HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2001 0604 PR REG_______ MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA
June 4, 2001
6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Joseph Catrambone, Craig Chally, Quentin
DeGuardi, Tom Pflaumer, and Chair Sandra Thompson.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
A. Staff's Monthlv Report.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
7. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
of May 7, 2001. Staff Recommendation: Approve as
presented.
B. Spring Camp Status Report. Staff Recommendation: Receive
and file report.
8. DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEMS:
A. Moorpark After Dark Dance Presentation. (No Agenda Report
or Staff Recommendation.)
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. Speakers will be heard 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) 517 -6227.
PATRICK HUNTER CLINT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS KEITH F. MILLHOUSE JOHN E WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda
June 4, 2001
Page 2
B. Consider Location and Specifications for a Ci?,v
Skatepark. Staff Recommendation: Discuss ideas for one or
more skatepar.ks and set a date -o tour neighboring
facilities.
C. Consider Parks' Capital improvement Projects Report.
Staff Recommendation: ''or Commission to discuss the
report and provide comments.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS /FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
City of Moorpark )
County of Ventura ) ss.
State of California )
I, Patty Lemcke, Administrative Secretary of the City of
Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, do hereby
certify under penalty of perjury that I posted a copy of the
agenda for the regularly scheduled meeting of June 4, 2001.
Executed this 30th day of May, 2001, at Moorpark, California.
Patty LenVke
Administrative Secretary
Community Services Department
MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Moorpark, California May 7, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Pflaumer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Joseph Catrambone, Craig Chally,
Quentin DeGuardi, Thomas Pflaumer, and Chair Sandra
Thompson.
Staff Present: Mary Lindley, Director of Community
Services; Gwen Indermill, Recreation Superintendent;
Stephanie Shaw, Recreation Coordinator; and Patty Lemcke,
Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATION, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
A. Staff's Monthly Report.
Mary Lindley and Gwen Indermill gave oral reports.
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 April 2, 2001. Staff Recommendation:
Approve as presented.
B. Recreation Programming Quarterly Report. Staff
Recommendation: Receive and file report.
Parks & Recreation Com-nission Minutes
May 7, 2001
Page 2
C. Parks Quarterly Report. Staff Recommendation: Receive
and file report.
MOTION: Commissioner Chally moved to approve the Consent
Calendar as presented. Commissioner DeGuardi seconded.
The motion carried 5 -0.
B. DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEMS:
A. Status Report on July 3`d Fireworks Event. Staff
Recommendation: Receive and file report.
Stephanie Shaw gave an update on the status of the
Committee's progress and stated that there wilt: be
additional attractions and vendors this year. The
Committee has begun to secure donations. Staff then
answered questions from. the Commission.
B. Ba`-'1e of the _Bands Status Report. Staff
Recommendation: Receive and file report.
Gwen Indermill reviewed staff's report. She stated
that this was the City's first attempt at this type of
event and it went: very weli. There were approximately
400 teens in attendance and they were charged a S5
entry fee. The day went smoothly.
Commissioner Chally inquired if -:�lis did or could
generate profit. Ms. Indermil1 stated that for this
particular type of event, the goal is riot to make a
profit, but to simply break even.
C. Easter Egg Event Report. Sta`.f: Recommendation: Receive
and file report.
Gwen Indermil.] stated that there were a few changes
made to the evert this year, one being the change in
location at AVCP. Ms. Indermill felt this Qart:i.cular
change was helpful because of the large number of
attendees. She also expressed her appreciation to all
the volunteers who assisted.
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
May 7, 2001
Page 3
Chair Thompson stated that she feels there was quite
an improvement this year because of the changes that
were implemented.
Commissioner Catrambone suggested that perhaps next
year a P.A. system could be used, announcing the times
of the different egg hunts periodically and on a more
frequent basis.
D. Proposed Labor Day Event. Staff Recommendation:
Discuss and provide comments.
Gwen Indermill explained the generalities of this
proposed event. She stated that the two Summer
Concert's in the Park would be combined into one and
be held on Labor Day weekend. The event would offer
activities such as a softball tournament.
Commissioner Catrambone agreed with staff, and
suggested that we try it this year and see how it is
received by the public, and also see if it generates
enough money to justify the expense.
MOTION: Commissioner Chally moved to concur with staff's
recommendation of combining the two proposed Concerts
in the Park events into one Labor Day event.
Commissioner Pflaumer seconded. The motion was carried
5 -0.
E. Approve the Design and Purchase of Playground
Equipment for Campus Park. Staff Recommendation:
Concur with staff's recommendation to be presented to
the City Council as stated in the Agenda Report.
Mary Lindley reviewed the design of the proposed play
equipment. She explained that the equipment recently
installed at Peach Hill and Campus Canyon Parks is
from the same manufacturer, and both are getting a
very positive response from the public. Ms. Lindley
also explained that the budgeted amount was not enough
to have the existing equipment removed and disposed
of, and would like a recommendation from the
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
May 7, 2001
Page 4
Commission to the City Council, amending the budget to
include this amount.
MOTION: Commissioner Chally moved to concur with staff's
recommendation to be presented to the City Council for
approval. Commissioner Quentin seconded. The motion
was carried 5 -0.
F. FY 2001/02 Objectives and Protects. Staff
Recom.rendation: Discuss and provide comments.
Mary .indley reviewed with the Commission their
previous list of proposed objectives and projects and
informed them that the list would be one of the items
discussed at the upcoming Joint meeting of the City
Council and the Commission.
Commissioner Chally stated that he would like the
construction of a second vehicle entry into AVCP be
added to the list.
CONSENSUS: The Commission reached the consensus to recommend
their previous list of objectives and projects to
the Council for approval, with the addition of the
constructicn of a second vehicle entry into Arroyo
Vista Community Park.
G. Consider Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Time
Change. Staff Recommendation: Approve the set start
time for the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
to be 6:30 p.m., consistent with the City Council
meetings.
MOTION: Commissioner Catrambone moved to change the set start
time of the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings
from 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Pflaumer
seconded. The motion was carried 5 -0.
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
May 7, 2001
Page 5
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS /FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Chair Thompson announced that registrations are currently
being taken for summer's Camp Moorpark, and to watch for
the upcoming Summer Recreation Brochure in the mail.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting at 8:04, until the
scheduled Joint Meeting of the City Council and Parks and
Recreation Commission on May 24, 2001.
APPROVED:
SANDRA THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN
Respectfully submitted:
Patty Lemcke, Administrative Secretary
CITY OF MOORPARK
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Parks & Recreation Commission
FROM: Stephanie Shaw, Recreation Coordinator
DATE: May 29, 2001 (Commission Meeting of June 4, 2001)
SUBJECT: Spring Camp Moorpark
T1TQOTTQQTMT
Spring Camp was scheduled during Moorpark Unified School District's spring break,
April 16 through 20, 2001. Although Friday, April 13 was also a school -free day,
camp was not held due to the low Friday enrollments last year. Average daily
attendance increased this year, from 40 campers per day to 44 campers per day. The
total number of participants in the program for the season also increased, from 46
in 2000 to 61 in 2001. The total enrollments for Monday through Friday also
increased, from 203 in 2000 to 219 in 2001.
Spring Camp activities included games, crafts, and sports based on the theme "Wild
Planet." The spring field trip took place Wednesday, April 18, to the Los Angeles
Zoo. A special walking trip to Baskin - Robbins was held on Tuesday, April 17. Other
special activities included a "Boardwalk Carnival" on Monday, with a jolly jump,
carnival games, and cotton candy for all the campers. The Thursday video was "Mighty
Joe Young." Overall, the activities ran as scheduled and were successful. There were
no major problems during the session, and the week ran smoothly.
Campers were divided into four different color teams by age. Each team had ten to
thirteen campers per day, with one staff member leading each team. The majority of
regular camp staff were not available to work during the spring session due to
conflicting school schedules, and recreation staff members and new employees stepped
in to work.
Camp registration fees remained the same as last year. Revenue for the program
increased this year, primarily as a result of the increase in new participants.
Program costs increased this year as well, due to the purchase of replacement craft
supplies, the addition of special attractions, and the increase in enrollment. The
increase in enrollment also resulted in additional staff costs.
FINANCE
2001 2000
Expenditure $909.29 $649.12
Advertising $100.00 $90.50
Field Trips $105.15 $110.00
Transportation $337.79 $226.88
Craft and Activity Supplies $252.35 $221.74
Attractions $114.00 $0
Part Time Staff (estimated) $1836 $1665
TOTAL EXPENDITURE: $2745.29 $2314.12
GROSS REVENUE $4692 $4430.00
NET REVENUE $1946.71 $2115.88
Coordinator Hours 60 50
SUMMARY
The program was successful and future growth is expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2002 CAMP SESSION
• As growth in the program is expected, secure additional staff well in advance
of the session.
• Provide new staff with a brief training session.
• Assign a senior staff member to provide leadership and assist in the
coordination of the program.
• Increase the time at the morning activity stations from 30 to 45 minutes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission receive and file this report.
NO AGENDA REPORT SUBMITTED FOR THIS ITEM.
MOORPARK PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services,•I( '
DATE: May 26, 2001 (Meeting of June 4, 2001)
SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding the Location and Specifications
for a City Skatepark
BACKGROUND
During its discussion about potential objectives for FY 2001/02,
the Parks and Recreation Commission identified the construction
of a skatepark. At its joint meeting with the City Council on
May 24, there was additional discussion about the construction
of a skatepark(s) and a general consensus that the Commission
should begin considering the City's options.
This Agenda Report serves to begin the
feasible options available to the City
a permanent skatepark. The Report attei
the issues the Commission will need to
several months as it works to identify
City Council's consideration.
City's Existinq Skate Facilit
Commission's review of
for the establishment of
npts to identify some of
consider over the next
a recommendation for the
As you know, the City has a temporary skatepark. On Tuesdays and
Wednesdays, between the hours of 3 p.m. and 5 p.m., the
multipurpose court at Arroyo Vista Community Park is transformed
into a skatepark. The City has nine portable skate ramps that
are set -up on the court and available to skateboarders and in-
line skaters who have completed a skatepark registration form.
It takes two staff members approximately 45 minutes to an hour
to set the ramps up and another 45 minutes to put them away into
storage containers. Because the ramps are portable, City staff
Skatepark Report
Page 2
monitors the skaters to ensure that the skaters do not move or
misuse the ramps. As a result, the City budgets approximately 8
hours per week to operate its skatepark.
Skatepark Costs and Specifications
The cost to design and construct a skatepark varies widely
depending on its size and construction material. Most skateparks
are between 6,000 and 14,000 square feet. Based on presentations
your staff has attended and materials we have collected over the
years, the ideal size is between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet.
There are two primary types of skateparks: those constructed
from concrete and those constructed of laminated wood, metal,
plastic or a version thereof. Non concrete ramps are made in a
factory setting, assembled and mounted on a concrete slab.
The full -on concrete skatepark costs between $15 and $20 per
square foot to construct based on information from the cities of
Modesto and Santa Clara. Construction costs vary depending on
the market at any given time and site conditions (i.e. some
sites may require a thicker slab). Based on the cities we
surveyed, design costs for concrete skateparks ranged from
$10,000 to $25,000. You can typically estimate that design costs
will equal approximately 10 percent of your construction cost.
A desirable 9,000 square feet concrete skatepark may cost an
estimated $178,200 ($162,000 for construction and $16,200 for
design).
Non concrete ramps in a skatepark will cost less than a complete
concrete park. However, the ramps will need to be replaced every
three to six years depending on the materials used and the
amount of use the ramps receive. A concrete slab about the size
of a full tennis court can accommodate approximately eight
ramps. The cost for the slab is approximately $55,000. Eight non
concrete ramps will cost approximately $50,000. With design
assistance, it is estimated that such a skatepark will cost
approximately $115,000.
Location is another important consideration for the siting of
one or more skateparks. It is suggested that skateparks be
constructed in a location that is visible from the street for
security reasons, while at the same time, not adjacent to homes
\ \MOR PRi SERV \home polders \MLindley \PARKS \Skatepark Rpt ccomagd.doc
Skatepark Report
Page 3
where they can be a nuisance. At the joint City
Council /Commission meeting, it was suggested that the Commission
consider City parks as well as potential sites in
industrial /commercial areas. On past park tours, the Commission
has identified Griffin Park, Glenwood Park, and Country Trail
Park as possibilities for siting a skatepark. There may be other
potential park locations as well.
Another factor for the Commission to consider is whether the
City should attempt to construct more than one skatepark. One
significant reason behind constructing two or more skateparks is
to ensure that skaters without transportation can easily get
there. Therefore, the Commission may wish to look at the
feasibility of constructing a skatepark on the east side of the
City and another on the west or central side.
To assist the Commission with its task of developing a skatepark
recommendation, it is suggested that a tour of local skateparks
be conducted. In particular, the Commission should consider
visiting Pleasant Valley Recreation and Parks District skatepark
in Camarillo, and at least two of the three skateparks in the
City of Ventura. The Commission may also want to visit a non
concrete ramp skatepark. At this time the only one that your
staff is aware of within an hour's drive is in the City of Ojai.
we will look into any others that may be in the surrounding
area.
Attached to this Report is a summary of the size and cost of the
skateparks in neighboring jurisdictions and a couple of articles
the Commission might find informative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the Commission's ideas for one or more skateparks and
set a date to tour neighboring facilities.
\ \MOR PRI SERV \home folders \MLindley \PARKS \Skatepark Rpt ccomagd.doc
CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
Recommended Guidelines for the
Design, Construction, and Operation of Skate Parks
Members of the CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY are encouraged to
implement the following guidelines to create a safe and enjoyable skate park for the
members of their community and to reduce the frequency and severity of claims
associated with the design, construction, and operation of skate parks.
Skate Park Design
Skate parks should be designed with community input from skateboarders,
in -line skaters, parents, business owners, home owners, and neighbors to
ensure all issues are discussed prior to construction.
2. Skate parks should be designed by licensed architects or landscape architects
that are qualified and experienced in the design and construction of skate
parks.
3. Park design should include the following features: public telephone (within
50 yards), drinking fountains (within 50 yards), rest rooms (within 100 yards).
A sufficient number of immovable trash receptacles (preferably square)
should be provided to prevent the accumulation of litter in and around the
facility. Ample parking should be provided for skaters and spectators.
Consideration should also be given to providing space for bleachers and
concession activities.
4. Lighting should be installed if the skate park is to be operated after dusk.
5. Consideration should be given to the installation of fencing or concrete walls
around the skate area to protect skaters from dogs and children running into
the skate area and to protect spectators or passersby from being struck by
skaters or errant loose skateboards. This barrier should be at least three feet
above grade.
6. Design elements within the park should be spaced so skaters doing a
maneuver on one element are able to complete the maneuver and recover
without interfering with other skaters and without entering another element.
7. Skaters of differing skill levels should have access to design elements of their
skill levels without crossing areas requiring greater skill levels.
8. The skate park should be visible from the street. This will enable observation
of the skate park by public safety personnel and other staff. In addition,
provisions should be made to allow public safety personnel to drive vehicles
to an area immediately adjacent to the skate area.
9. In order to maintain design immunities provided under state law, the city
council should review and approve of the park's design in accord with
Government Code § 830.6.
Skate Park Construction
1. Skate parks should be constructed by licensed contractors that are qualified
and experienced in the construction of skate parks.
2. The contractor, city and architect should work together to ensure the park is
constructed as designed.
Skate Park Operation
1. The skate park should be used by skateboarders and in -line skaters only.
Bicycles and motorized vehicles should be prohibited.
2. The city should adopt an ordinance requiring any person using the skate park
to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. In addition, the ordinance
should prohibit skateboarders or skaters from performing stunts, tricks, or
luge skateboarding in the skate park parking lot, curbs, or entrance areas.
3. The city should post signs at the skate park giving reasonable notice that any
person using the skate park must wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads,
and that any person failing to do so will be subject to citation under the
ordinance adopted in accord with guideline 3.
4. Public safety personnel should agressively enforce the ordinance adopted in
accord with guideline 3 by regularly driving by, observing, and citing any
person in violation of the ordinance.
5. Regular inspections of skate parks should be conducted and documented
using checklists. Any defects reported by the public should be documented.
All repairs should be completed in a timely fashion. The affected portion of
the park should be closed until repairs can be completed. All repairs should
be documented.
6. All stickers, graffiti, and trash should be removed on a daily basis.
7. Spectators should not be allowed in the skate area.
8. The city should maintain a record of all known or reported injuries incurred
by skaters in the park.
9. Signs should be prominently posted with the following rules:
• Park hours are _ to
• Skateboarding and in -line skating are hazardous activities. Skate at
your own risk.
• Skateboards and in -line skates only.
• No bicycles or motorized vehicles.
• Helmets, knee pads, and elbow pads required.
• Failure to wear helmets, knee pads, and elbow pads will subject persons
to citation (Municipal Code ).
• Skating on park curbs, parking lot, and entrance sidewalk is prohibited.
• No graffiti or tagging.
• No glass bottles.
• Dispose of trash in trash receptacles.
• No smoking, alcohol, or drug use.
• No spectators permitted in the skate area.
• No unauthorized pieces of equipment, obstacles, or apparatus may be
brought into the skate area.
Siting Considerations
e Public restrooms
• Drinking fountain
• Available Bus Routes
• Size
• Highly visible and near
other park amenities that
draw a mix of ages and
activities
• Close to food
• Parking and drop -off areas
The most successful skateparks are
designed by landscape architects
working directly with the skaters. Not
only do the skaters feel proud of being
part of the process, but without their
help, a suitable park can not be
achieved. Likewise it is important to
have a designer who knows something
about skating, sports facility and park
design, and construction technology.
Your designer should have a
demonstrated understanding of how to
get a project built through the public
approval process, particularly if you
don't have this expertise in- house.
The development phase should
include a series of information
gathering workshops. Discussion at
these workshops should center on
design criteria and layout ideas, types
of facilities, amenities, security and
lighting, traffic, noise, operation hours,
and other related elements. Consider
all skill levels, from novice to expert, in
the development of ramp designs.
Safety for both the skaters and
spectators is also a foremost concern.
The ideas generated here will
eventually turn into construction
plans.
Learn from Existing Facilities
Make sure you look at other
facilities before deciding what your
own should look like. Parks that have
the highest degree of usage and best
long -term potential have several key
features:
A good location. Site selection can
be the most difficult aspect of building
a skatepark. The park should be very
visible to the public and easily
accessible to the skaters. Skaters
appreciate an audience and the public
loves to watch them. Good visibility
cuts down on vandalism and other
problems commonly associated with
these types of facilities. Determine if
any of your potential sites have
topography that could be incorporated
into the design and/or provide natural
barriers. Many cities have decided to
site their facilities in existing parks.
Studies have found that stand -alone
skateparks tend to attract a less
desirable group of users, have lower
usage, and generally cause more police
and maintenance problems.
A moderate approach. You don't
have to have the tallest ramps or the
most square footage. However, your
facility should span all degrees of
difficulty and be large enough to
accommodate your skaters. if it's too
easy, your skaters will be bored in a
year. if it's too hard, you'll have a lot of
injuries from the start.
Design with a "flow" in mind.
Your designer should be a big help with
this one. Keep in mind how many
skaters can be on the course at once.
Design your facility so that there is an
obvious direction of travel and enough
elements to limit the number of times
the skaters must push with their feet
for momentum.
Keep it safe. Spectator areas and
walkways should be a safe distance
away from the skating area. Think
about nets or borders to confine flying
skateboards.
continued
Page 5
Other Design
Considerations
• The design committee
should include skaters,
parents, neighbors, city
staff, the designer, and
other interested parties.
• Skateparks should include
an area for viewing and/or
"hanging out"
• Ramps should be con-
structed out of concrete
with steel edges for a
smooth, durable riding
surface.
• Provide an adequate
drainage system to remove
water from the skating
area.
• Test ramps with qualified
professional skaters and
safety experts for degree
of difficulty.
• Mark ramps by color sig-
nifying degree of difficulty.
Page 6
Cost
As you can see by the index of
existing parks (starting on page 10),
costs can vary widely. This wide variety
is because only incurred costs were
reported. Often labor or other services
were provided through city resources
and/or donated. Almost all cities
reported some element of fund- raising.
Many constructed their parks in two
phases to bear the cost over several
budget cycles.
Skatepark architects from Purkiss
Rose/rsi recommend that a skatepark
be at least 6,000 square feet and
estimate construction costs to be
$90,000. Actual costs vary significantly
depending on the design and size of
the facility and amount of expertise
located within your city. The best
dollars spent will be in research and
design.
Liability insurance
Be sure to notify your insurance
carrier or program during the initial
phases of design. Both the Association
of Washington Cities Risk Management
Service Agency and the Washington
Cities Insurance Authority cover
skateparks at no additional premium
charge. Both programs require some
notification and involvement in the
process. If you are with another
insurance program, a private carrier or
self - insured, find out the facts about
Your insurance coverage early in the
process. Your city clerk, finance
director, risk manager, city admini-
strator or city manager can tell you
who to contact.
Signing
Signs are a good way to provide
participants and spectators with
specific information. Signs are also
required under the recreational land
use law. Establish well thought -out
rules and post them throughout the
facility. Carefully consider both
placement and the number of signs
used. People tend to ignore signs if
overused.
Posted rules should clearly state
the city's expectations, hours of
operations and prohibitions. Don't
bother to set rules you can't enforce.
For example, you can't require safety
equipment or limit the number of
skaters unless you plan to enforce it.
Since most facilities will be
unsupervised, no one will be around to
consistently enforce these types of
rules. So, stick with "recommending,"
and if you feel strongly, "strongly
recommend." (See a sample of good
signage used by the City of Kirkland in
the Index on page 19.)
Sample language you may want to
consider:
• This facility is used by both
experienced and inexperienced skaters.
Serious injury may result from being
hit by a skateboard, falling or colliding.
The city does not assume responsibility
for injuries.
• This park is not supervised.
• The city's liability is limited by
RCW 4.24.210.
• The use of protective equipment
including helmets, knee and elbow
pads and wrist guards is strongly
recommended.
• No bicycles.
• Alcohol, drugs or glass containers
are not permitted.
• Skate respectfully. Be respectful of
other park users: moderate your
language, keep music volume down,
and use trash containers provided.
• Spectators should stay off the court.
• Park is open from 8 a.m. to dusk.
Maintenance
Checklist
• Inspect ramps, walkways,
fencing, steps, handrails,
and parking and viewing
areas.
• Inspectors should look for
– Adequate lighting
– Condition of ramps (free
of gaps, ridges, cracks,
foreign material)
–Trip, slip and fall hazards
– Condition of signs
– Any construction defic-
iencies
• Documentation should
include the type of main-
tenance performed, the
name of the employee
performing the work, the
date completed and if
further action is required.
• Encourage participants to
wear personal protective
gear at all times.
Inspection, maintenance and
documentation are key to
minimizing the liability exposure of
skate facilities. Periodic inspections
and documentation of maintenance
and repairs will be extremely beneficial
if a claim is brought by a user of the
facility. Inspections should be ongoing
through the year, but more frequent
during spring and summer.
Ongoing maintenance for a
concrete facility is slight. However,
other types of ramps can require more
care due to weathering. The most
important part of maintenance is
keeping the riding surface even and
smooth.
Consider providing brooms for the
skaters to remove debris from the
skating surface. Many cities find that
the skaters are better at keeping the
facility free from debris than city staff.
To Tag or Not To Tag ...
That is the Question
Only one Washington facility, the
City of Yelm, allows their skatepark to
be painted or "tagged." Yelm decided
to allow the kids free expression and
the right to paint the facility. No gang
graffiti or profanity is allowed. Rules
are easily enforced due to location —
the skatepark is located right next to
the police station.
Most facilities have shied away
from allowing tagging for a number of
reasons. The public views tagging more
as graffiti than artistic expression and
most skaters don't care to skate on
painted surfaces. Besides the look,
there's potential problems with
mingling painters and skateboarders.
You wouldn't want the course being
painted at the same time it is being
used by a skater. The two activities
could create an imbalance of needs
and wants.
Lastly, concrete facilities have to
deal with maintenance issues. The
paint, over time, can change the riding
surface. To remove the paint, a
sandblaster usually must be used
causing damage to the riding surface.
To keep the skatepark in top condition,
the park must give a smooth ride. This
may not be as easily accomplished if
you allow tagging.
Still, it works for Yelm. Painting
the course was very popular for many
of the kids, almost as popular as
skating there. The interaction between
skaters and painters proved to be
cooperative and not dangerous.
Perhaps this is another myth to be
dispelled, although long -term
maintenance problems are not yet
known.
Page 7
1
Municipal skate parks
Cities are working with local youths
to fund, design and maintain
skate facilities.
By Christina Couret
Assistant Editor
erts, half -pipes and grinds: They represent skating
to the nation's youth and a liability nightmare to
many city parks departments. Because of the per-
ceived recklessness associated with skateboarding and
inline skating, many local governments have banned skat-
ing on commercial and community properties, as well as on
school grounds, leaving skaters with very little recreational
space.
As a compromise, some local governments are building
skate parks, complete with howls, rails and other skating
elements to ensure a safe environment for skaters. By con-
structing a designated skate park, city officials meet the
demands of their young residents and ensure that skaters
are not damaging city or privately awned properties, or dis-
rupting pedestrians and other park users.
The popularity of skating has increased steadily over the
past several decades, as traditional roller skates have
evolved into inline skates and skateboarding has emerged
Continued on p. 62
AMERICA\ CITY & COVVIY
P
A
R
K
S
&
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I O
N
Municipal skate parks
Cities are working with local youths
to fund, design and maintain
skate facilities.
By Christina Couret
Assistant Editor
erts, half -pipes and grinds: They represent skating
to the nation's youth and a liability nightmare to
many city parks departments. Because of the per-
ceived recklessness associated with skateboarding and
inline skating, many local governments have banned skat-
ing on commercial and community properties, as well as on
school grounds, leaving skaters with very little recreational
space.
As a compromise, some local governments are building
skate parks, complete with howls, rails and other skating
elements to ensure a safe environment for skaters. By con-
structing a designated skate park, city officials meet the
demands of their young residents and ensure that skaters
are not damaging city or privately awned properties, or dis-
rupting pedestrians and other park users.
The popularity of skating has increased steadily over the
past several decades, as traditional roller skates have
evolved into inline skates and skateboarding has emerged
Continued on p. 62
AMERICA\ CITY & COVVIY
From p. ?8
as a television sport. In fact, ESPN's X
(lames for extreme sports, held in San
Francisco last summer, attracted more
than 200,000 spectators and 400
international competitors in events
for skateboarding, inline skating and
HNIX biking. First -place winners took
home $ 10,000.
Regardless of the growing populari-
ty of skating, many government offi-
cials are concerned about skating safe-
ty, and they do not want to be held
responsible when injuries occur. In
1997, California Gov. Pete Wilson
approved a state law that designated
skateboarding as a hazardous recre-
ational acrivity. Linder the act, skaters
basically skate at their own risk, and
their ahllity to tile injury clatms
against cities is limited.
Following passage of the Ltw, manN:
of ( :Aitornia's local governments
paysr,l onlinance, prohihitint; sk ;tte-
hoards in parks and other lr:n-
in; sk ;iicrs nowhere to ,o. 1 {o�ycver•
62 October 1999
About 500 skaters use the Modesto Skate Park, which opened in
August 1998, each day during the summer.
same cities tried to
compromise with
local skaters. For
example, after rile
Modesto City Council
passed an ordinance
prohibiting skate-
boards in downtow-n
business areas and
parking lots and on
school properties in
January 1995, the city
created a task force to
investigate building a
skate park. The 27
member task force
consisted of residents,
local business owners,
representatives of the
police department
and 13 skaters.
The city set aside
$1 5,000 to hire a park
designer — Fullerton,
Calif. -based architect
Purkiss Rose -RS1 —
and began researching
other skate parks and
liability issues. Ac-
cording to Recreation
Supervisor Doug Lemcke, the task
force discovered that, in 1996, the
National Safety Council, Itasca, Ill.,
listed football, volleyball and ice
hockey as sports more dangerous than
skateboarding. Furthermore, a sunny,
of 48 California skate parks revealed
that only two had been sued after
in)uries. Santa CLUZ, which has oper-
ated a skate park since 1978, has been
Sued twice.
In Grand Junction, Colo., home to
Westlake Skatepark and Eagle Rini
Park skate facilities, city officials also
reaitzed that, while Cuts and scnipes
are common at skate parks, claims and
lawsuits are not. Nlo,r cities post rules
requiring Skaters to wear helmets,
elbow pads, knee paid, and wrist
guards. Some cities, such as Bellevue
and Santa Paula, hoth in ('dirt., even
require skaters arid/or parents of
skaters to sI n wmven absolving the
city of liability.
Modesto passed an ordiniirtce
requiring use of hChIlits, elh,nr pads
and knck, p.i,ls. It also .Imc,l th;it
skaters w•ho fall to wear the eyutp-
ment are negligent and therefore skit,
at their own risk, according to Lem
cke. "Some kid, don't want to wear
helmets," he says.
c- -
f1ON
If liability is not a hindrance, cities
can proceed with site selection and
development of a skate park. Lemcke
recommends choosing a highly visible
sire, perhaps close to a roadway, so
that It can be easily located, attended
and patrolled. "Cities should not pick
an isolated location for a skare park,"
he says.
High visibility also ensures that
police can better patrol the area and
cuts the likelihood of illegal activity
or rule - breaking. Additionally, Lem-
cke says, "Skaters like to show off.
They want to be seen."
Frequently, cities can tack a skate
facility onto an existing park if space
allows. Co- locating saves parks
departments the additional casts of
building restrooms or concessions. F
example, by building a skate park
Skating
terminology
Air: skaters have all four
wheels of skates or skateboards off
the ground at the same time
Grind: a trick performed by
scraping one or both skateboard
axles on a surface; or by sliding
across a surface on the inline skate
frames
Half -pipe: a two - sided, U-
shaped ramp; it likely will have 90
degree vertical walls
Hang up: catching the skate or
sk,iteboard on an obstacle, usually
causing a tall
Keyhole slot: a spillway or
smooth entry into a deep howl
Vert: any ramp or surface with
a 90 degree incline
ANttrmc:y� Ci i y & Cot \ iti
an established recreational site at Bey-
er Community Park, Modesto was
able to feed off existing amenities as
well as site recognition.
Hollister, Calif., chose a site close
to a roadway for the Hollister Skate
Park, which should be completed by
next spring, according to David Rub -
cic, associate engineer for the city.
The facility is being built at Veterans
Memorial Park, which already has
drainage facilities and restrooms.
Although the park is in a residential
area, the closest house is about 600
feet away. "We don't anticipate any
noise problems," Rubcic says.
Since noise can pose problems,
many parks departments do not build
recreational facilities close to neigh-
borhoods. However, in Grand Junc-
tion, one group of residents requested
that the skate park he built in their
neighborhood at it neglected drainage
area. The fact that the site had no
sewer utilities and, thus, no restroom
facilities, added to the $223,000 con-
struction cost. Park planners also
included heavy landscaping to serve as
a buffer between the skate park and
the residents.
The 0LSIGA; i t'A'.�
Because many parks planners are
not familiar with skate park feature,,
designing one presents a unique
opportunity for young people and
adults to work together, Lemcke say,.
"I had no idea how to build it skate
park," he says. "I really relied on the
kids' expertise."
Continued on p. 70
GIS helps Boise beef up parks management
Since 1990, Boise, Idaho, has grown rapidly, creating
an escalating demand for parks and recreational facil-
ities. With 80 city -owned parks totaling more than 2,000
acres, the Parks and Recreation Department had difficul-
ty managing inventory, maintenance and budgeting for
each of its sites. In March 1999, the department imple-
mented a GIS -based tool that allows it to manage its
properties more efficiently.
Prior to developing the GIS, the city used two tabular
database systems for parks facility maintenance and man-
agement, the Project Inventory Management System
tracked the status of maintenance items, and the Preven-
tive Maintenance Management System tracked the
financial ramifications of facility maintenance. Those
databases were stored in large notebooks that were diffi-
cult to update and handle. As a result, division managers
often did not have the information they needed for
ordering supplies or budgeting for capital improvements.
Recognizing the inefficiencies of that approach, the
department contracted with Spatial Dynamics, a local
GIS consulting firm, to develop a GIS -based Parks Infor-
mation Management System or GeoPIMS.
The first task in designing the system was to describe
and compile the data used by the department's various
divisions, including Horticulture, Forestry, Infrastructure
and Planning. The information was gathered by inter-
viewing division managers and obtaining copies of paper
forms used by each division for tracking items and tasks.
Using that data, Boise conducted a pilot study of a sin-
gle park. The first data layer identified the surface (i.e.,
turf, asphalt, concrete) for the park and the correspond-
ing purpose (soccer, parking, walkway). Parks and Recre-
ation staff then used GPS equipment to locate and char-
acterize other items such as signs, picnic tables and trash
receptacles. Data on the structural components and con-
dition of each item was recorded along with its spatial
location.
After completing the pilot study and refining the
database design and applications, staff members com-
Boise is using a GIS -based system to track parks inventory,
location, maintenance and general use.
piled data across the entire parks system for city -wide use
in maintenance, planning and other functions. Each
division is responsible for updating that information,
which can be accessed only by authorized staff. For
example, when forestry workers plant a tree, they locate
it on the park map and enter information on type and
planting date into the database. Similarly, if infrastruc-
ture workers replace a sink in a restroom, they update
the database. (Backup mechanisms have been estab-
lished to protect the integrity of the data from human
errors. )
The system is based on a custom ArcView application,
which supports the direct import of GPS data, GIS data
and AutoCAD files. As new parks and features are
developed, the staff can integrate the information direct-
ly into the system. By using GIS technology as the foun-
dation for its management operations, the parks depart -
nnent is able to generate fast, visual responses to database
queries across the entire parks department. .1�?
This article was written by Trevor Adams, operations
manager, and Patti Murphy, community relations coordina-
tor for Boise Parks & Recreation.
AMERICAN CITY St COUNTY October 1999 63
From p. 03
Skaters in Hollister submitted draw-
ings for their skate park. The park
planners toned down some of the
advanced features that skaters request-
ed so that less experienced skaters
would have options, too. The 8,000 -
square -Bert park will include one 3-
foot -deep bowl, one 5 -foot -deep bowl,
quarter pipes and various ramps and
edges for skateboarders and inline
skaters.
Including skaters in the design
process benefits everyone, Rubcic says.
"If skaters are involved, they have a
sense of ownership, and they will take
better care of the park," he says.
As in Hollister, planners for Grand
Junction's Westlake Skatepark mcor-
porated ideas and suggestions from
local skaters. The park features a 7-
foot -deep rectangular bowl, a free-
form 7-foot-deep open -ended bowl, a
street skate area and a 10 -foot -deep
bowl with a keyhole slot entryway.
Because the park has grown in popu-
larity since its May 1997 opening,
Grand Junction is constructing a sec -
ond facility. Eagle Rini Park, planned
for completion by summer 2000, will
contain elements for less experienced
skaters, including an extensive street
skating area, steps, rails and ramps.
"If I had it to do over, I would have
used more space for street skating and
not put in the 10 -foot hide [at West-
lake)," says Shawn Cooper, Grand
Junction parks planner. "The big howl
was geared for very experienced
skaters, and it's not getting a whole lot
of use. Street skating is the highest use
area at Westlake."
Modesto's 13,000 - square -foot park
also is aimed at intermediate and
advanced skaters, and the city may
add beginners' facilities at a later date,
Lemcke says. The next item on the
agenda likely will be lighting.
The majority of skate parks sur-
veyed by Modesto do not have out-
door lights because it is an extra
expense and because parks depart-
ments do not want skaters to use the
parks at night and create noise. Most
skate parks are open from dawn to
dusk.
FUNDING
Because of the high cost of concrete
and specialized design services, skate
parks can be cost- prohibitive for local
governments. And, singe demand for
the facilities is high, many cities rely
on financial support from the commu-
nity to fund construction.
Modesto's research showed that
skate parks cost between $50,000 and
$200,000, depending on size and the
number of features. Modesto's park
Parks partnership guide available
The Urban Institute, Washington, U.C., has published a guide for cities
and counties looking to improve their public parks through private
partnerships. Commissioned by the Lila Wallace– Reader's Digest Fund,
"Partnership For Parks" offers guidelines fur partnering with private - sector
parks supporters.
The guide examines four questions for public - private parks partnerships:
• Flow should public- private partnerships be structured?
• Who should make decisions?
• What assets and liabilities do partners bring?
• How do the partnerships manage risks?
A 1994 study by the National Parks and Recreation Association, Ash-
burn, Va., showed that $30.7 billion would be needed between 1995 and
1999 to meet public demand for parks services. Results of the study have
shown that public- private partnerships can help meet that demand and fos-
ter community involvement.
To order a copy of "Partnerships For Parks," call Urban Institute Publica-
tions, (202) 261 -5687. The guide costs $10, including shipping and han-
dling. It also may he viewed online ar www.urhan.org. ,'-7
totaled $145,OOC, excluding landscap-
ing costs. The city contributed
$150,000 from its capital improve-
ment plan nudger, and the task force
raised another $40,000 for lands
ing in three months from outside .
tributors, including parents, business
owners, skaters and the city police
department. Persons or businesses who
gave a nimimu111 of $1,000 received
recognition on a permanent plaque at
the park.
Not all skate parks receive as much
in city funding or in private dona-
tions. In Hollister, city officials were
not always enthusiastic about a skat
park, Rubcic says. "The most diffict•
part of this process has been gettiu
the city council to fund the ska
park," he says.
In researching liability — a major
concern — Rubcic visited eight skatt
parks for ideas and background infor-
mation. Based on other cities' success -
es and local demand, the city
approved $120,000 to fund the skate
park. That amuunl should be suffi-
cient, Rubcic says. If nut, the city will
turn to the community for donations.
MAKING AND BREAKIN:,; RU'
Ongoing costs for a skare park are
minimal, provided that there is no
damage to the facility or graffiti to
remove. Rules help avoid liahility
problems as well as costly repairs. For
example, most skate parks do not
allow bicycles because the metal hike
parts can damage the bowls and other
skate park elements. Additionally,
Lemcke says, parks officials do not
want bikers colliding with skaters and
causing injuries.
N,lodestu and Grand Junction skare
parks also have strict rules about grat-
fit.i. Most skateboarders decorate their
boards with paint and stickers, but
city officials dill riot want the same
items plastered ;iruund the skate parks.
Grand Junction park planners and
local skaters agreed on "self- policing"
to prevent graftin or "tagging" with
stickers. "If the park is ragged, the
skaters know we will shun it down
until we can clean it up or cover it
over," says mart Steinh,tch, recre.
superintendent hx the city.
To enforce rules about skate park
hours, graffiti and litter, some cities
ticket unl,iwtul skaters. But, for the
70 October 1999 AntERICAN Crry & COUN-1N
most part, they rely on skaters to
enforce the rules.
Despite vows from the Modesto
Task Force skaters to obey the rules,
within three weeks of the grand open-
ing of the Modesto Skate Park, skaters
were breaking rules. They were seen
without helmets or pads and skating
at night; bikers were riding amidst
skaters; and residents had started com-
plaining about the litter. Police
responded by issuing $54 citations to
those violating the rules.
Lemcke also set up a deal with a
park concessions vendor to give if free
bag of shaved ice to skaters who
picked up a bag full of trash at the
park. Skaters now do more self- polic-
ing, and police issue warnings to rule -
breakers before writing citations,
according to Lemcke.
No 'HANG UPS'
Even with its somewhat rocky
beginning, Modesto's skate park has
proven to be a success. In fact, Lem-
cke says, after the park opened, the
parks department received about 10
calls each day from other municipal
parks planners requesting information
about skate park funding, RFPs, rules
and other details. Modesto responded
by printing a guide outlining the
entire skate park process. The city has
sold about 200 copies at $25 each.
As the popularity of skating contin-
ues to increase, many city officials are
StayTurf® Pet r,.,v�.ng
StayTurf® Our new revolutionary
product provides immediate soil
stabilization as well permanent
reinforcement for vegetation.
Water flowing over StayTurf on an I9
slope under extreme conditions. Water
k. velocity is 4 meters per second with a
' volume of 13.2 cubic meters per second.
STAYTURF) A FULLY VEGETATED TURF
REINFORCED CHANNEL LINING
❖ A CARPET OF STABILIZED NATURAL SOIL FREE TURF
�.• ( :AN BE HARVESTED I TO 10 FEET WIDE 115 FEET
LONG
GROWN ON A REINFORCED UV STABILIZED NF.'l -17NG
❖ ENGINEERED TO HANDLE HIGH WATER VELO( :ITY
IMMEDIATELY
*e ALL THE BENEFITS OF HARD ARMOR IN A VEGETATIVE
CHANNEL LINER
••• THREF. YEARS OF FIELD PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS
• CAN BE PRODUCED IN AS Ln'TLF. AS FOUR WEEKS
North American Distributor
Gardner Turfgrass, Inc. (303) 252 -1900
r�StanRirf(( aol.rom
http: / /www.gardnerturf.com
University tenting available upon request
Circle No. 62 on Reader Service Card
AMERICAN CITY & COUNTY
'Once we agreed on the rules, the
skaters said they would help police [the
park] themselves,' says Grand
Junction's Mari Steinbach.
making an effort to allocate funding
and other resources to the construc-
tion of a skate park. Still, many pro-
posed skate parks garner mixed reac-
tions from city officials and residents,
who want to see funds going toward
roads and other critical infrastructure.
Most cities can afford both, Rubcic
says. "What people don't understand
is that the skate park is going to get
skaters into a more controlled area."
By creating an arena specifically for
skaters, officials reduce the potential
for skating - related damage to munici-
pal or private property, and they get
skaters out of pedestrian areas. "We
have seen a reduction in illegal skat-
ing by at least 50 percent since we
built the skate park," Lemcke says.
"That's one of the big pluses."r
Kristin Winn, public communications
coordinator for Grand Junction, Colo ,
contributed to this (Lrticle.
Take the
pain out of
performance
appraisals
Performance Now makes it easti
to implement an effective perfor-
mance management system. This
remarkable software coaches
supervisors through the process
of giving feedback and writing
reviews, while prodding a
consistent framework for
administering the process.
Call for free trial version
1 -800- 727 -1133
Put knowledge to work
1129 Industnal Ave. • Petaluma. CA 94952
(707) 7620333
Web site: www.knoWedgepoint.com vlvool
Circle No. 82 on Reader service lard
October 1999 71
SKATEPARK SURVEY
Presently use
Existing park with
wooden ramps,
IN
wooden ramps,
IN
location near the
GLENDALE
DEVELOPMENT
$250,000
10,000 sq. ft
City Ordinance
DEVELOPMENT
Glendale Galleria
Square track, Grind
Vandalism, Physical
Staff monitors,Park
PALMDALE
CONCRETE
$180,000
8500
Marie Kerr Park
City Ordinance
rail, Quarter pipe,
violence, Theft
not big enough
Injuries unreported,
Quarter pipe, pool,
sharing facility with
stairs, pyramids,
skateboarders and
Grind rails, practice
bikers, drugs,
PLEASANT VALLEY
CONCRETE
$180,000
12500
Central Park
City Ordinance
area, flat area
crowded
Not Big Enough,
3 Bowls, pyramid,
Not Monitored,
grind rail, stairs,
Fenced facility -
Community
snake run, step
lock facility when
SANTA CLARITA
CONCRETE
$180,000
12500
Center
City Ordinance
box
Grafitti, Trash
there are problems
Not Monitored, for
Begin ner /Intermedi
3 LOCATIONS,
ate. Advanced use
Hobart Park,
Skate Street
West Park, Dean
Varies at 3
(commercial
VENTURA
CONCRETE
$60,000
6000
Drive & College
City Ordinance
separate locations
Grafitti, Trash
venue)
C_'
MOORPARK PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
The Parks and Recreation
Commission
FROM:
Mary K. Lindley, Director
of Community
Services)I('/
DATE: May 27, 2001 (Meeting of June 6, 2001)
SUBJECT: Consider a Park Capital Improvement Project Budget
BACKGROUND
At the joint meeting on May 24, the City Council and Commission
agreed on the need to develop a Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) Budget. This report serves to begin the discussion
necessary to identify desirable park improvements. It is
proposed that the CIP identify improvements over a 10 -year
period.
Currently, the City has 15 parks. There are plans for at least
one, and possibly two, more parks in future residential
developments north of High Street and west of the 23/118 Freeway
connector area. These parks would be between approximately 5 and
7 acres in size. Additionally, there is always the possibility
that the Messenger Development Group will propose a much smaller
development plan in the previously identified Hidden Creek area,
north of the College. A park could be included in such a
development if it materializes.
With that in mind, there will be very few opportunities to
significantly expand active park lands. As a result, additional
improvements and related amenities will need to be developed,
for the most part, within existing park properties.
There are two components that need to be considered in a Park
CIP: 1) the park needs of the community and the specific
improvements desired, and 2) the funding source for each
improvement. However, the Commission must also keep in mind the
cost of on -going maintenance for all proposed 4mprovements.
M: \MLind_'ey \PARKS \Park CIP cor^magd.doc
Park CIF
Pace 2
Over the past year and at the recent joint meeting, a number of
potential improvement projects were identified. Such
improvements include: completing AVCP Phase II, skatepark(s),
community pool, adding lights to sports fields and courts,
ensuring handicap accessibility at parks, expanding the AVRC
gym, a possible teen center, and additional youth sports
amenities (including Little League fields), to name a few.
To initiate the Commission's discussion, staff has put together
a draft CIP (Attachment A). Most likely, the Commission's
discussion will take place over several months. With this
initial review, the Commission is being asked to provide
additional park improvement suggestions. Staff will attempt to
identify improvement costs and potential funding sources at
subsequent meetings.
STAFF RECObMNDATION
Review the draft Park CIP and provide comments.
Attachment "A"
Ten Year Park Capital Improvement Projects Listing
All Parks
1. Overlay of asphalt parking lots 20 years after construction
Slurry seal every 5 years
2. Resurface tennis courts every years.
3. Renovate turf every years.
4. Replace irrigation system piping, controller and locks every years.
5. Security /Safety lighting upgrades or replacement every years.
6. Playground equipment replacement every years.
7. Restroom plumbing replacement every years.
8. Add horseshoe pits at one or more parks.
9. Add a sand volleyball court at one or more parks.
10. Replace roofs on picnic shelters and restrooms every 30 years.
11. Replace picnic tables and benches every years.
12. Add benches at specified locations in parks.
13. Add jogging /exercise course at various parks.
14. Designate more passive areas within specific parks.
15. Establish a BMX facility.
16. Add a canine park.
17. Add skatepark facility(s).
Specific Locations: t
1. Mountain Meadows Park:
a. Replace play equipment
b. Install lights at basketball courts
M: \GIndermill \M \Admin \Commission Reports\2001 \cip \CIP LIST.doc Page 1
c. Add handicapped ramp /access at walkway extending from parking lot (or
street), to ball diamond (at s/e corner of park).
2. Tierra Rejada Park:
a. Add a fourth tennis court
b. Install lights at the tennis courts
c. Replace play equipment
d. Add security lighting
e. Install lighting at basketball courts
f. Add permanent volleyball standards to basketball court or in grass area
3. Country Trail Park:
a. Construct a restroom facility
b. Install a backstop
c. Install sand volleyball.
e. Install a Frisbee golf course.
4. Glenwood Park:
a. Construct a restroom facility
b. Install a backstop
c. Establish off street parking
d. Install lighting at basketball court
e. Add permanent volleyball standards to basketball courts or in grass area
f. Expand park onto SCE property of Nursery, vacate it and buy adjacent
Boething property
5. Poindexter Park:
a. Develop one + acres as green space with a tot lot
6. Peach Hill Park:
a. Add lighting for sports area
b. Install second softball diamond at n/e corner
c. Install lighting at basketball court
d. Connect park and school parking lots
e. Make storage area into a small meeting room
7. Arroyo Vista Community Park:
a. Construct pool and locker facilities
b. Install lighting at roller hockey /multi purpose court
c. Add basketball standards to multi -use court
M: \Glndermill \M \Admin \Commission Reports \2001 \cip \CIP LIST.doc Page 2
d. Expand gym: two full basketball courts or one full and two small courts, and
three volleyball courts.
e. Add on to AVRC
f. Complete AVCP Phase II and build out
g. Add lighting to all softball fields
h. Add lighting to sports area for soccer
i. Pave parking lots
j. Put outfield fence around existing lighted ballfields
k. Construct a permanent covered stage
1. Construct a fenced area for storage containers
m. Complete amenities in the tennis court area
n. Construct more picnic facilities
o. Install bocce ball and lawn bowling
8. Miller Park:
a. Create additional parking
b. Establish use of additional open space
c. Safety fencing /slough walls .
9. Monte Vista Park:
a. Construct a shade structure
b. Landscape unimproved areas with native vegetation
10. Villa Campesina Park:
a. Construct a V2 basketball court
b. Install security lighting
c. Install play equipment
d. Install a drinking fountain
11. Poindexter Park:
a. Expand park (need design)
b. Expand parking
c. Install lights at one ballfield
d. Install barriers to keep vehicles off the turf
12. Campus Park:
a. Add another '/2 basketball court
b. Install horseshoe pits
c. Add security lighting
d. Renovate existing restroom (20 yrs old)
MAGlndermill \M \Admin \Commission Reports\2001 \cip \CIP LIST.doc Page 3
13. Campus Canyon Park:
a. Add a parking lot
b. Replace concrete at basketball court
c. Install lights at basketball court
14. Griffin Park:
a. Construct a skatepark facility
b. Rename the park (new sign)
15. Community Center Park:
None
16. Install tot lots on Second Street and Charles Street areas.
17. Improvements to AVRC, Community Center, and Senior Center
M: \Glndermill \M \Admin \Commission Reports\2001 \cip \C1P LIST.doc Page 4
Present Park Amenities
C)
D
D
r
O
m
K
m
Z
--i
O
m
n
cn
Z
Z
<
�•
<
�'
-i
`D
o
a
3
0
O
0
o
o
m
m
D
o
n
n
co
x
_
m
O
..
eD
<
O
�•
3
c
m
y
M
y
G
O
O
N
p�j
'
3
.w
>
a�
0
�
tD
•<
Z
O
D
N
r
A
Ul
.►
O
C."
v
cn
-�
o
A
00
UT
cn
cn
00
A
u,
Q7
N
<n
rn
�
qcR
FS
N
�
�
FxAgN
pqC
RFgGF
M
oNGMFNT
i
itiS s�GNs
T,q
RNs FtiT �CF
N
-�
Fo Tq<<� ACa y
Cr,�,Tq RFA I
cFQR�Nkiti
•9p '
OG G
cFN YMi
TFRis Fc
o°
w
ao
w
cO,yS qGF
TR�cTA
qp0
`STO
'qOp
AgR�'hG i
RF,�N
AgRtNG
<F�S v
OT RY
,QFR sFq� �
OVq
TF
0
RFA TOR,c
<gcF�RRiG
(n
f
J
1
qT�O
A!A
< < /GyTS
N
�
-•�
S
F
cLR /Ty
U
RF F�oMA A GE pFs
w
A �
cFM
RFRNO` �e�NG
FST'40gTF
o
/,N
RFSTRO MPgc<,q��
A< oM Ty
gcFMF
....
TTORF
qOp
SS
F i
N
-,
q yOFA�T
RFsUR�gc MFiyjT�FS
F TFNR`S
o
qoo TFn... COCKY
C)
D
D
r
O
m
K
m
Z
--i
O
m
n
cn
m
m ce
«
O3
O
=
0
C
C
y
0
'i1
CL
�
�-
rn
6i
M
CD
<
F.
g
p
�'
`�
�
r
�
N
a
N
�:
<
c
or-
o
`C
CD
N
Q.
Q
_
y.'
0
i
o
CD
�
CD
0
0
Z
r'
f
CO OCi'QT
NS -
@q�� /�4�cr �
CD
RFSG C9r,`,ReOOCCF '
co, pgCF @q �< /NG
S�
A
�
q00 Fr@
11-51
CO &Rr
w
j
rF
190
@'qC
�STOA
Cl
RFp�
gCFA
/cN /c
r
<rFR Fpq /RA/
''
'900 CN /C
A
ZC
T q @<FSe /C
o
C
OOFxF'4C Fier yFS
SFCO�RSF
OFS /GN
gTFp
j
qSS
o
/1,F
q
q0,0 RFgs
FgC
o
/� /rJ-
q 00
cqN /NF
IL
AqR
q0 �
OS
NSF
N
�
�
Op
/NSr FRSA
q << SgFF qCF
Fqc /NG
L