TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Mark Leyman, Parks and Recreation Director
Idris Al-Oboudi, Recreation Services Manager
Andrew Berg, Recreation Supervisor
SUBJECT:Title
Status Report and Further Direction on the Feasibility of a Skateboard Park, Including Authorizing the City Manager to Engage the Services of a Consultant to Facilitate Public Workshops, Design and Location Options (Parks and Recreation Director Leyman).
RECEIVE REPORT; APPROVE; APPROPRIATE; PROVIDE DIRECTION
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: a) receive a status report on the feasibility of a skateboard park, b) authorize the City Manager to engage the services of a skateboard park consultant to facilitate public workshops, design and location options; and c) appropriate $20,000 from available General Fund moneys.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
If the City Council authorizes the services of a skateboard park consultant, the estimated costs would be would be up to $20,000. These funds are not budgeted. As a result, an appropriation of $20,000 is recommended to fund these services if the City Council approves.
BACKGROUND:
On January 7, 2014, the City Council gave direction to research and conduct hearings to review the feasibility of developing a skateboard park in the City of Manhattan Beach. The City Council also approved the formation of an Ad-Hoc Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission to research and discuss funding options, location, design and operations.
DISCUSSION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on January 27, 2014, and selected three representatives for the Ad-Hoc Skateboard Committee. The Committee members included representatives from the Manhattan Beach Unified School District, older adults, and Mira Costa High School.
The Commission also reached out to the community to find representatives from throughout the City to join the Ad-Hoc Committee. The request for representatives was marketed through a press release, e-mail blasts and the City's website. Six individuals from throughout the community joined the Committee. Each meeting was publicly noticed and the meeting notes were posted on the City's website along with supporting documentation. In addition, a Skateboard Park Feasibility project was posted in the MB Forum, "SpeakUpManhattanBeach!"
From February to May 2014, the Skateboard Park Ad-Hoc Committee held six public meetings to discuss and receive input on funding options, location, design and operations. One topic was assigned to each meeting (Attachment 1). Aaron Spohn from Spohn Ranch (Skateboard designer/builder) volunteered his services at a number of the public outreach meetings to assist in the four feasibility areas: funding, location, design and operations. Mr. Spohn also shared industry standards, best practices, site selection criteria, sound studies, images for the proposed locations, examples of various skateboard park designs, and gave a general overview presentation to the Commission (Attachment 2).
The Committee also developed a survey to distribute throughout the community to solicit feedback for the feasibility of a skateboard park (Attachment 3). Hard copies of the survey were distributed to students at Mira Costa High School, Manhattan Beach Middle School, and participants in the Teen Center After-school Program. An electronic version was sent via email to all Parks and Recreation Department activity participants between the ages of 11 and 18 and to their parents. One hundred forty eight responses were received. Of those received, 116 were skateboarders or have children that skateboard; thirty-two 32 were not skateboarders or did not have children who skateboard. Eighty-one respondents indicated that they would support the development of a skateboard park in the City of Manhattan Beach, while 33 indicated that they would not support such development.
The following information summarizes the public input given at the six Ad-Hoc Committee meetings in each of the four feasibility areas: funding, location, design and style, and usage controls and operations.
Funding Options
There were a number of options discussed for funding the skateboard Park. Based on current industry standards, the cost to design and build a skateboard park averages $35-$50 per square foot. The average cost for an 11,000-15,000 square foot park would cost between $400,000 and $1 million.
Funding options discussed include:
1. Grants -generally grants are reserved for lower income communities and not a realistic source of funds.
2. Public-Private Partnerships - A combination of public and private funds could be used. A partnership like the one formed between the City and AYSO for the purpose of installing a synthetic turf soccer field at Marine Avenue Park is an example. A list of potential partners would need to be created and a clear message developed communicating the benefits of a partnership. Community members have expressed an interest and desire to participate in this process by creating a presentation to share with potential partners.
3. Private/Corporate Donors - As with public-private partnerships, seeking funds from sponsors and private donors would require communication of a clear message. "Pledge and reward" incentive systems could be used to attract potential donors
4. Fundraising Campaigns - Kickstarter type fundraising campaigns were discussed as popular and easy avenues to fundraise. Fundraising campaigns offer an opportunity for community groups to be involved in the development process.
Location
More than twenty possible sites within the City were identified through community input. Sites were suggested from community members, skateboard park designers, and City staff. Each site was evaluated using industry standard site criteria including visibility, accessibility, design canvas, and barriers to "shovel-ready" (Attachment 4). Many sites were ruled out due to issues of property ownership and control, size, terrain, accessibility, proximity to residences and ease of development. The top three sites were selected and public notices went out to residents and businesses within 1,000 feet of the proposed locations (Attachment 5). The top three sites included two at Marine Avenue Park and one at the Marine Sports Complex.
1. Marine Avenue Park - NE corner of park outside baseball field centerfield fence
Pros:
· Space and current amenities are underutilized
· Adequate distance from residences
· Flat and level area
· No conflict with park activities
· Adequate footprint for skate park
Cons:
· Shape of area is not ideal for a skateboard park
· Would require new amenities (e.g. lighting, restrooms, etc.)
· Limited access for emergency vehicles
· Extended distance from other park amenities
· Not visible or easily accessible from street, parking lot, and other park areas
· Visibility and accessibility issues would create problems with enforcement
· Homerun balls from baseball field could be a hazard
2. Marine Avenue Park - Basketball Courts
Pros:
· Highly visible
· Easily accessible from the street
· Flat, level area
· Easy to provide drainage
· Proximity to other park amenities like restrooms and playgrounds
Cons:
· Replaces existing basketball courts
· Would displace youth basketball league and City programs
· Current location of courts is ideal for youth league use and court availability is already limited
· Would displace other adult and youth players
· Problems associated with adult basketball players (e.g. fighting, foul language, litter, vandalism, etc.) could increase if courts were relocated to a less visible location
· Noise concerns due to proximity to residences on Marine Avenue and in Manhattan Village
· Parking would be impacted
3. Marine Sports Complex - No specific location within facility
Pros
· Visibility
· Accessibility
Cons
· Facility is used by youth baseball, softball, and soccer leagues
· Youth leagues would turn more players away if they lost a field
· Baseball and softball field dimensions are set by national governing bodies and new amenities could impact field size and shape
· May not impact baseball and softball fields, but would impact soccer fields
· Facility is closed for several months during fall and winter for maintenance.
· New amenities could impact turf recovery.
Based on calculations by skateboard park builders, the optimal size of a skateboard park in the City of Manhattan is approximately 12,000 square feet. As an alternative, several smaller parks or "skate spots" at different locations within the City could also be considered. Skate spots could also be incorporated as artistic elements in a park and potentially funded through the Public Art Trust Fund. Location discussions also included partnering with adjacent cities such as Hermosa Beach to fund an expansion of their skateboard park.
Design and Style
Most skateboard park elements are categorized as being either streetscape or transition. A streetscape design incorporates elements found in city landscapes, such as handrails, ledges, benches, stairs, and inclines. Transition design elements include half pipes, quarter pipes, bowls, ramps, etc. Skateboard parks may incorporate one or both design types.
There are generally three points that need to be considered when selecting a park design:
1. Site
2. Budget
3. Local input
Feedback from the public generally indicated that the characteristics of parks generally viewed favorably are:
· Combination of streetscape and transition features
· Large in size
· Good "flow" between park features
· Features appropriate for varying ages and ability levels
· Inviting appearance
· Not located in residential areas
· Easily accessible
Characteristics of parks viewed unfavorably are:
· Small in size
· Poor "flow" between park features
· Not built by skateboard park designers
· Features appropriate to only beginners or advanced level skateboarders
Other design considerations include amenities such as lighting and landscaping, fencing, and noise abatement features.
Usage Controls and Operations
Skate parks can be operated in two ways: staffed or unstaffed. Most parks in nearby cities are unstaffed. Staffed parks have the following advantages:
· Supervision can ensure the proper use of the facility
· Minimizes graffiti and vandalism
· Ensures that users are wearing safety gear
· Ensures documentation of accidents/incidents
· Provides the ability to spot hazards or maintenance issues efficiently
When properly designed and maintained, unstaffed parks can reduce a city's liability in the event of an injury. Under California law (AB 1296), skateboarding is classified as a hazardous activity. Users are responsible for following posted rules and regulations and skateboard park operators are generally protected.
Overview of California AB 1296:
· Skateboarding is recognized as an at-risk activity
· Reduced liability to municipalities
· Covers skateboarders 14 years of age and older
· Doesn't properly address in-line skaters, BMX, or scooters
· Requires use of safety gear
· Requires passing of local ordinance
· Requires regular patrols for rules enforcement
· Requires collection of injury data/information
· Restricts city employees from direct supervision
Concerns of improper use and vandalism can be addressed though frequent patrols by law enforcement, surveillance systems, and enforced hours of operation.
Parks and Recreation Commission Meetings
The Parks and Recreation Commission held three meetings to receive updates from the Ad-Hoc Committee and receive public input on the skateboard park feasibility (Attachment 6). The first Commission meeting was held on March 24, 2014. The meeting included an overview of the City Council's direction to the Commission, the public outreach process, and a presentation by Aaron Spohn of Spohn Ranch Skateparks.
At the April 28, 2014 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting the Commission prioritized the twenty proposed site locations. Each of the locations were evaluated based upon the site selection criteria including: property ownership, size of space, proximity and community user access, visibility/site lines, ADA access, existing amenities, distance to homes (sound), available parking, design canvas, ease of development, impact on existing or adjoining park facilities, ability to monitor/staff, room for seating or non-skate users, impact on pedestrian traffic (sidewalks/pathways) impact on traffic and impact on future plans or use. The top three sites were selected and publicly noticed. These locations included: Marine Avenue Park center field area and basketball courts, and the Marine Sports Park.
At the May 19, 2014 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission asked the Ad Hoc Committee to look for additional locations as none of the proposed locations received strong support from the community. Youth sports group representatives from Manhattan Beach Youth Basketball, AYSO and Manhattan Beach Youth Athletics discussed their opposition to locations that would have an impact on youth or adult sports. The Commission made a recommendation to have the Ad-Hoc Committee further explore locations and return with the top five viable locations that would not impact youth sports groups.
The Parks and Recreation Commission also noted that three Commissioners were termed out in May 2014, and that two new representatives would need to be selected for the Ad-Hoc Committee.
Skateboard Park Site Visits
The Ad-Hoc Committee and staff scheduled a number of skateboard park visits in surrounding cities to observe their operations and meet with staff and park users to understand their experiences. Site visits included the City of Gardena, Westchester, El Segundo, and Hermosa Beach.
City of Gardena (2 locations)
· Pros: Location; open to surrounding areas; highly visible; security cameras used; good "flow" from one element to another; appropriate for beginner and advanced skill levels; appeared to be very well maintained
· Cons: Small; limited variety of terrain
City of Westchester
· Pros: Location; open to surrounding areas; integral part of the surrounding park area; highly visible; good "flow" from one element to another; variety of terrain; appropriate for beginner and advanced skill levels; multi-use facility (parts of park could be used as a stage/event venue); appeared to be very well maintained
· Cons: Possibility of lost skateboards presenting hazards to other park users; placement of light poles and other amenities
City of El Segundo
· Pros: Location and proximity to Teen Center; highly visible;
· Cons: Small; beginner-intermediate only terrain features; poor "flow" from one element to another
City of Hermosa Beach
· Pros: Central location; visibility; beginner to advanced terrain;
· Cons: Poor design and "flow" from one element to another; entrance on main street; limited hours of operation
Skateboard site statistics are attached (Attachment 7) for the above locations and other local skateboard parks and include hours of operation, use of safety equipment, hardscape, type of terrain and design, cost and supervision.
In addition to the local skate park visits, the City of Manhattan Beach City Manager, Mark Danaj, coordinated a meeting with City of Fremont staff, who had completed a skateboard park project in 2012. Staff met with the City of Fremont's team, including their landscape architect and parks and recreation staff to gain insights on their process, public outreach, design, funding, location and operations. Although the City of Fremont is much larger with 225,000 residents, there were many similarities with their public outreach process. There were many neighborhood concerns regarding noise, traffic and what type of individuals would be drawn to the park. At the completion of their public process, the location selected was across from a residential neighborhood in a large park setting adjacent to a water park and playground. The Skateboard Park was 25,000 square feet on a one acre site including: a spectator area, landscaping throughout, advanced bowl, rails, snake run, mini bowl and a variety of transition and streetscape elements for all skill levels. The project also incorporated an art component at the entrance to the park funded by the public art trust funds.
The key to the success of the public process in the City of Fremont was finding a third party expert to facilitate a public dialogue on siting and designing the park. The expert they selected facilitated public meetings in a number of communities and gained the confidence of the community providing a balanced solution.
Overview of the Feasibility Process
The public input received through the Ad-Hoc and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings provided valuable information and feedback from the community in the areas of location, funding, design and operations. There were hundreds of people that participated in the process through the Ad-Hoc Committee meetings, Commission meetings, survey responses, e-mails and phone calls. Staff received petitions from residents opposed to the skateboard park near Polliwog Park in addition to petitions from residents in support of a skateboard park in the City of Manhattan Beach.
Throughout the process, proposed site locations have elicited the most concern from the community. In particular, the neighborhood near Polliwog Park had concerns about adding additional amenities to the park, citing the current impacts from existing use. A group of concerned citizens created a local group "Friends of Polliwog Park" to meet and discuss their concerns. In addition, proponents of a skateboard park have voiced their concern about the proposed Marine Park center field location, stating that it is set up for failure, with restricted access, visibility, and the increased cost and liability if the area is fenced.
Due to concerns presented by both proponents and opponents of the skateboard park, continued community outreach is needed to find viable locations. In addition to the community concerns, there are three new Parks and Recreation Commissioners who began their term in June, 2014. Two new Ad-Hoc Committee members would need to be appointed before moving forward as two of the Skateboard Park Feasibility Ad-Hoc Committee members termed out in May, 2014.
In order to move the skateboard park discussions forward, staff recommends the use of a skateboard park consultant to facilitate the public input process. The consultant will provide expertise in skateboard park planning, design, operations, funding, liability, and location. The consultant will also share industry best practices and assist in finding the best location and appropriate size for a skateboard park, balancing the needs of the neighborhood and skateboard community.
The skateboard park consultant would provide community outreach meetings beginning with a "Skateboard Park 101" overview to the public. The consultant would also survey the community to determine the skill levels and design elements, provide design workshops and concept designs for various locations, and respond to community questions and feedback.
Staff is requesting that the City Council appropriate $20,000 from available General Fund moneys in order to retain the services of a skateboard park consultant. If approved, staff will seek proposals from qualified firms and engage such services under the City Manager's authority (up to $20,000). Staff estimates that the consultant services can be obtained within 30 days, at which time the process may commence.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the status report and authorize the City Manager to engage the services of a skateboard park consultant to facilitate public workshops, design and location options.
Attachments:
1. Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting Notes
2. Spohn Ranch Presentation
3. Skateboard Park Survey and Results
4. Proposed Skateboard Park Locations and Site Selection Criteria
5. Public Notice for Top Three Proposed Skateboard Park Locations
6. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
7. Skateboard Park Statistics