER
•A M((VM';k)fJAL CY lt"ATKV
LAW OmcFs
BROWN, DIvEN & HENTSCHKE
12770 HIGH BLuFF DrtIvE. Surn 240
SAN DIEGO, CALIRVNIA 92130
(619) 456 -1915
FAx 259 -0292
RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES ACT
(PROPOSITION 218)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX LIMITATION (ARTICLE XIIIC. SECTION 2):
1I Ac' - try of J t-"
NEWPORT BEACH (714) 551.1915
LOS ANGELES (2 13) 587.1915
1. General Tax Limitation. Prohibits "local government" from imposing, extending or
increasing any general tax without first submitting such tax to the electorate and receiving
approval by majority vote.
A. "Local government" - any county, city, city and county, including charter city or
county, special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity.
B. "Special purpose districts" - including school districts, shall have no power to
levy general taxes. The term "special purpose district" is not defined in the text of
Proposition 218.
C. Election Requirements - Requires olidation of election with a regularly
scheduled general election for membelegislative body of local government
proposing to impose a general tax subject, however, to an emeNundefined)
declared by unanimous vote of such body.
(1) Must the emergency meet the requirements for an urgency ordinance, i.e.,
immediate threat to the public health or safety, or is a fiscal crisis an
"emergency "?
(2) Does a "unanimous vote of the governing body" require the vote of all
members of the body or just those present?
D. Voter Ratification of Certain Existing General Taxes - Requires ratification vote
prior to November 5, 1998 on any general tax imposed, extended or-increased
without voter approval on or after January 1, 1995 and prior to November 6, 1996.
(1) Ratification requires majority approval.
(2) Ratification vote must take place at consolidated election described in B.
above.
1
D. Effect of Limitation -
(1) Incorporates Proposition 62 in constitution.
(2) Extends Proposition 62 limitation to charter cities and counties and special
purpose districts.
(3) Restates Rider v. County of San Diego by prohibition on levy of general
taxes by special purpose districts, e.g., transportation or criminal justice
authorities.
2. Special Tax Limitation.
A. Definition - any tax imposed for specific purposes including taxes imposed for
specific purpose but placed in the general fund of the taxing agency.
B. Effect - May curtail ability to "sell" general tax based upon ability to be the tax to
specific public concerns, e.g., imposition of a utility users tax the proceeds of
which are to be deposited in the general fund but are to be earmarked to finance
additional police services.
INITIATIVE POWER FOR LOCAL TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, FEES AND CHARGES (ARTICLE
XIIIC. SECTION 3):
1. Prohibition on Limitation of Initiative Power. Power of people to reduce or repeal local
taxes, assessments, fees and charges by voter initiative may not be prohibited or
otherwise limited.
A. Scope of Limitation - Applies to all local governments including charter cities and
counties.
B. Initiative Signature Requirements - Initiative signature requirements may not be
higher than requirements applicable to statewide statutory initiatives. Such
statewide statutory initiatives require the signature of 5% of all voters for governor
in the last gubernatorial election. Under preexisting elections law regulating local
initiatives, petitions for municpal initiatives must be signed by not less than 15%
of all registered voters in the city and petitions for county initiatives must be signed
by not less than 20% of the voters in last gubernatorial election.
C. Effect -
(1) Overturns decades of judicial precedent reserving to legislative body the
right to manage fiscal affairs of local government.
(2) Threatens to impair security for outstanding or future bond issues, e.g.,
repeal of assessments or special taxes securing assessment or Mello-Roos
2
bonds. Raises substantial federal constitutional questions regarding
impairment of contract.
(3) As a result of potential impairment of security for bonds, may adversely
impact marketability or cost of local agency debt financings secured by
assessments, special taxes or fees subject to a rate covenant.
D. Issues.
(1) Application to future special assessments or special taxes particularly
where such assessments or taxes will be utilized to secure the payment of
debt service on bonds of the local government.
(2) Necessity for implementing legislation to resolve conflicts with existing
assessment district law.
ASSESSMENT REFORM (ARTICLE XIIID, SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 5):
1. Application. Applies to all assessments whether imposed pursuant to state law or charter
authority.
2. Assessments Defined. Any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special
benefit conferred upon such real property.
3. Procedures and Requirements for Assessments.
A. Identify parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them.
(1) "Special benefit" means a "particular and distinct benefit over and above
general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the
public at large."
(2) General enhancement of property value is not a "special benefit." Key work
is "general." Special and particular enhancement is a traditional measure
of special benefit and rebuts a potential "taking" challenge.
B. Determine the "proportionate special benefit" to each property in relationship to the
entirety of cost of acquiring or constructing an improvement or of "maintaining and
operating" such an improvement. Assessment on a parcel may not exceed the
reasonable cost of the "proportional special benefit" conferred on such parcel.
(1) Would seem to inadvertently authorize levy of assessments for "operations"
of permanent public improvements as well as maintenance. Preexisting law
did not authorize levy of assessments for operations.
(2) Definition of "maintenance and operations" appears to limit assessments
for such purposes to the maintenance and operations of "permanent public
improvements." Is landscaping a permanent public improvement? Are trees
different than flowers or ground cover? Are assessments for services such
as fire suppression benefit assessments now unconstitutional?
C. Only "special benefits" are assessable. Overturns Knox v. City of Orland. Under
prior law, only properties receiving special benefit were assessable but fact that
some incidental general benefit also resulted from capital improvement or
maintenance did not invalidate assessments.
(1) Threatens assessments for landscaping, parks, recreation facilities and fire
suppression benefit assessments.
(2) Registered professional engineer must prepare traditional engineer's report
supporting assessment spread methodology.
(3) Presumption of validity of assessments is eliminated. Burden of proof on
local government to demonstrate properties assessed (a) receive special
benefit and (b) amount of assessment is proportional to and no greater
than "benefits" conferred on such properties.
D. Government owned parcels are now subject to assessment. Raises substantive
constitutional supremacy issues regarding attempted assessment of federally
owned property.
E. Notice requirements.
(1) Requires 45 day mailed notice to record owner of each parcel. Eliminates
published notice option established in the Brown Act for assessment
districts which are coterminous with local government boundaries or for
assessment districts of 50,000 parcels or more. Who is the record owner?
The owner as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll (preexisting
law) or the owner of record as shown by the County recorder?
(2) Contents of notice.
(a) total assessment for entire assessment district;
(b) assessment chargeable on owner's parcel;
(c) duration of proposed assessment;
(d) reason for assessment;
(e) basis on which amount of proposed assessment was calculated;
(f) date, time and place of public hearing;
(h) summary of voting procedures and effect of majority protest.
F. Protest by ballot.
(1) Property owners may now express their support or opposition to proposed
assessment by ball which must accompany the -rtVe .
4
f
(2) Ballots must be returned by the conclusion of the public hearing.
(3) No assessment may be imposed if a "majority protest" exists. Overturns
ability of legislative body in some assessment district proceedings to
override a majority protest by a 4 /5ths vote.
(4) "Majority protest" exists if ballots submitted in opposition exceed ballots
submitted in favor of assessment.
(a) Vote is weighted according to proportional financial obligation of
affected property. Large landowner or government agency with a
significant assessment may be able to control the vote.
(b) Overturns preexisting law which generally required owners of 50%
or more of property proposed to be assessed (determined by
acreage) to file a written protest in order to establish a majority
protest.
4. Effective Date and Exceptions.
A. Effective date of Article XIIID is November 6, 1996.
B. Beginning July 1, 1997, all "existing, new or increased assessments" shall comply
with Article XIIID unless the assessment is exempt under one of the specific
exceptions. This means non - exempt assessments must comply with the
requirements of Article XIIID described above by July 1, 1997 or such
assessments may no longer be levied.
C. Exceptions for assessments "existing" on November 6, 1996:
(1) Assessments imposed exclusively to finance capital costs or maintenance
and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control,
drainage systems or vector control.
(a) Assessments for park maintenance, open space or fire suppression
clearly do not fall under this exception.
(b) Less dear are assessments for street lighting, median or parkway
landscaping. Arguably they are incidental to streets and'sidewalks
but is landscaping a "permanent public improvement" as required
in the definition of "maintenance and operation expenses "? Street
lighting and traffic signals are probably permanent public
improvements.
(c) Does this exception allow for the annual levy of an existing
maintenance assessment beyond July 1, 1997 without compliance
with the procedures and requirements of Article XIIID?
5
(2) Assessments imposed pursuant to petition signed by the persons owning
all of the parcels subject to assessment at the time the assessment is
initially imposed.
(a) Is a written request to annex to an existing 1972 Act assessment
district a petition? How about a written consent to annexation
signed by a subdivider of property where annexation is a condition
of approval to subdivide? Arguably yes.
(b) Does this exception apply where the subdivider signed the request
or consent to annex in Year 1, installed the landscaping
improvements in Year 2 in which new residents started to move into
the development but the assessment was not actually levied until
Year 3 when the subdivider's warranty of landscaping and
maintenance handed over to the public agency?
(3) Any assessments the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay
bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would be an impairment
of contract under the federal constitution.
(a) The initiative proponents have stated that this exception is not
intended to apply to certificates of participation or other "creative
debt instruments" which may be secured by assessments.
(b) Does this exception apply to annual administrative assessments or
surcharges levied under preexisting law contemporaneously with a
fixed lien assessment which actually secures the bonded
indebtedness?
(4) Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval.
(a) Is this a majority of the voters casting ballots or must this election
conform to the weighted ballot procedure for a majority protest?
The most reasoned conclusion is that a majority of votes cast is all
that is required to qualify for this exception.
(5) Subsequent increases in any of the excepted assessments must comply
with the procedures and requirements of Article XIIID.
(a) The initiative proponents have inferred that increases in existing
assessments qualifying for one of the above exceptions imposed
pursuant to a previously approved assessment formula or range of
assessment as permitted in the Brown Act are not considered to be
increases which must comply with Article XIIID. There is, however,
no support for this conclusion based upon the clear meaning of the
words of Article XIIID itself.
D
FEE REFORM (ARTICLE XIIID. SECTIONS 1.2.3 AND 6):
1. Fees and Charges Subject to Article XIIID.
A. Definitions.
(1) "Fee" or "charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special
tax or an assessment, imposed by an agency, i.e., a local government,
upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership,
including user fees or charges for a property related service.
(a) Fees and charges for electrical or gas service are not deemed
imposed as an incident of property ownership.
(b) Fees imposed as a condition of property development under
existing law are not affected. This would include, for example,
development impact fees and bridge and thoroughfare fees.
Capacity charges and connection charges may be development
fees or may be exempt on other grounds.
(2) "Property ownership" includes tenancies of real property where tenants are
directly liable to pay the fee or charge in question.
(3) "Property- related service" means a public service having a direct
relationship to property ownership. The specific listing of water, sewer and
refuse collection charges in Article XIIID, Section 6, Subsection (c) and
specific exclusion of electrical and gas utility charges from definition of
charges imposed as an incident of property ownership may shed light on
those fees and charges subject to Article XIIID.
B. Fees or charges subject to fee reform provisions of Proposition 218.
(1) Fee or charge levied upon a parcel as an incident of property ownership.
(a) Reliance on any parcel map, including an assessor's parcel map,
may be considered a significant factor in determining whether a fee
is imposed as incident of property ownership. If a fee or charge is
not generally based -upon or imposed by reference to such a map,
this fact constitutes an initial indication that the fee may not be
imposed as an incident of property ownership.
(b) A fee or charge imposed as an incident of a request for service,
e.g., connection fees, capacity fees, etc. are arguably not fees
levied upon a parcel as an incident of property ownership. This
determination may not exempt such a fee from the substantive
restrictions of Proposition 218. See (2) below.
VA
(c) Fees or charges based upon consumption, i.e., water rates, are
arguably not levied as an incident of property ownership.
(d) Meter charges or flat rate consumption fees for water are imposed
upon customers regardless of the amount of water consumed but
are imposed only upon customers actually using water. This may
again be a fee upon a parcel as an incident of service use, not
property ownership.
(2) Fee or charge levied "upon a person" as an incident of property ownership.
(a) Such fees are not levied upon a parcel but are nevertheless subject
to certain provisions of Proposition 218. Examples of such fees
could be water and sewer service fees and refuse collection
charges.
C. Requirements Applicable to All Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges.
(1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not
(a) exceed the funds required to provide the property related service;
(b) be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge
was imposed. The initiative proponents have declared that this
provision was intended to prohibit a local government from
"siphoning off fee revenue to supplement a city's general fund."
This provision may prevent the transfer to the general fund of
interest earnings on the investment of fee revenue. This limitation
may also preclude franchise "in -lieu" payments.
(2) The amount of the fee or charge shall not exceed the proportional cost of
the service attributable to the parcel. This requirement may inhibit the
establishment of life -line rates and other subsidy programs financed by
fees and charges.
(3) No fee or charge may be imposed unless the service provided is actually
used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question.
Standby charges are classified as assessments and may not be imposed
without complying with the provisions of Proposition 218 relating to the
imposition of assessments. An existing standby charge may, therefore,
qualify for one of the exceptions applicable to assessments.
(4) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services
including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services
where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the
same manner as it is to property owners.
8
D. Procedural Requirements for New or Increased Fees and Charges Imposed Upon
Parcels.
(1) The local government must give notice of and hold a public hearing prior
to levying a new fee or charge or increasing an existing fee or charge.
(a) Mailed notice of the public hearing must be given at 45 days prior
to the public hearing to the record owner of each parcel upon which
the fee or charge is to be imposed and must include:
(i) the amount of the proposed fee or charge;
(ii) the basis upon which the proposed fee or charge was
calculated;
(iii) the reason for the fee or charge; and
(iv) the date, time and place of the public hearing.
(2) If written protests are filed by a majority of the owners of the parcels upon
which the fee or charge is proposed to be imposed, the fee or charge may
not be imposed.
E. Voter Approval for New or Increased Property Related Fees and Charges.
(1) Such a fee or charge may not be imposed or increased unless and until
approved by a majority vote of the property owners subject to the fee or
charge or, at the option of the local government, by a 2/3rds vote of the
electorate residing within the affected area.
(2) The voting procedure may be incorporated in the public hearing process
as required for assessments. For fees and charges imposed upon property,
the proceedings will include both the protest hearing and the election.
(3) Fees and charges for sewer, water and refuse collection services are
exempt from the voter approval requirement.
F. Effective July 1, 1997, all fees and charges must comply with the requirements of
Proposition 218.
AIDS TO INTERPRETING AND IMPLEMENTING PROPOSITION 218:
In attempting to give meaning to the provisions of Proposition 218, the following guidelines may
be helpful:
1. A constitutional amendment should be construed in accordance with the natural and
ordinary meaning of its words. Additionally, the literal language of the amendment may be
disregarded by reviewing courts to avoid absurd results and to fulfil the apparent intent of
the framers.
9
2. Apparent ambiguities may be resolved by contemporaneous construction of the legislature.
Reviewing courts give great weight to implementing legislation in construing constitutional
amendments. Additionally, Proposition 218 creates numerous conflicts with existing
statutory law particularly relating to the imposition of assessment. Implementing legislation
which attempts to rectify these conflicts will substantially aid in the implementation of this
constitutional amendment. Therefore, implementing legislation may be crucial to the
development of a workable framework for applying the provisions of Proposition 218. Local
governments may work through their legislators or lobbying groups such as the League
of California Cities to attempt to gain passage of implementing legislation.
3. The ballot summary and arguments and analysis presented to the voters may be helpful
in determining the probable meaning of uncertain language. However, material not
presented to the voters will not be considered by the courts in reviewing Proposition 218.
Therefore, correspondence from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association should not be
relied upon to interpret Proposition 218. An example of such correspondence is the
annotated version of Proposition 218 dated September 5, 1996 which was circulated by
the association to certain local governments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such
materials may give an indication of the issues upon which the association may challenge
fees and assessments and the arguments which they may make in any such court
challenge.
If you should have any questions regarding either Proposition 218 or this paper, please feel free
to contact either Warren Diven or Dan Hentschke.
10
ITEM ,D -
CITY OF MOORPARK
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Interim Director of Community Services y^r�,.
DATE: January 23, 1997 (P &R Meeting of February 3)
SUBJECT: Consider Commission's Attendance at the California Pacific Southwest
Recreation and Park Training Conference
This year's California Pacific Southwest Recreation and Park Training Annual Conference will be
held on March 13 - 16 in Sacramento. In the City's FY 1996/97 Budget, $1,500 was allocated to
cover the cost of two c6mmissioners' attendance at the Conference. This is consistent with past
Budget allocations for conference attendance.
It's my understanding that alternative arrangements have been made in the past that allowed more
than two Commissioners to attend the Conference. The Commission may wish to discuss these
alternative arrangements or it may choose to select two of its members to attend. In order to
guarantee the discount registration fee of $199, I directed that reservations be mailed for two
Commissioners prior to our meeting. Staff is now looking for direction as to which
Commissioners will be attending the Annual Conference.
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission select Commissioners to attend the
California Pacific Southwest Recreation and Park Training Annual Conference.
C ADOCS \COMSERV\CONFERAT.COM
✓.>
CITY OF MOORPARK
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Interim Director of Community Services ? /WL
DATE: January 23, 1997 (P &R Meeting of February 3)
SUBJECT: Consider a Date for a Bi- Annual Park Tour
Each year the Parks and Recreation Commission schedules two dates to tour the City's parks.
The tour provides Commissioners with an opportunity to become familiar with the City's parks,
which, in turn, assists them with any future discussions about needed park improvements.
Staff suggests that the Commission select a weekend day so that there is sufficient daylight hours
to view park facilities.
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission select a day and time to tour the
City's parks.
C ADOC ST OMSER VTARKT OUR. C OM