HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-14; City Council; 13395; ORDINANCE INCORPORATING RESOLUTIONS REGULATING SKATEBOARDING AND PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING IN ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA* .rl G
' MI dU
7-d 4 cd
Ma cdc ord
%n UM
au @GI
mc
uv GI
.d
c *li oc' #GI am
OGI
3b
"5 m uu P 5; Ucd
ad 00
ac $40 cdc aG GI@ UU a 0 ou u JZ ho GIs GO
Uh koa
%$
Ucd hr(
-i-! B U a
JZu GI0
U 4-1
US ow
4 MJi GI urn WA
El GI0
v
5-
aa, cd
GI& $4cd M Gg arb *
4 $2 &Iu4
*rl 0 s u-d Gh 3GIu 0 A .rl vuu
z
I- o
E!
a d
8 3 2
cIy) OF CARLSBAD -
ORDINANCE INCORPORATING AGwL
'REGULATING SKATEBOARDING AND DEPl AB # 19; :3y s
CITY
CITY PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING IN ADDITIONAL MTG. f I- Iy -015
TITLE.
DEPT.C~ LOCATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Introduce Ordinance No. /vs -3 $7 , which incor resolutions prohibiting skateboarding in designated areas 2
three public parking lots in the downtown area to the
public locations where skateboarding is prohibited by C Municipal Code section 10.58.020. I ITEM EXPLANATION
The City Council and Carlsbad Police Department have 1 numerous complaints regarding reckless skateboarding in parking lots in the downtown area endangering the sa downtown pedestrians and patrons. The existing Municip section prohibiting skateboarding in public parking lots ci enforced in some problem areas because these lots are not j in the list of prohibited areas in Municipal Code section 1( or resolutions prohibiting skateboarding. I Skateboarding is currently prohibited at the following loc
I
0 The public par'&:ng lot at the northwest corner of Stat(
and Grand Avence;
e The public parking lot on State Street between (
0 The public parking lot at the northeast corner of Rc
Village Drive and Oak Avenue;
Street and Carlsbad Village Drive, between the hours o
and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday (by Resolution);
e In the Sculpture Park between Oak Avenue and Pine Aven
of Carlsbad Boulevard, and its adjoining public parkin the north (Ocean Street north of Sculpture P; Resolution),
The Roosevelt Street parking lot where skateboarding h
prohibited during certain hours and days only, by resolutii
be expanded to -a complete prohibition to avoid confus provide a readily available source defining prohibited arf
addition, the ordinance will be expanded to include the par in the mid-block of 2900 Roosevelt Street.
This ordinance incorporates the locations identified by re:
and places a prohibition on skateboarding in these location
times, and adds locations for prohibition, which the t
Police Department has found to be frequented by :
skateboarders, to the list of areas where skateboar prohibited. Section 10.58.030 of the Code providing that may regulate skateboarding on specified properties by re; will be deleted.
- 9 lo I 14 3% 4
'I 'I CI Agenda Bill N- - Page 2 -, - I
I
Penal Code section 640 currently prohibits .#skateboarding public transportation system facility, which would incll parking lot for the Coaster station, one of-the locations a
this ordinance. The Carlsbad Police Department is requesti
we prohibit skateboarding at the Coaster station parking lot blunicipal Code so that officers will not be confused necessity to cite different codes in different downtown loc E3efore the Coaster station is included in the Municipal '
would be advantageous to determine if the City can sec agreement with NCTD to pay for enforcement on their proper
The Carlsbad Police Department has requested that the Counc give consideration to prohibiting rollerblading in area: skateboarding is prohibited because police officers have wi this activity being conducted in a reckless and incons manner in these locations as well.
Carlsbad Municipal Code section 10.58.050 currently prohil: person on a skateboard, rollerskates, coaster or any simi vehicle or device, from interfering with pedestrians sidewalk or public right of way. While this section can be
cite skateboarders who violate the rights of others anywhert downtown area, the position of the Carlsbad Police Depart that this ordinance is difficult to enforce since it requir officers actually witness the interference and be a articulate it to a judge if the case goes to trial.
An alternative approach to the persistent problem of cor
i3bout skateboarding in the downtown area would be to F skateboarding there entirely. Vehicle Code section authorizes such an ordinance by providing that a local au may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance prohibiting :from propelling skateboards on highways, sidewalks or road
While a complete ban on skateboarding in the downtown are (alleviate some enforcement problems, this absolute prohibi skateboarding would penalize all skateboarders, eventhose t thus far conducted themselves in a courteous and cone
(opinion that this type of prohibition would unjustly depril children of a legitimate mode of transportation. The 1: interests of those sporting goods stores in the downtown z .retail skateboards and related products must also be consj
]manner. Moreover, several parents of skateboarders have vol
In addition to the sections already prohibited, the new 01 would prohibit skateboarding at the following locations:
0 The public parking lot adjacent to the Coaster Station
0 The public parking lot in the 3000 block of Oak Avenue
State Street
intersection of Oak Avenue and Washington Street
4
1 f Eiqenda Bill q N J3,?9S - - Paqe 3 1
I
0 The public parking lot at 801 Pine, adjacent to the
Center
Some parents have proposed that skateboarders be provided facility in which to practice tricks and enjoy their However, to date, the practical difficulties in f maintaining and obtaining insurance for such a facility ha
insurmountable.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be little or no fiscal impact by the addition a where skateboarding is prohibited. The Carlsbad Police Dep currently enforces prohibitions against skateboarding authorized, and officers would be able to issue citations additional- locations at no additional expense to the City for the personnel time required to administer and enforc citations. However, this- is balanced by staff time no1 issuing and reviewing citations which are unenforceable becz violations occurred in locations not specified in the code
EXHIBITS
11. Ordinance No. /V’s-329 . 2. Exhibit llAll, Redline version of amendments. :3. Exhibit llB’l, Map of downtown area highlighting exist proposed locations for skateboard prohibition.
-
1 r -
0
m> l%Wg
$gg k"53
g%u a;Sz zwmo ocrrqo E:;
CZ%
&E&
A(JW%
an8
_ILL0
024 -
40-1
Go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I 28
m m
ORDINANCE NO. NS-329 I
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C k'Y
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 1,
CHAPTER 10.58 REGULATING SKATEBOARDING PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING IN ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. ?
The City Council of the City of Carl bad, Calif P
does ordain as follows:
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by amendment of se
10.58.020 to read as follows:
(a) The pub ot at the northwe corner of State Street and
iny lot at the northea:
e Park between Oak Avei
corner of Roosev sbad Village Drive;
Pine Avenue, wes parking lot to the public parking lot adjacent to thc
~l Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
/I
1 t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
0 &JJg
sgg 91
iUC3
ow2
$035
09 2;ss zwmo
EESO
ps
EG>U ,crz
kii a01
0z-l -
00 -
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
m m
~n ro n?n nmm-:l -LW.-/W.WJ" k &,".LA
.- " "1 -*cI 1 -+ Y-eLur ,,YU,U, ."zr, the zit;. ... 23t;Htcil my *pt z r" .~zg'c;lztl~g GZ pr3k~S~t~~;y" tL- 7~s~ GZ -ds -2L:f.l- ..
iP==;e pr-w or i?AL= rqhts CZ =y-?FE tkc F13-ee3ncEt .w-I?J=Fr;zt= CZrn
I
EXISTING AND PROPOSED SKATfBOARD
PROHIBITION LOCATIONS
EXISTING Locations Prohibitilng Skateboarding
W "E (
5
B PROPOSED Locations Prohibiting Skateboarding
.t
.I I - m *x& @4"i+ s:
John Jones
3044 State Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 434-2223
- -
Mayor Bud Lewis
and City Council
Kulchin, Hall, Nygard, and Finila
12:OO Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor and Council:
I have worked hard to preserve the sanity and the safety of the downtown
merchants. The main problem seems to be the skateboarders and roller
bladers. These people have proven to be reckless and dangerous to the
merchants and their clientele, not to mention the citizens of Carlsbad. It goes
without saying that they are a complete menace. They destroy property both
public and private without any hesitation.
I hlave been cleaning up the parking lots and several alley ways for some time.
The damage is horrendous. There are destroyed signs, rails, seats and
shrubbery to the tune of several thousand dollars, both for replacement and
labor costs involved. This is our money and we want the waste of it stopped.
I have also witnessed damage to vehicles and property maliciously defaced
because someone was bold enough to request that the skateboarders not
damage "my property.'' Several people have been threatened on their own
property and damage was done to both shops, homes and vehicles.
Laldies who own businesses are afraid to park or walk to and from their
establishments because of the acts of destruction. Several people have told me
of this and want a complete ban on skateboarding in the downtown area.
Several other cities have banned skateboarding in their commercial areas, i.e.
shops, grocery and the like because of the same actions of willful misconduct.
Laguna Beach allows no skateboarding in the downtown or shopping district.
Erlcinitas will soon follow, as well as Del Mar, parts of San Diego and several other states have banned skateboarding except directly in front of your own
home.
.I a (I)
1
As far as transportation is concerned. If it is classed as transportation, then it
must be licensed and a fee charged to help police it. To go directly to and from
work or destination to destination would be classified as transportation, not
hopping and jumping around with reckless abandon. The license will tell police
which skateboard is legal for destination to destination purposes.
I feel that in all actuality there is no rhyme or reason for skateboarding in the
downtown area. Other persons tonight will talk of their experiences with
damage, noise and dangers posed by the skateboarding.
Finally, there are things going on that you should look into. 1'11 not go into that
now. I am requesting a complete ban on skateboarding in the downtown area.
Please don't ponder this problem, let's just get it done and follow through with
the decision. It has gotten out of hand.
I could go on, but time is short. CITIZEN'S AWARENESS GROUP (CAG).
We want it banned completely. Thank you.
t - .-
July 19, 1995 %
Citizen Awareness Group
C/O John Jones
3044 State Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Wage Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn.: Matt Hall
RE: Skateboarders
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been having as much trouble with the above problem as I want. The persons who
use this means of recreation are abusing everything.
The skateboarders have no respect for property, people, sidewalks, or streets; their
destructive nature knows no bounds. I have seen,and witnessed outright flaunting of the
law. The skateboarders persist in using anything hat they see fit for ramps, rises, and the
like. They have not the least bit of respect for public or private property.
I am writing to let you know of this persistent problem!!! The skateboarders are a danger
to anyone near them, and even to themselves, with their wild antics.
I am representing several people and merchants who are thoroughly disgusted with this
problem. We wish you to propose NO SKATEBOARDING IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA. This constitutes the entire downtown area, and all
connected streets and alleys.
yGZv&g- e ($""""" m
,-
I &:b Cd ' IyI #3dl'
,I
' .'. ,
.-
: . .
..
._I I - I.
.. '
!L '. ,' ' ' '. \
,$- , "L, \A' - ---" "I .. . "_ .- . ,
. .. .
- ".
.. d
." -
~,* 4 A : -. ,
1.. . 1 t- .. , // .'" --< "_ 1- .' .- 1
_. . .'
, ,,,',.,'..~. , . -. .,., "li ~
"~~~ ,_"" FC . .-~"~-..~.~~~".-~.~~ -s -;,.-.)?%*- .,7, ._* . *
HlUNTIMGTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL
19QS Moitt Street HUntiwon Beach, CA 9264$
(7x4) S36-25lt4 FAX (7x4) 94+*-7@4Z
TQt
4
t
DATEt j l,/id7r
FAX #$ (G/ fM34493g
NUMBER OF PACES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET)t &
REPLY REQUESTED: llS < ) NO ( J 1
%LE**z G I.
GIENDERt Exrt c2-&
Rascannc Bentley FAX (619) 4349935
DewRoseasuic;
Thmk you for calling and inquiring abut the mxess of mr sbtebad park. I'm mv to h~ that you are having difficulty in getting support for a +=e in YOU- -
Our expefimcc has been that the youth in Huntingw Beach are in nmd of viable plaes to
practice tlreir skatcboding. Downtmn was &ad to them huse of complaints by ~~ merchants, Consequently, my xhuol hd been home to hundreds of skatcbzUders from &I1 over the world! Thc park ha dl.euiatd some of that pxessurc on my campus, The XlUMbers of $catcboardc;rs on cmpcls has decreased, We still do gct some of them on usually in the late afternoon. What has changed is taxe attitude of thc skakboardexs towatds &e school administration and other adults on campus. Wax US& to be a constant battle has chgd
to a mom workable peace.
I m cmvincd that wt: GUUXA mntinue to try to Iegisfatc skatebarden out of existence. We need to pmvidc them with kgitirnatc places for them to @ce. By Wing. a "M hc'' against them, wc just perpetuate problems and dcstroy trust bctween ow youth and adults. I have noticcd that vandalism on campus has gone down si~~cc the park was built. 1 think that is bccausc there is rnm respect on the part of young people in our area toward XIUHS in supervismy postions. I still ask police to patsol my -pus occasionally, but the number of calls has gone down dramatically. When I ask sbteWers to Icave mpu and gQ to the park, they IC~VC rcspwtfuIly ad without the anger wc onm exwed
Good luck in your efforts, I hopc that you can work with yow city to provide some option: for the young ppk in Wsbad.
., w
\ --.. 'i'4:TIl.j-i4-' '35 TIJE ;I: ::I< : TI: RE~:=,cRT ::I:, ir p;~;:.; TEL- p,!~,: y~~-yij~-~-.,,~,~ ._ - "L.-.#, U.?C. i F17;i
I. , ...
Ci.13 ATTORriEy'S OffiCE
MEMORAR'DUIY
OAT€: JUXE 6, 1991
I
TO : BILL MONTGOMERY, ASSISTANT D!tiECTOIz Ci RECREATm & PARKS
FZGM: wTHERES4 L. CUMNINGHAH, OEP~ CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: SKATESOARD PPRK - SUW-G2Y I)' tIa8ILl'f'i ,.
Pleas2 insert the fQII owlng paragraphs on p, 3 of the report at the blL brackets;
ihe City AttbrnBy's Office has rzised the falledng ilahility i:sQes.
1. Thc Clty's insurance wi?? p& cover Iawstlits rrlsina oci of B City-
2, A supervised faci 7 ity sdx up a duty of car-e on the pz~t or' the City
sponsored or controlled skGtebaard park.
to rcaintafn that supwvision. Waiver OF Ifab(lit;, forrns sh~uld be stgned by participants at a supervlssd +ac?ilty.
3. An unsupervised facflity should be posted*with tho fo1lowir;g: * 1
" WACcti ING
Skatebcarding fs a hxzrdous recreationa"! activity. Use of this facility may result in death, paralysis, brain damaget concussfan, broken bones ar aiher serious injury.
Any use is at your GWR risk.
Helmet, 81bvw pads and knee paCs are requlred at a17 tlmes. Faj,lure to comply wi7 7 r2suIt in closure of the park.
California Government Code SecZlon 831.7."
4, The design af,the park must be approved prior to ccostrgction by the City In order to invoke the destgn imuntty under the Cai ifornl a Government Code TO do this, the designer sbauld file a report with the City Engineer that his daslgn comports with iedustry standards. The City Engineer, applyfng her discretion and ptofessionzl jud5ment, shocid apptave (if appropriate) the design and make a final note of a?pr.ovai far the project file. The City Council must then approve the design.
5. The designer's contract should cantain a clause expressly hold'ng the Cit.
hsrmfess for dasigq defects In the skateboard park.
El CaMmia Health and Safety Code Section 25905 states that EO operator o
,- 0 m -. .. .. l,l(]l. I.-1;1- ' 55, TI-!E '1 2 : !?J [ ;. : ?E;;?E&T I,:;.; .> z+;;. : .
A.
r!, b;l:,: ~:p;-~L~-y': --e_ 23; -
I ~2151 FE
l
a skateboard park shall FerrnS'C any perscn t3 rids 3. skateboard therafn unl3s the person is wearing a hetcef, el bow pads and knee pads. 3ecause it is unclear whether or not this s?ciion a3plIes to the City a$ an "operator",
tie sugqest that these be a reqGfree2:t for. riding in any supervised park. In an unsupervised park, the fazguage notst at No, 3 above, should be used
. #. 1
7. .
..
s- - ,bllllt.l- ld- "35 T;-IE i?: ?< 1 L a@ . .L . -1 . L - ' .. -" c. 7 . .-,! % --Ti- '5 I =: " 1 ,::, : ':!-*m."<: . - - i _p Z&l F173 - b _. -7 _*
- .* . ..
Cm reports two accidents in Westy yex: Faio Alto tepcrts two accidents in five month: 6eni~ia has had no accidents in threa years; aEd Farmington, New Mexko, has had n accidents in two years. AI1 cities a:ov setf-insured, includirg BeniCia and Sar3tc)ga (who k
ABAG coverage), because A8AG cwerage cf skzleboard faciiities is not likely. Civ i
Santa Rosa insurance carriers s?eclficaily exckde skateboarding activities from COVe:ag(
The City Attorney of Santa Rosa hzs s:udiec! the issue and makes the foilowing .ma/ysi: f
1
I
L
1. A supewlsed facifity sets LF a dtity of care 07 "le part ai the Crty to maintain thf supervision. An unsupewised facility w?3 approprkte signs would bB les tl
hazardous activities if the ir,CiVICcZl 6 iifirned of the risk, unless there was a fe charged or the taciiity was negiiger,t!y c6ns;mcted or maintained.
3. If the facility Is supervised a waiver shcufd be signed, if unsupmised 8 sign p~ste~ 4. :., The City should invoke design immucisy by fequi:ins design in accor#.dnce witi
5. ' The contract with the deskper shculd be carefdly writtsn.
An additional bbility issue is %.:e He3Rk 2nd Safety Code 25906 which require! operators of skatebeard parks tc require pxic;pmb to wsar helmets and pads. The Pzlc Alto City Attorney hzs determined thst this p:ov(:sion was mearrt to appiy only to operator: of private parks. However, he teccntmends le~islative amendments to this prdsjon ;r. order to clarify the Intent.
Possible Si-
The task force identified a variety of criteria which w8ra dstermined tu be of siggnificaace in selecting a site fcr such a faciiiti. Tnose ctderia are shown on tee zttached chzrl {Attachment #3). The task forcce then reviewed exisiing City parks and one other City owned p8rcsi In light of the cfierk. Thcsa sites which were deemed to be stroq possibiiities and which were visited by the ttsk force are shown on the attached chart,
2. PublIc aqencim are gran;sC imnunky from actjan by persons pariicipw
industry standards and.by haviq Councn spprove tke desisn-
Tile condusion reached was tbat Northwest, F.zskfin and Youth parks were aif potentia!ly the mGst desirable sites. Northwes: was the fivorke because of 8 good location available and strong suppar: frorn.that area in the survey of potential .users. Fremont Park was considered the best downtown location with weaknesses in terms of small size, possible neighborhood coMicts and lack cf rastrocms. * u of Fm
The possible types of faciiity includes streel styia, bowi style and ramp style, A str3e.t sty[e park would Contain [cw platforms with sloping sides, wr2s and smajl mounds. A bowi s?fb ptrk contains indented bowls or dishes from three to ten feet deep wi:h sloped
' sides. A ramp style park contains ramps shzped like half a pipe witn very steep sides. The park can be supervised or unsupeniissd. fie park can aiso be a multi-use facitipj with potenrial for the piatforms or paved areas to be used for concerts, plays or other community events. Materials used czn bb ccncrete, asphalt, and/or wood for ramp construction.
GQs Reported costs for existing or prcpcsed ska:eboard parks vary widely and range from
- * ' !./[:l,.l-J2-'!;~, -[[E 12:.Ilf ;[,:.:!,:,,., ._i .I -1- -E+: - = I- I =- t io: 'i!.;~?.-y<:' m ;I261 F135 -.<." . Le;' . . _.. . - . .I * .. ?- . r
I
Aser,da Item p
io7 C3uncji Mee:ir,g of Ju?~ 7, 19'32
CITY OF $ANTA 2OSA C S T'i COUNC I L
TO : Maycr and City Council
SUBJECT: ?r.Jposed 5k;lt;boar-d Pzrk for City of Santa Gcsa
INITIATED BY: Recrzztion and Parks Departnent
AGENDA ACTION: STUCY SiSSION
- ~ ~"
ISSUE:
Shall the City of Santa Rosa procaxi with the final design and construction bidding for a skat$'scard facility to ba lscatei fn Ycuth Csnmunity Park.
BACKGROUND:
n.
1. In February 15Sl ths City Council reqciasted the Soard of Cornunity
. Servfces to consider the pcssitility cf a skatehard park.
2, After a preliminary sttrdy, oa June 18, 199i, t5a 8aard of Community Servicas and Recreation and Parks Ge;artamt r~cammendcd and Council agreed t3 proctsd with a detailed sti;ciy to dsvelap a dasign, locatjcn and esitrndte for a skateboard par,. 523,OW was appropriated and a task farce was assemb'l e&
3. Althcush that task fw:e was unable to attract nefghbcrhoad rssidents as permmnt particfpants; it selected the preferrad sits in Youth Community Park, conducted a public rnecting ragatdfng that site In Jawry, and partitfpated in the design procass.
sglection corzitteg, Ken Wormhoudt, Ladscape Architect of Santa Cruz,
was selected to develop a master pl ar,: and working dralrtings (if Council
agres to procaed with the project) . Mr. k'arzhaudt is ths designer of existing skatehard parks fn Santa Crur ar,d Pal o Alto and of cne under construction in Napa.
4. A Request for Prcposal s wzs developed and, through a cmsultant
,.
5, In conjunctfan with the task force and a group of tnterested skatsrs, Mr. kormhoudt developed a plan for a f/3 acre park of ccncrete,
consisting of three shallow bowls, connecting runs, 3rd strett style curbs and platforms. The facili ty.wa'u'id be in Youth Community Park just narth af the current entry dtive adjacent ta Fgltcn Road. It would be an
unsupervised, unfenced facility casting an estimated $75,000.
6. A public meottng W~S held on june 17th at Schasfsr Eleaectary School to
display the design and location. It was lightly atL,ended but thase ?;resent rupparte4 the location and the form.
- - "& b;!:l\l-l2-'95 Tl-lE l;:z,<. ; m25:- ! 'I:?, ;;. c.;i 5 1.g: ;;;I, : 73"542-;;;e3 F;2<.; F'Qt
. . ,*. .. -
7. The Board of C3~munfty 5erviczz wi!? r?(;iw thg proposal at their
meeting cf Junc 24th. hsir cxrxer;:~ will bl: a:/ailt5le at th2 council Meting of &1y 7th.
AMY s IS ;
1, Cvtr the pas: 18 ncnths there has bas:? extpnsive study CF the
POSSibilfty of a skatebcard fzcflft:~ for Santa Rosa. The issuss of CgSt,
1OCatiOfi, design, IiabfIitlJ, Graffiti, sec3:rity and fund raising have been reviewed. The experienczs ~f t>c other cfties in California which aperate or are baildfng skztehtrrd ~zrks have be,, reviewed. ~nese included Benicia, Santa Cruz, Palo Aitg, Oavis and Napa,
-.
2. Benfcfa and Santa Cruz cc~rat?d 2cd sxn N;pa wi 11 opera:e unsupervised, ucfoncsd faciiities as part of City parks. Neitaer Egnicia ncr Santa frcz post trarnjng sigs nor raquira the w22rfi;g of t?a'lmts or knee pads. Etapa tnttnds to ecfcrce t:le he?net and !moa pari requ?rtnent and post
supervision ;r,d enclosed by isncss with hs,ir,:fs and knes 2ads required. A Marin Count): paup .is :urrsr,t;y prc;=.c.sing a park in the. Mill Valjey
, area. Each cc,munity ~uhich opratss a park his experienczd heavy tlsq~
",warning sfgns. Palo Alto atd Davis c~zrate their facilities with
fwfl both locli and reglcnii vIslt3rs. lnjuri~ ha:! ceeurred, but,
acecrding to cur informat:cn, cs c:ai.z;s havs been filed bj skatebcarders agalnrt the cities involved.
skatebaard activities frm coverzge, the City wfil assums a77 risk From this facitfty. Memos frcm tha Cfty Att.;r~ey rqarding liabilfty issues are attached.
3. Eecause the City nf txntt RCZP'S injzt-c~sc LJL i !rr speclrlcai iy excludes
' 4, The Youth Ccnmuni ty Park skatgbczr;! facif i+v wguld QFerats during tha hwrs of cperatfcn of the park. No ll$-~ts wc~ld be prcvfded. Parking fs present and B permment restym yt7i 5s b!li:It in fho F='% == port ec rhq9< I:, the rac~~rty w:lT ?ncluce lawn arw zt tAs edge for viewing and is so configured that it cauld be used for snail perfomances and special activftfos on the szail platfcn. Signs wolrld. be installed ;IS recommended by the City Attcrney. Graffiti has been a problerr; at other skateboard facilities. Me are ccnsldzring handling .ft by painting a mural an the concrete fn cmjuncticn with a 1or;l arts group,
L.
5. The Po'lice Department has expresszd resaruaSiens abut the site because of concerns about observzbility, trziffic spd on Fui ton and the difficulty of providicg surve!liance ad eniar:zmmt. They have sugsested that the facility be locate? in Flnley Park. kause of the
Wowever, the design proposal attenpts t3 address sane of those concerns by locating the facflity C~GSS ts fsi'ltm Road. The PhasG 11 projdct Will also Include sidewalk throush the park en the west slde of Fulton and a flashing crossing light will sc)on be i~stallec! from Pine High School to
the park.
. number of activitfes already in Fi~ley, that ccncrrpts was not pursued.
6, A group called Frierrds of $acta Rssa Skate Park is organizing far th2 purpose of fun&a!sjnc 2nd assirking with tha cFaration of the facility.
L'nfted Skates of Rmrica, the grcq ~lhfch initial-ly urged the
[3:239.28 - 3:24(
a comparative negligence basis. [Davis
Gaschler (1 992) 1 1 CA4th 1392,14 CR2d 67!
683-684; see also Lucas v. Fresno Unif. Schol
Dist. (1 993) 14 CA4th 866, 18 CR2d 79-ir
jured student’s assumption of risk in participa ing in dirt-throwing melee was “secondary i view of school district’s statutory duty to supe
vise pupils during recess (Ed.C. §44807)]
3) [3:239.28] Product liability claims: Thoug
strict liability for defective products is impow
without regard to defendant’s negligence, the is no question that manufacturers (and 0th
product defendants) have a duty to provic
consumers with defect-free products; Cons
quently, whether plaintiff assumed the risk
product misuse (e.g., disregard of warning I
bel or use of product in a manner for which was not intended: see ll2:644.2) presents question of secondapnot primary-assum
tion of the risk. [Milwaukee Nec. Tool Corp. Super. Ct. (Vondrasek) (1 993) 16 CA4th 224, ‘ CR2d 241
4) [3:239.29] Premises liability: A prope owner or manager is required to use due c: to eliminate dangerous conditions posing unreasonable risk of harm to tenants, custo
ers or other persons. Therefore, plaintiff’s c
sumption of a known risk or hazard on the p
mises is “secondary,” and comparative ne! gence principles apply. [See Curties K Hill 7 Developers, Inc. (1 993) 14 CA4th 1 651, 16f
18 CR2d 445, 448; Bush K Parents With(
Partners (1993) 17 CA4th 322,21 CR2d 1;
Morgan v. Fuji Country USA, lnc. (1 995)
Cross-refer: For a detailed treatment of“pre ises liability,” see Friedman, Garcia & Haga Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord-Tenant (TRG), t
CA4th 127, 134-135,40 CR2d 249, 2531
Rev. #I 1995 3.
[3:240.1 - 3:240.4]
the risks encompassed by the agreement, plaintiff’s recovery is completely barred because defendant
breached no legal duty to plaintiff. [Knight v. Jewett a
(1 992) 3 C4th 296,308,ll CR2d 2,9, fn. 4; see fafali??, Inc. K Super. Ct. (Levin) (1 994) 23 CA4th 748’29 CR2d
177, 180-1 81; and BAJl No. 4.301
from the race.
CA3d 134,277 CR 8871
(b) [3:240.2] Limitation-contract defenses ap- ply: Contractualassumption of the risk is subject
of contracts generally, such as fraud, lack of consid- 4 eration, duress and the “frailties of adhesion con- tracts” (i.e. , unconscionabiky, etc.) (see BAJl4.30,
“Use Note”).
[3:240.3] Application-waiver agreement un- clear or ambiguous: A release is effective as an express contractual assumption of risk so long as
the agreement is clear, unambiguous and explicit,
and expresses plaintiff’s intent not to hold defen- dant liable for negligence. [See generally, Paralift, IRC. v. SupecCt. (levin) supra, 23 CA4th at 755,29
CR2d at 180; Baker Pacific Corp. v. Suftles (1 990) 220 CA3d 1 148,1153,269 CR 709,712; also see Westlye K Look Sports, IRC. (1 993) 17 CA4th 171 5, 22 CR2d 781,788-789; National & lnt7 Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc. v. SupecCt (Castro), supra, 21 5 CA3d at 938,264 CR at 471
1) [3:240.4] Specification of all conceivable
risks not required: By the same token, an effective re1ease“need not achieve perfection”; it need not necessarily mention every conceiv- able risk that might be encountered or, indeed, the particular risk that caused plaintiff’s injury. 4 An exculpatory agreement effectively releases
to the usual defenses applicable to the enforcement
Rev. #I 1995
[3:240.5]
defendant from liability in a particular situation when it states plaintiff is assuming all risks in-
herent in or arising from that situation . . .
whether known or unknown to plaintiff. [Na-
h‘onal& Int’l Brotherhood of Street Racers, lnc.
K Super. Ct. (Castro), supra, 21 5 CA3d at 937-
938, 264 CR at 46-47; Saenz K Whitewater
Voyages, lnc. (1 990) 226 CA3d 758,764-765,
276 CR 672,676-677; Paralift, lnc. K Super.Ct.
(Levin), supra, 23 CA4th at 757, 29 CR2d at 1811
For example, a drag race driver’s all-encom- passing agreement which, in unqualified terms, releases the race organizer and landowner from all claims arising from plajntiff‘s participa-
tion in the race operates as a complete defense
to liability for injuries allegedly aggravated by
defendants’ failure to assure the presence of appropriate rescue equipment and properly trained rescue personnel. [National t? Int‘l
Brotherhood of Street Racers, inc. K Super. Ct.
(Castro), supra]
(1 959) 52 C2d 41 1,340 P2d 604,607; see, e.g., Madison II. Super.Ct. (Sulejmanagic) (1 988) 203 CA3d 589,601,250 CR 299,307; National & Int’l Brotherhood of Street Racers, lnc. v. Super. Ct. (Castro), supra, 215 CA3d at 938,264 CR at 47; but see Saenz K Whitewater Voyages, Inc., supra, 226 CA3d at 765-766, 276 CR at 672”accord, but holding specific reference to “ordinary” negligence unneces- sary where release language covers “every- thing short of gross negligence”]
However, there is also authority contra: The
presence or absence of the word “negligence”
should be examined like any other contract to
determine the parties’ actual intent. If the ian-
guage is ambiguous, the issue is to be decided by the trier of fact. [Hohe K San Diego Unified School Dist (1 990) 224 CA3d 1559,1567,274 CR 647, 651, Rossmoor San/tat/on, Inc v.
is not dispositive; instead, a release agreement
Rev #I 1995 3 115
[3:240.11 - 3:240.16]
see Celli K Sports Car Club of America, Inc.
(1972) 29 CA3d 51 1,517,105 CR 904,908 &
fn. 3 (invalidating releases, one signed by mi-
nor and one by father on minor‘s behalf)]
ment releasing ski shophesort from liability re
use of rented equipment did not extend to equipment distributors]
10) [3:240.13] Inability to read English: Ab-
sent fraud, overreaching or excusable neglect, failure to read an agreement does not excuse
compliance. It is incumbent upon plaintiffs who do not understand English to have the release read or explained to them. [Randas v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (1 993) 17 CA4th 158,163,21 CR2d 245,2481
11) [3:240.14] Passage of time: A release is
not invalidated by the passage of time between its execution and the occurrence of a mishap. The focus is upon the language of the release and its application to the events surrounding plaintiff’s injury. [Paralift, Inc. v. Super.Ct. (levin), supra, 23 CA4th at 757,29 CR2d at 132-3-year-old release valid]
(c) [3:240.15] Public policy limitation-agree- ments implicating public interest: Aside from potential contract defenses, exculpatory agree-
ments are also subject to public policy limitations.
Enforcement will be denied if the agreement in-
volves the “public interest!’[See Tunkl v: Regents of
Univ. of Calif (1963) 60 C2d 92, 32 CR 331
1) [3:240.16] “Public interest” narrowly construed: But the “public interest“ excep- tion is narrowly construed.To come within the
Rev. #1 1995
m - *
... . ”“ . ~~ ~
..... .... , .. ..... .... ..... ............... .: ... .. .... ..
....
...... :**&;;;;$,*;;;* .. ,~-~ .’ ..., s&,,:L:~~.;+4~:. , ,a:::.&+ .... .I;”, . ..-. 1 ..:;?,,‘:7:.,k:
. ,_. .>. ._ .
:. ’.. ’.’ .’. . ’ .; , . ’ . 1 ...
.. .. .....
:
... ............. .. ........................ ............ .^‘ ......................... ... .................. ................. _.,T .. ............,...:.. ....... .:i: ...... ..................... :.. ......................................... ................... -i.- ...... - .. ........... I- .. ., ..
.. __.., .. _-.. ........... ,,: . ::,-,--;,: ....... ~~~~~-:~.~-~:~~:::~~~~~~~~~~~:~:.:.~:~:~:
. .” . . ”.. . , , -,. . .....
.a .I .
Art192 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
tion to expressive material unless it was “utterly activity is involved, a municipal ordinance re, without redeeming social value.” (See Memoirs v ing that picture arcades be closed between
Massachusetts, 383 US 413, 16 L Ed 2d 1, 86 S Ct hours of 2:OO a.m. and 9:OO a.m. to prc
975.) In 1973 the Court in Miller v California, 413 masturbation during the hours of reduced p
US 15, 37 L Ed 2d 419, 93 S Ct 2607, announced presence, was constitutionally overbroad whert new standards for isolating “hard core” pornogra- ordinance failed to regulate only those arc
phy from expression protected by the First that have been or are likely to be havens
Amendment; the comparable test under Miller is masturbation, and where no distinction is n
“whether the work taken as a whole, lacks serious for those picture arcades which provide a man literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” to supervise and patrol the premises or have Marks v United States (1977) 430 US 188, 51 L lighted booths open to public view. Such an UI Ed 2d 260,97 S Ct 990. ferentiated approach is not sufficient to limit
Pen. Code, tj 31 1.2, making it unlawful to possess right to free exPrffSiOn. People v Glaze (1gSc
obscene materials with intent to distribute them, C3d 841, 166 Cal RPtr 859, 614 P2d 291.
does not violate the free speech provisions Of Gal. Activities protected by U.S. Const., First Am( Const., art. 1, 0 2. People v Wiener (1979) 91 necessarily subject licensing ordinances to s CA3d 238, 154 Cal Rptr 110. scrutiny. However, a municipality : may im
The operation of a picture arcade is an activity reasonable regulations on the conduct of an
protected by U.S. Const., 1st Amend. The fact the nomic enterprise, including the business of op
picture arcade is a profit-oriented business, or that ing a motion picture theater. However, precl
it may exhibit pictures which are offensive or of regulation is the touchstone and the stand
lacking in social worth is not relevant. People v set forth in the ordinance must be susceptibl
Glaze (1980) 27 C3d 841, 166 Cai Rptr 859, 614 objective measurement. Barry v Oceanside (1
P2d 29 1. 107 CA3d 257, 165 Cal Rptr 697.
A municipal ordinance requiring that picture ar- The city council’s revocation of the busines!
cades be closed between. the hours of 2:OO a.m. cerise of the operators of an adult book s and 9:OO a.m. in order to prevent masturbation showing sexually explicit movies following nul during the hours of reduced police Presence was ous arrests of patrons for disturbing the peac~ unconstitutional on its face, where it did not committing a public nuisance, pursuant to aPF that the closing hours requirement Was ordinance permitting the revocation of a busi necessary Or that it Was the 1-t restrictive means license whenever the public health, welfare, available to curb the anticipated evil. Rather than safety is harmed or threatened due to the mal dealing directly with the objectionable conduct, in which the businas is Operated, was un~aH the ordinance curtails the protected interest of B~~~~~~ the licensing ordinance impinged on
when fundamental liberties are at stake, the test is as applied was unconstitutiona~~y vague, overbl whether there are less drastic means available to and a p~or restraint against First Amendn
G1aze (1980) 27 C3d 841, 166 Ca1 Rptr 859* 614 reasonableness and definiteness what constitut P2d 29 1. “public nuisance” justifying the denial of a lice
Because an ordinance must be narrowly directed Barry v Oceanside (1980) 107 CAM 257, 165
at the evil being attacked if First Amendment Rptr 697.
persons engaged in First Amendment activity, and exercise of First Amendment rights, the ordin;
accomplish the government’s purpose. People v protected activity, as it did not spell Out 1
9 3. Assembly and petition
The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petiti government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to cons
for the common good.
Adopted November 5, 1974.
Prior Law: Former Art 1 0 10, as adopted May 7, 1879. The text of former Q 10 is set 0u1 1 Deering’s Constitutional Annotations at page 78.
Former Section: Former Art I $ 3, similar to present Art I11 $ I, was adopted May 7, 1E and repealed November 7, 1972. The text of former $3 is set out in 2 Deering’s Const
*
........ ........... .... ....... ’.. (“j 8: .._ p tional Annotations at page 1. ...... .. .. .. ........................ : .: :.. -. _: -. _,_ . . _. ........ - _.. ...... :. -. .............. : -*: ......... ... ... ................ ~ .-_ - -:~~ ....... .:, ..:. a Cross References: ..
09 Initiative, referendum and recall: Art I1 $9 8-1 1, 14.
Picketing and parading in or near court buildings: Pen C $ 169. - 18
*
I *
L
7
.. ............... L.;. *. ..... ......... . ............. ................. ... , ....... ".7..I." .................... ................ ;. .................. .. .... . .............. ..~ .. ..
. . ',. .. .... ...... ..... ........ ..
... .. - . I. ..
..... ... e<*, ..&<&&.."+$ <,,r&.;! ;?" ~:~.~,-~,~-.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~ .......... .. ....
..
... ..
............ .......... . ... ....... .................. ....-... ......
.......... __ . -. " .... ..."... ..... ,..;:- ...................................... ..,: .._... ,.,. :..: ........."
........ :.. ...... ~ ,..", .. ". ............ ; .. ........ =. .....:..,.. ... :.:.::.:.: . ?:-.-..":". -:. .-:_- :?:.." __._ ':,l ., __. . , .- .." :.: , .... .... .... ....... . "- . . ;:;,: . . es
,. 99
Pa
..
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Art I
Prior Law: Former Art I $ 18, as adopted May 7, 1879. The text of former 5 18 is set ou 1 Deering's Constitutional Annotations at page 494.
Former Section: Former Art I 9 6, similar to present Art I $9 10, 12; 17, was adopted Ma 1879, and repealed November 5, 1974. The text of former Q 6 is set out in 1 Deen' Constitutional Annotations at page 17.
Cross References:
Proscription against involuntary servitude: Pen C Q 181.
Kidnapping for purposes of involuntary servitude: Pen C Q 207.
If research prior to 1974 is desired, consult the collateral references and casenotes in
1 Deering's Constitutional Annotations beginning at page 494.
Collateral References:
Witkin Summary (8th ed) Constitutional Law §§ 249 et seq.
Cal Jur 3d Constitutional Law 0 232, Criminal Law 99 2412 et seq. Antieau, Modem Constitutional Law $9 8:84 et seq. Am Jur 2d Constitutional Law (Rev) @618 et seq., Involuntary Servitude and Peonage $9 1 et seq.
Law Review Articles:
Arrestees as informants: A Thirteenth Amendment analysis. 29 Stan LR 713.
6 7. Due process; Equal protection; Privileges and immunities
(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, orproperty- due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws- provide1 that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this eonstitutic imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, ( official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those impose by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Unite States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignme]
or pupil transportation. In enforcing this subdivision or any othl
provision of this Constitution, no court of this state may impose up0 the State of California or any public entity, board, or official an obligation or responsibility with respect to the use of pupil schoc assignment or pupil transportation, (1) except to remedy a specifi violation by such party that would also constitute a Triolation of th Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United Statt Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted unde federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility up0 such party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protectio Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution.
Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the United States every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a court of thi state, whenever rendered, which includes provisions regarding pupi school assignment or pupil transportation, or which requires a plal including any such provisions shall, upon application to a COUI
25
I_ m m
- GOVT Sec. 831.7, Hazardous recreational activities Page 1
-c c
West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code Sec. 831.7
WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 1. GENERAL
DMSION 3.6. CLAIMS AND ACTIONS
AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
PART 2. LIABILITY OF PUBLIC ENTITIES AND
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
CHAPTER 2. DANGEROUS CONDITIONS OF
PUBLIC PROPERTY
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL
Current through the 1993-94 legislative sessions.
Sec. 831.7. Hazardous recreational activities
(aLmg a public entity nor a public employee is
recreational activity, incl & g any person %ho assists
the participant,' or to any2pectat:r who knew or
reasonably should have known that the hazardous
recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury
to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place
of risk, or having the ability to do so failed to leave,
for any damage or injury to property or persons
arising out of that hazardous recreational activity.
- bbIe to any person who iartici ates in a hazardow
@) As used in this section, "hazardous recreational
activity" means a recreational activiu conducted on
roperty of*a public entity which creates a substantial
(as &stmguishe from a minor, trivial, or
insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or a
spectator.
+ -
"Hazardous recreational activity'' 9 means:
(1) Water contact activities, except diving, in
places where or at a time when lifeguards are not
provided and reasonable warning thereof has been
given or the injured party should reasonably have
known that there was no lifeguard provided at the
time.
(2) Any form of diving into water from other than a
diving board or diving platform, or at any place or
from any structure where diving is prohibited and
reasonable warning thereof has been given.
(3) Animal ridmg, including equestrian
zompetition, archery, bicycle racing or jumping,
mating, cross-country and downhill skiing, hang
Copyright 0 West Publishing Co. 1
gliding, kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, off-road
motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind,
orienteering, pistol and 1:ifle shooting, rock climbing,
rocketeering, rodeo, spelunking, sky diving, sport
parachuting, body contact sports (i.e., sports in which
it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be rough
bodily contact with one or more participants), surfing,
trampolining, tree climbing, tree rope swinging, water
skiing, white water rafting, and wind surfing.
*148033 (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subdivision (a), this section does not limit liability
which would otherwise exist for any of the following:
(1) Failure of the public entity or employee to
guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or of
another hazardous recreational activity known to the
public entity or employee that is not reasonably
assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the
hmh~ recreational activity out of which the
damage or injury arose.
(2) Damage or injury suffered in any case where
permission to participate in the hazardous recreational
activity was granted for a specific fee. For the
purpose of this paragraph, a "specific fee" does not
include a fee or consideration charged for a general
purpose such as a general park admission charge, a
vehicle entry or parking fee, or an administrative or
group use application or permit fee, as distinguished
from a specific fee charged for participation in the
specific hazardous recreational activity out of which
the damage or injury arose.
(3) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused
by the negligent failure of the public entity or public
employee to properly construct or maintain in good
macbinery, or substantial work of improvement
utilized in the hazardous recreational activity out of
which the damage or injury arose.
repair any structure, recreational equipment or
(4) Damage or injury suffered in any case where
the public entity or employee recklessly or with gross
negligence promoted the participation in or
observance of a hazardous recreational activity. For
purposes of this paragraph, promotional literature or a I
public announcement or advehement which merely
describes the available facilities and services on the
property does not in itself constitute a reckless ,or
grossly negligent promotion.
(5) An act of gross negligence by a public entity or
a public employee which is the proximate cause of the
.995 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
m '": II)
Page 2
GOVT Sec. 831.7, Hazardous recreational activities
injury.
Nothing in this subdivision creates a duty of care
or basis of liability for personal injury or for damage
to personal property.
(d) Nothing in this section shall lit the liability of an independent concessionaire, or any person or
organization other than the public entity, whether or
not the person or organization has a contractual
relationship with the public entity to use the public
property, for injuries or damages suffered in any case
as a result of the operation of a hazardous recreational
activity on public property by the concessionaire,
person, or organization.
CREDIT(S)
1995 Interim Update
(Added by Stats.1983, c. 863, Sec. 1.) *la034
REFERENCES
LIBRARY REFERENCES
1995 Interim Update
Officers and Public Jhployees k116(1).
States k112.2(1).
C.3.S. States Secs. 196 to 200,202.
California Practice Guide:
Landlord-Tenant, Friedman, Garcia 8z
Hagarty, see Guide's Table of Statutes for
chapter paragraph number references to
paragraphs discussing this section.
Personal Injury, Flahavan, Rea, Kelly &
Tenner, see Guide's Table of Statutes for chapter
paragraph number references to paragraphs
discussing this section.
ANNOTATIONS
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Negligent rescue 3
Pleadings 9
Questions for jury 11
Schools 8
1/2. Consmction and application
Statute immunizing public entities and officials
from liability to persons participating in hazardous
recreational activities was ambiguous as to whether it
applied to participants who were not voluntarily in the
place of risk; therefore, court would examine
legislative history of statute in order to determine
legislative intent. Iverson v. Muroc Unified School
Dist. (App. 5 Dist. 1995) 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 35, 32
Cal.App.4th 218.
Plaintiffs knowledge of particular risks is
irrelevant when determining whether public entity is
entitled to statutory immunity for specified hazardous
recreational activity. Perez v. City of Los Angeles
(App. 2 Dist. 1994) 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 55, 27
Cal.App.4th 1380.
Doctrine of assumption of risk, with related
requirement that participant in activity have actual
knowledge of risk through experience, observation, or
warning, does not apply to affirmative defense of
statutory governmental immunity and, thus, juvenile's
appreciation of risk from tree rope swinging was
irrelevant to determination of whether statutory
immunity applied. Perez v. City of Los Angeles
(App. 2 Dist. 1994) 33 Ca1.Rptr.Z 55, 27
Cal.App.4th 1380.
*la035 City is immune from liability for injury
which results from hazardous activity specified in
immunity statute unless injury was suffered at least in
part because city failed to warn or guard against some
additional dangerous condition for which no immunity
is specified and which is not an inherent part of the
risk presented generally by the specified hazardous
activity. Perez v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist.
1994) 33 Ca1.Rptr.Z 55, 27 Cal.App.4th 1380.
Assumption of risk 5
Construction and application 112
Diving and swimming 7
Diving from rocks 4
Diving from sand 6
Gross negligence 2
Gymnastics 10 :
Known dangerous condition I
I
1. Known dangerous condition
Allowing ropes to be tied to trees in city parks did
not create "dangerous condition of property" about
which there is duty to warn or guard against and,
thus, city was immune as matter of law for liability
from injury during hazardous recreational activity of
tree rope swinging. Perez v. City of Los Angeles
Copyright 0 West Publishing Co. 1995 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
r
-1 m'
" . - - pq
GOVT Sec. 831.7, Hazardous recreational activities
w Page 3
(App. 2 Dist. 1994) 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 55, 27
Cal.App.4th 1380.
City was statutorily immune from suit for injury
sustained during specified hazardous recreational
activity of tree rope swinging, in absence of evidence
that additional dangerous condition contributed to
injury; rope hanging from tree was not known
warn against. Perez v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2
Dist. 1994) 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 55, 27 Cal.App.4th 1380.
dangerous condition that city had duty to guard or
Danger that a person who swings on a fire hose
hanging from a tree might fall down the adjacent slope
is assumed by the participant as an inherent part of the
activity of tree rope swinging, so that State is immune
from liability for any such injury occurring on State
land even if it bows of the dangerous condition of the
fire hose hanging from a tree next to a slope. DeVito
v. State (App. 2 Dist. 1988) 248 CaLRptr. 330, 202
Cal.App.3d 264.
2. Gross negligence
City was not grossly negligent in its rescue anempt
of stranded surfer, and thus was immune from
liability, though rescue personnel prevented
bystanders from assisting, where training and
experience of would-be rescuers was unknown at time
they offered assistance. Decker v. City of Imperial
Beach (App. 4 Dist. 1989) 257 CaLRptr. 356, 209
Cal.App.3d 349.
City's rescue personnel .were not grossly negligent
in attempting to rescue stranded surfer, and thus city
was immune from liability, though rescue workers
used disfavored surf rescue method; there was no
evidence that rescue workers' conduct was extreme
departure from ordinary standard of conduct. Decker
v. City of Imperial Beach (App. 4 Dist. 1989) 257
Cal.Rptr. 356, 209 Cal.App.3d 349.
Complaint which alleged that person walking on
State-owned recreational land was injured when she
down an adjacent slope did not allege facts showing
an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of
care so as to permit finding that State committed gross
negligence and was not immune from liability.
DeVito v. State (App. 2 Dist. 1988) 248 Cal.Rptr.
330, 202 Cal.App.3d 264.
*148036 3. Negligent rescue
swung from fire hose hanging from a tree and fell
Municipality was immune from liability to surfer,
pursuant to this section, even if city was negligent in
its attempted rescue. Decker v. City of Imperial
Beach (App. 4 Dist. 1989) 257 CaLRptr. 356, 209
Cal.App.3d 349.
4. Diving from rocks
Diving into Ocean from rocks on shore was
"hazardous recreational activity" within meaning of
statute which provides public entity immunity where
injuries occur during such activity; thus, city had no
duty to post near rocks warning signs prohibiting
diving. Valenzuela v. City of San Diego (App: 4
Dist. 1991). 286 Cal.Rptr. 1, 234 Cal.App.3d 258. '\,,
Under statute which provides public entity
immunity where injuries occur during "hazardous
recreational activity," city was immune from liability
to minor who dove from cliff into water and struck his
head on bottom; exception to statute for public
entity's failure to warn of danger not reasonably
assumed by participant as inherently part of hazardous
recreational activity was inapplicable, as inherent risk
of diving from rock into shallow water is hitting one's
head, and minor reasonably assumed this inherent risk. Valenzuela v. City of San Diego (App. 4 Dist.
1991) 286 CaLRptr. 1, 234 Cal.App.3d 258.
Diving into ocean from rocks on shore was
"hazardous recreational activity" within meaning of
this section and, thus, city had no duty to post
warning signs near rocks prohibiting diving.
Rombalski v. City of Laguna Beach (App. 4 Dist. 1989) 261 CaLRptr. 820, 213 Cal.App.3d 842,
rehearing denied and modified, review denied.
5. Assumption of risk
Phrase "voluntarily in the place of risk," as used in
statute immuniziig public entities and officials from
liability to persons engaging in hazardous recreational
activities and to spectators of such activities, applied
immunity from liability for injury to Participant would
apply regardless of whether participant was
voluntarily in the place of the risk. Iverson v. Muroc
Unified School Dist. (App. 5 Dist. 1995) 38
Cal.Rptr.2d 35, 32 Cal.App.4th 218.
to spectators but did not apply to participants; thus,
Even if rock on shore from which plaintiff dove
Copyright 0 West Publishing Co. 1995 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
-> m .' - -
Page 4 GOVT Sec. 831.7, Hazardous recreational activities
into ocean and was injured constituted dangerous
condition within meaning of this section, plaintiff
knowingly assumed inherent risks in diving from rock
and was thus precluded from recovering from city.
Rombalski v. City of Laguna Beach (App. 4 Dist.
1989) 261 Cal.Rptr. 820, 213 Cal.App.3d 842,
rehearing denied and modified, review denied.
*la037 6. Diving from sand
County which owned beach on which swimmer
was injured when he struck head on sandbar was
immune from liability based upon this section
providing for immunity for injuries sustained by "any
person who participates in hazardous recreational
activity"; swimmer sustained injury while diving
from sand near shore's edge rather than from diving
board, platform or other structure. Morin v. County
of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 1989) 263 Cal.Rptr.
479, 215 Cal.App.3d 184, review denied.
7. Diving and swimming
Diver's objections to declarations by state officials
that state did not design or maintain pier for diving for
purposes of statute which removed state's immunity
from liability for injuries sustained from diving into
water from I'diving platform" were waived, where
diver merely alleged declarations were conclusory,
without foundation, and contained hearsay, but failed
to explain why he believed this was so. State v.
Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995) 39
Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
State's intent not to maintain pier for "diving" for
purposes of statute which removed state's immunity
from liability for injuries sustained from diving into
water from "diving platform'' was established by
state's erection of sign at entrance to park stating "No
Diving Within the State Park System." State v.
Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995) 39
Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
Under immunity statute for hazardous activities,
public assumes risks posed by diving unless it is
performed from structure which public agency has
specifically designed and maintained for diving. State
v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995) 39
Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
Under statute which removed state's immunity
from liability for injuries sustained from diving into
water from "diving platform," if structure was not
designed and maintained as diving platform, its use by
public for diving will not convert structure into diving
platform, even if agency is aware of such use. State
v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995) 39
Cal.Rptr.2 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
Unless diver dives from public structure
specifically designed and maintained for diving, he
does so at his own risk regardless of whether public
entity was aware of diving and failed to prevent it.
State v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995)
39 Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
*148038 Absence of facilities for tying up boats
suggested that pier was not intended primarily for
tying up boats, but did not permit inference that it was
designed for diving for purposes of statute which
removed state's immunity from liability for injuries,
sustained frcim diving into water from "diving
platform.'' State v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3
Dist. 1995) 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
Absence of warning sign on pier did not permit inference that structure was designed for diving for
purposes of statute which removed state's immunity
from liability for injuries sustained from diving into
water from "diving platform." State v. Superior
Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995) 39 Cal.Rptr.2d
694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576. (
Risk that water may be too shallow for safe diving
and, hence, could cause serious injury is inherent risk
of diving into water from other than structure
designed and maintained for purpose of diving. State
v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995) 39
Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
State is entitled to immunity under ixnmunity statute
for injuries sustained by diver who sustains injuries
from diving off pier into shallow water, regardless of
whether diver has actual knowledge of risk through
experience, observation, or warning because statute
esbblishes objective standard, not subjective one.
State v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995)
39 Cal.Rptr.2 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
Since diver who was injured when he dove off pier
into shallow water was not diving from "diving
platform" or "diving board" within meaning of statute
which removed state's immunity from liability for
injuries sustained from diving into water, state had no
responsibility to ensure that water depth was sufficient
for safe diving; rather, diver had to exercise due care
Copyright 0 West Publishing Co. 1995 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
.. . rn. (I) -.
Page 5
GOVT Sec. 831.7, Hazardous recreational activities
by physically checking depth of water prior to diving sporting activities played on school grounds. Yarber
into it. State v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (App. 1 Dist. 1992) 6
1995) 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576. Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 4 Cal.App.4th 1516.
Tree stump did not constitute "diving platform"
within meaning of statute which removed State's
immunity from liability for injuries resulting from
diving into water from diving platform, and therefore
State was immune from liability for injuries to diver
who dove from tree stump into river, given that tree
stump was not artificial structure and was not
designed for purpose of diving. Berry v. State (App.
3 Dist. 1992) 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 2 Cal.App.4th 688,
review denied.
Swimmer who was rendered a paraplegic when he
dove into concealed sandbar at city's public beach was
engaged in a "hazardous recreational activity" at time
of injury within meaning of this section and, thus, city
was not liable for swimmer's injuries. Tessier v. City
of Newport Beach (App. 4 Dist. 1990) 268 Cal.Rptr.
233, 219 Cal.App.3d 310, review denied.
*148039 8. Schools
School district was not immune from liability for
injuries sustained by student on school grounds during
physical education class required by the school and
conducted during school hours; body contact sport
incorporated into school-time physical educational
class was not a "recreational activity" within meaning
of statute immunizing public entities from liability for
injuries sustained during hazardous recreational
activities. Iverson v. Muroc U&ed School Dist.
(App. 5 Dist. 1995) 38 Cul.Rptr.2d 35, 32
CaL.App.4th 218.
Court of Appeal would not insist upon orthodox
rule that motion for summary judgment be limited to
issues raised by pleadings, even though city raised
immunity defenses in support of motion for summary
judgment that it did not plead as affirmative defenses,
where patently both parties understood that immunity
issues were implicit in fact situation, and issues were
fully argued on their merits on essentially
uncontradicted facts. Knight v. City of Capitola
(App. 6 Dist. 1992) 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 4 Cal.App.4th
918, review denied.
Ordinarily, a school district is liable for injuries
caused by a dangerolis condition of its property;
however, statute provides immunity from liability
where plaintiff is injured while engaged in certain
School district was immune from liability for injury
suffered by plaintiff while playing in an adult
basketball game in junior high school gymnasium
rented for the purpose; in playing basketball, plaintiff
was engaged in a "hazardous recreational activity"
within meaning of immunity statute; type of
basketball played by plaintiff was a "body contact
sport" which carried with it substantial risk of injury
as defined in statute. Yarber v. Oakland Unified
School Dist. (App. 1 Dist. 1992) 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 4 f4
Cal.App.4th 1516.
9. Pleadings .,, 6
Court of Appeal would not deem city's immunity
defenses waived by city's failure to plead them, where
city formally raised immunities for first time in
motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff contested
immunity issues on summary judgment without
procedural objection. Knight v. City of Capitola
(App. 6 Dist. 1992) 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 4 Cal.App.4th
918, review denied.
*148040 10. Gymnastics i
I
Gymnast participating in school-sponsored athletic
practice under supervision of his coach in school
gymnasium after school, during off-season, was not
engaged in "hazardous recreational activity," within
public entity from liability for injuries resulting from
participation in hazardous recreational activity in
absence of gross negligence by public entity or public
employee which is proximate cause of the in..
Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (App. 2
Dist. 1995) 37 CalRptr.2d 171, 31 Cal.App.4th 471.
meaning of section of Government Code immunizing
Court of Appeal would take judicial notice of fact
that gymnastics, especially a front catch on the high
bar, is a "hazardous" activity as defined by section of
Government Code immunizing public entity from
liability for injuries resulting from participation in
"hazardous recreational activity." Acosta V. Los
Angeles Unified School Dist. (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 37
CaL.Rptr.2d 171, 31 Cal.App.4th 471.
11. Questions for jury
Where facts are undisputed, issue of whether
Copyright 0 West Publishing Co. 1995 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
. .. .
1.
I
-a I m s)
GOVT Sec. 831.7, Hazardous recreational activities
plaintiff was engaged in "hazardous recreational
activity" under immunity statute is question of law.
State v. Superior Court (Calder) (App. 3 Dist. 1995)
39 Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 33 Cal.App.4th 576.
Page 6
Copyright 0 West Publishing Co. 1995 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
L” I 7 a e YC *
MAYOR BUD LEWIS AND ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBEPS
~EF: SKATEBOARDERS
REMEMBER THE SAYING **I’M MAD AS H AND I’M NOT GOING TO
,TAKE IT ANYMORE?”. -
BECAUSE OF CONCERNS WITH RETAILATION AGAINST OUR PROPERTY,
CANNOT ATTEND TU MEETING AND SPEAK OUT AS I; 4AVE IN THE
PAST ON CITY MATTERS. THUS, THE REASON FOR THE LETTER.
THE SKATEBOARDERS HAV-E HgDE OUR LIVES MISERABLE AND COSTLY.
THEY HAVE DAMAGED OUR PROPERTY CONSIDERABLV. THE ENCLOSED
PHOTOS SHOW A REPAIRED WATER LINE AND SPIGOT BROKEN AND LEP
WITH WATER POURING OUT.., THE SECOND FLOWER POT REPLACED AND
DAMAGED AGAIN, DAMAGE TO PACIFIC BELL PROPSERTY (A DAJ LATER
IT WAS COMPLETELY KNOCKED DOWN). NOT TO MENTTON DAMAGE TO
THE GABAM DOOSS FROM THE SKATEBOARDS.
ANY MENTION TO THESE PEOPLE, RESULTS IN BEING €USSED AT,
PtfEPED OFF AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY RETALIATJON RESULTING IN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE ($500 PLATE GJIASS WINDOW PLUS
OTHERS) SO IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY, WE MUST ENDUR
THIS TORTURE.
OTHER CITIESHAVE BANNED SKATEBOARDING, WHY CAN’T WE? OR 1
LEAST BAN IT YEST OF 1-51
I HAVE BEEN AT THE PAVU’ION SEVERAL TIMES AND ON CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, AND HAVE SEEN PEOWE NEARLY RUN DOWN FROM
SKATEBOARDERS,
UE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO ENJOY THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY!
SKATEBOARDING SHOULD NOT BJ ALLOWED WEST OF 1-5. IF YOU
ONLY BAN IT AT THE PARKING LOTS, IT WILL INCREASE EVERY-
A RIGHT TO PEXCJ AND QUIET TOO.
).PPRECJJTE YOUR COOPERATION.
REGARDS,
WHERE ELSE. PLEASE DON’T DO THIS To THE CITIZENS. WE HAV
&f+!i!i-=-
EVELYN E. ROZANCE
619-720-2378
ENCLS .(:p /+
Page - 1
.*
2 r a a
i
c
?a$
ro u Q
... Z..' t :.. . i .$ 5 I
"t. .. *. 0- e
I
I TO :
Agenda Item # For Council Meeting of July 7, 1992
C ITY OF SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL
Mayor and City Council 1 SUBJECT: Proposed Skateboard Park for City of Santa Rosa
INITIATED BY: Recreation and Parks Department 1 AGENDA ACTION: STUDY s~ss1ON
I
1
t
I
E,
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
8
~~ ~~ ~~~
ISSUE:
Shall the City of Santa Rosa proceed with the final design and construction bidding for a skateboard facility to be located in Youth Community Park.
BACKGROUND:
- " .
1. In February 1991 the City Council requested the Board of Community Services to consider the possibility of a skateboard park.
2. After a preliminary study, on June 18, 1991, the Board of Community Services and Recreation and Parks Department recommended and Council agreed to proceed with a detailed study to develop a design, location and estimate for a skateboard par,. $20,000 was appropriated and a task force was assembled.
3. Although that task force was unable to attract neighborhood residents as permanent participants, it selected the preferred site in Youth Community Park, conducted a public meeting regarding that site in
January, and participated in the design process.
4. A Request for Proposals was developed and, through a consultant selection committee, Ken Wormhoudt, Landscape Architect of Santa Cruz, was selected to develop a master pl an. and working drawings (if Council agrees- to proceed with the project). Mr. Wormhoudt is the designer of existing skateboard parks in Santa Cruz and Palo Alto and of one under construction in Napa. ...
5. In conjunction with the task force and a group of interested skaters, Mr. Wormhoudt developed a plan for a 1/3 acre park of concrete, consisting of three shallow bowls, connecting runs, and street style curbs and platforms. The facility.wou1d be in Youth Community Park just north of the current entry drive adjacent to Fulton Road. It would be an unsupervised, unfenced facility costing an estimated $75,000.
6. A pub1 ic meeting was held on June 17th at Schaefer Elementary School to display the design and location. It was lightly attended but those
>resent supported the location and the form.
. ...* * .. 0 e
7. The Board of Community Services will review the proposal at their meeting of June 24th. Their comments will be available at the Council
Meeting of July 7th.
ANALYSIS:
1. Over the past 18 months there has been extensive study of the possibility of a skateboard facility for Santa Rosa. The issues of cost, location, design, liability, graffiti, security and fund raising have been reviewed. The experiences of the other cities in California which operate or are building skateboard parks have been reviewed. These included Benicia, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Davis and Napa.
2. Benicia and Santa Cruz operated and soon Napa will operate unsupervised, unfenced facilities as part of City parks. Neither Benicia nor Santa Cruz post warning signs nor require the wearing of helmets or knee pads. Napa intends to enforce the helmet and knee pad requirement and post
supervision and enclosed by fences with helmets and knee pads required.
A Marin County group is currently propos.ing a park in the Mill Val ley area. Each community which operates a park has experienced heavy usage from both local and regional visitors. Injuries have occurred, but, accord.ing to our information, no claims have been filed by skateboarders against the cities involved.
:-.warning signs. Palo Alto and Davis operate their facilities with
3. Because the City of Santa Rosa’s insurance carrier specifically excludes skateboard activities from coverage, the Ci.ty will assume all risk from this facility. Memos from the City Attorney regarding liability issues are attached.
4. The Youth Community Park skateboard facility would operate during the hours of operation of the park. No lights would be provided. Parking is present and a permanent restroom will be built in the park as part of Phase 11. The facility will include lawn areas at the edge for viewing and is so configured that it could be used for small performances and special activities on the small platform. Signs would be installed as recommended by the City Attorney. Graffiti has been a problem at other
skateboard facilities. We are considering handling it by painting a mural on the concrete in conjunction with a local arts group.
5. The Police Department has expressed reservations about the site because of concerns about observability, traffic speed on Fulton and the difficulty of providing surveil 1 ance and enforcement. They have suggested that the facility be located in Finley Park. Because of the
However, the design proposal attempts to address some of those concerns by locating the facility close to Fulton Road. The Phase I1 project will also include sidewalk through the park on the west side of Ful ton and a flashing crossing light will soon be installed from Pine High School to the park.
. number of activities a1 ready in Fin1 ey, that concepts was not pursued.
6. A group called Friends of Santa Rosa Skate Park is organizing for the purpose of fundraising and assisting with the operation of the facility. hited Skates of America, the group which initially urged the
,.*.,. . . .;” . . ‘ . 0’ . 0
3
I
construction of a skate park, now appears to be inactive. Therefore, the Santa Rosa Skate Park group is beginning to come together. That group is now soliciting donations and developing a fundraising drawi.ng. They hope to raise several thousand dollars toward the park. We a7 so hope that they will continue as a support organization to provide lessons for young skaters, help enforce rules and assist with maintenance functions.
8
I. s
7. Thus far, about $6,000 has been spent on the design process. If Council chooses to continue, working drawings would be prepared, a bid package
issued, bids received and an award proposal brought to Council We estimate that the process would take about 6 months. Construction could begin in spring 1993 iith an opening in early summer. Some of the construction could perhaps be integrated with the construction of Youth
Improvement Program for this project. Park Phase 11. $85,9004~ currently listed in the 1992/93 Capital
Author: Bill Montgomery, ext. 5115 -.. 1 . WM:pn _- .
I S.SZ/rkat@ss.rpt
I
I
I a
I
I
8
II
I
I +I
1
.- :,. . . . .. e- e
II
MAS4E.R PLAN /’ ma:-,
*,.. c;:~ ;f Sant3 Ecz, CdiCfRi8 .
R7z-z !b.l.n*mstl All7 8 AW :- ” I-
I . .I .: -0 e .-
l
I
8
8
I
i
I.
I
I
I
8
I
II
1
1
1
1
a
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE; JUNE 6, 1991
TO : BILL MONTGOMERY , ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RECREATION & PARKS
FROM: WTHERESA L. CUNNINGHAM, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: SKATEBOARD PARK - SUMMARY OF LIABILITY
Please insert the following paragraphs on p. 3 of the report at the bl brackets :
The City Attorney's Office has raised the following liability issues.
1. The City's insurance will not cover lawsuits arising out of a City-
sponsored or control 1 ed skateboard park,
to maintain that supervision. Waiver of liability forms should be signed by participants at a supervised facility.
2. A supervised facil i ty sets up a duty of care on the part of the City
3. An unsupervised facility should be posted with the following:
"WARNING
Skateboarding is a hazardous recreational activity. Use of this facility may result in death, paralysis, brain damage, concussion, broken bones or other serious injury. Any use is at your own risk.
Helmet, el bow pads and knee pads are required at all times. Fai.lure to comply will result in closure of the park.
California Government Code Section 831.7."
4. The design of the park must be approved prior to construction by the City in order to invoke the design immunity under the California Government Code To do this, the designer should file a report with the City Engineer that his design comports with industry standards. The City Engineer, applying her discretion and professional judgment, should approve (if appropriate) the design and make a final note of approval for the pr0jec.t file. The City Council must then approve the design.
5. The designer's contract should contain a clause expressly holding the Cit: harmless for design defects in the skateboard park.
6. California Health and Safety Code Section 25906 states that no operator 0
, .I . a 0
a skateboard park shall permit any person to ride a skateboard therein unless the person is wearing a helmet, el bow pads and knee pads. Because it is unclear whether or not this section appl ies to the City as an "operator", we suggest that these be a requirement for riding in any supervised park. In an unsupervised park, the 1 anguage noted at No. 3 above, should be used.
,. '. .
I " .
. . .-. 1 0; : 0 0 -
1
t
i
I
I
1
il
8
I
I'
B
I
8
I
I
I
t
a
RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT DRAl
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 5, 1991
TO: Board of Community Services
FROM: Skateboard Task Force
SUBJECT: RESULTS 9FSTUDY OFTHE POSSIBILINOFASKATEBOARD PARKFC
SANTA R9SA .
..
ISSUE
Scould the City of Santa Rosa develop a skateboard park; and if so, what location an type of facility should be proposed.
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 1990 the City Council considered a proposal to ban skateboarding in tt- downtown area. Council chose not to take that action at that point but rather to considt the possibility of a skateboard park. In February 1991 Council referred the matter to tt Board of Community Services requesting that a task force, including skateboarders I various skill levels, be appointed to recommend a location and type of facility and that tt- Board make a recommendation to Council during the 1991/92 budget deliberations.
The Board requested the establishment of the task force and appointed Robert Stank as its representative. The task force met throughout the month of May and early Jur inviting the participation of a variety of people who were interested in such a facility.
The task force ultimately involved twelve people who attended at least one of tb meetings: Robert Stanley, Board of Community Services; Teresa Cunningham, Ci Attorney's Office; Bill Kaslar, Risk Manager; Ed Buonocoursi, Sonoma County Staff; e Montgomery and Melissa Trunick, Recreation and Parks staff; Jeff Love, Adam Tnie: Joel Price and Charlie Watts, United Skates of America; Ray Raffino and Andy Gatle! Greatskates Skateboard Shop. The task force met six times and conducted the study b taking the following steps:
1. General discussion of the need, existing areas of use and related issues.
2. Survey of potential users conducted through the high schools and junior hig
3. Survey of western cities which are known to have or to be planning such a facilit]
4. Field visits to possible Santa Rosa locations and, by same task force members, t existing skateboard parks in Benicia, Palo Alto, and Santa Cruz. :Development (
criteria to rate potential sites. 5. Review and discussion of liability and design issues. 6. Development of recommendations.
schools.
5 '.
. .a__ 0 0
ANALYSIS
Need It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a growing need for a facility where young people can legally and without criticism involve themselves in this sport. Skateboarding is a popular recreation, transportation and socialization activity among young people - particularly teens - who frequently have difficulty filling their time with wholesome activities. Skateboarding is becoming a recognized sport with competitions and demonsirations regularly being scheduled throughout the nation. However, individuals who are engaging in this activity in urban areas can cause hazards to other pedestrians and are frequently
... treated as a nuisance. Other cities have recognized the. need; seven cities in California either currently operate a skateboard park or are planning on&'Skateboard parks which exist in Benicia, Palo Alto and Santa Cruz have become regional attractions, regularly attracting participants from as far as 60 miles away.
~e survey conducted in Santa Rosa during the week of May 20th drew 463 responses; heaviiy from the west side of town. me respondents were predominately in the 13 to 16 age group and highly supported the idea of a skateboard park in Santa Rosa. A summary of the survey results is attached. (Attachment #I)
Existina Facilities In Santa Rosa skateboarders currently use any spot available including streets, curbs, parks, plazas, and backyard facilities to perfect their skills. There is no public facility available in the area for their use and some drive 60 miles to Benicia to participate. The only local facility currently in planning is in Sebastopol where the City of Sebastopol will allow United Skates of America to build a ramp facility on City property. That facility will be a supervised, fenced facility open only to club members who carry the appropriate insurance.
In the western United States, we have identified four existing skateboard parks and four which are in planning. The attached table provides data on those facilities (Attachment
#2). They are varied in form but commonly are unsupervised, are located in public parks,
are designed by an architect or landscape architect, and had construction costs from
$16,000 to $90,000. Reported accidents in existing parks have been few. All advise heavy participation by users in the ultimate design.
The problems which have been associated with existing skateboard facilities in public parks include:
1. Litter, trash and graffiti in and around the facility.
2. Use of the facility before and after park hours.
3. Increased skateboarding in the neighborhood.
4. Consumption of alcohol in and around the skateboard facility.
These problems have been dealt with effectively by involving the users in developing solutions and using peer pressure to enforce rules.
Liability
As mentioned, reported accidents have been few for the existing skateboard parks. Santa
r I
. ..e. _. . 0 0
I CiUZ reports two accidents in twenty years; Palo Alto reports two accidents in five rnontk
1
Benicia has had no accidents in three years; and Farmington, New Mexico, has had I accidents in two years. All cities are self-insured, including Benicia and Saratoga (who 1. ABAG coverage), because ABAG coverage of skateboard facilities is not likely. City Santa Rosa insurance carriers specifically exclude skateboarding activities from coverag I f the City Attorney of Santa Rosa has studied the issue and makes the following analysi
I
8
I
1.
2.
3.
4. :-.
5.
A supervised facility sets up a duty of care on the part of the City to maintain th supervision. An unsupewised facility with appropriate signs would be less costt Public agencies are granted immunity from action by persons participating j hazardous activities if the individual is informed of the risk, unless there was a fe charged or the facility was negligently constructed or maintained. If the facility is supervised a waiver should be signed, if unsupervised a sign postec The City should invoke design immunity by requiring design in accordance wii industry standards and by having Council approve the design. The contract with the designer should be carefully written. '1 An additional liability issue is Ststte Health and Safety Code 25906 which require operators of skateboard parks to require participants to wear helmets and pads. The Pall Alto City Attorney has determined that this provision was meant to apply only to operator 1 of private parks. However, he recommends legislative amendments to this provision ii
order to clarify the intent.
b
a n
0.
8
I
t
1
I
Possible Sites The task force identified a variety of criteria which were determined to be of significancc in selecting a site for such a facility. Those criteria are shown on the attached char (Attachment #3). The task force then reviewed existing City parks and one other Cit owned parcel in light of the criteria. Those sites which were deemed to be stron! possibilities and which were visited by the task force are shown on the attached chart.
The conclusion reached was that Northwest, Franklin and Youth parks were ail potentiall! the most desirable sites. Northwest was the favorite because of a good location available and strong support from that area in the survey of potential users. Fremont Park wa: considered the best downtown location with weaknesses in terms of small size, possible neighborhood conflicts and lack of restrooms. ~
TvDe of Facility
The possible types of faci1.Q includes street style, bowl style and ramp style. A street style park would contain low platforms with sloping sides, curbs and small mounds. A bow, style park contains indented bowls or dishes from three to ten feet deep with sloped sides. A ramp style park contains ramps shaped like half a pipe with very steep sides. The park can be supervised or unsupervised. The park can also be a multi-use facility with potential for the platforms or paved areas to be used for concerts, plays or other community events. Materials used can be concrete, asphalt, and/or wood for ramp construction.
- cost Reported costs for existing or proposed skateboard parks vary widely and range from
8
12.. a e
$16,000 and $17,000 for Benicia and San Jose to $248,000 for a design in Eureka, which will not be built. Relatively firm and recent data is available from Palo Alto which built theirs for $90,000 and Napa and Davis which are budgeting $50,000 and $75,000 respectively. These figures do not include the planning, design, engineering and construction supervision functions.
One architect who has designed the skateboard parks for Santa Cruz, Palo Alto and Napa was contacted and lists his fee as 16% of construction cost. Other planning costs
including sails testing, surveying, miscellaneous testing, SEQA review, and contingency could cost $5,000 to $6,000. It would probably take a minimum of $20,000 to select a final
’ ..: location and complete construction drawings and- 8 construction estimate. Such a process, with heavy involvement by the skateboard community and the neighborhood of the park selected would probably take at least six months.
Depending on the final design, the project could cost from $60,000 to over $100,000.
. Financial contributions from skateboard groups, business groups, youth groups, and the County should be solicited if a construction project is approved.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The task force believes that the Board of Community Services should consider the following recommendations to the City Council: ..
1. That Councii formally support the concept of a skateboard park(s) in Santa Rosa.
2. That Council support the construction of one skateboard park in Santa Rosa on a trial basis with future evaluation to determine if it is an appropriate and desirable City activity and if additional such facilities should be added.
3. That Council authorize the appropriation of $20,000 to determine a final location and hire a designer to develop final plans. Construction costs to be considered as a separate appropriation once a final plan and estimate is complete.
4. That Council support the general concept of an unsupervised street style park with possible dishes or shallow bowls and potential use for other activities. Potential users and neighborhood representatives are to be involved in determining the final design.
5. That Council authorize the Board of Community Services to establish a standing task force to direct the final site selection and design process, develop operating procedures and conduct regular evaluations. A construction recommendation and budget to be returned to Council by early 1992.
6. That Council authorize the solicitation of construction funds from skateboard and youth groups, business groups and the County.
WM:pn
6.9l/wm/skatebrd.rpt
8.' ; " .*
. .... .. 0 0
1 Attachmenl
I City of Santa Rosa Recreation and Parks Department
I SKATEBOARD USER SURVEY--SUMMARY OF RESULTS
-1
I
1 -.
1
Ir
I
t
8
8
I
1
t
1
8
t
Surveys Received 463
Sources of Survey Forms
Comstock Junior High 230 Cook Junior High 68
Great Skates - 60
a__ Surf Plus 44 Montgomery High School 33 Rincon Val 1 ey Junior High 17 Santa Rosa High School 5 Piner High School 3 Recreation Center 3
Ages of Respondents Between 13 and 16 Average Age -- 15
Residence of Respondents Santa Rosa
.. ..
49.68% 14.69%
12.96% 9.50% 7.13% 3.67% 1.08%
.65% .65%
70 %
83.95%
Current Skating Location Varies, but the vast majority mentioned streets and sidewalks, downtow City parks, or "everywhere. " Some stated that they do not now skate because of the 7 ack of a safe place.
Frequency of Skating Varies, the vast majority mentioned often, or everyday.
Highly supportive with lots of suggestions. Common suggestions were: keep it open late, it would keep people out of trouble, it is a very critical need and should be built soon.
Commen t s :
. I.f. . r .. . 0 0
ml
c, t 2 2= U 21 <
W U L
LL 0
Y v, + m
U 2
a 0
c, W
rd
v)
Y
z
I-
3 =c
d =c 2- U
U
2
t;
v)
- "
W V m
CY L c cud m m cum
Y
cu c m n
1
rd E
L I m
N m m
W >
0
, .. I
.C
?
c curc 1 . .I: N (3 cr) N
> PL m NNmN mm cu m ..
c
m mm cu m
-c, L
.? cr) N Ncu m
I
c c, I 0 Mcu m mm PUCUmcu m > Im,, E
.C
F Y r m L LL.
m. NCUON rn m m. ccu m
z z m NcumN m mm ccu 0
4 S 0 E z CUM NH CUN m m CU
LL
mCUce(Yrc mm m m NNmN (3
o
cc a E 7 W L
m m W
> Y hr L 'clo *r sm 0- rd
h &I
-0
7
?E no *L
.C -C cc LL. m zu mv om Lft wm rc, LU ' n mc, --n L*
m CW ZY- - mv, E
h! Y
0 zo mud ah W-
m 1-0 4A.r 0 L $ uo *? 0 wc, m
v 0 Lo ou UP, WE " c, m Q-0 "3 z:7Ec,?o
c, o> .rQ 5 W . s X"
0 r c mr
v) mE JW u Y YW ar Es "L r c r o c,
ne r-~ v) r E" W Po) v, c, L L ov &I v) "W 7 - m L L-
mv,
eLLu-lc> Q1 ,L S& zz 2 2 2 tu2 22 6 -VI 2 'r- z Q
1. , .
-" e 0
1'
I ORDINANCE NO. 3116
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADDING SECTION 13-24.079 TO THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE REQUIRING PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT WHILE USING A CITY 8 SKATEBOARD PARK
I THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 13-24.079 is added to the Santa Rosa City Code as f 01 1 ows : I
I
1
~ "
Protective Euuioment Rewired While Usina a City of Santa Rosa Skateboard Facility. No person shall use a City of Santa Rosa ".Skateboard.Facility who is not wearing a helmet, knee pads, and el bow pads suitable to provide protection in the event of fa1 1 s or collisions. A first violation of this section shall constitute an infraction. Subsequent violations may constitue either an infraction or a misdeameanor pursuant to City Code Section
Section 2: Severability: If any Sections, Subsections, sentences,
1-28.010.
I c7auses or phrases of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be contrary to law such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each a section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be decl ared unl awful . 1 Section 3: . This project is exempt under CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) in that it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity regulated by this Ordinance may have a B significant effect on the environment.
Section : This Ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following @ , its adoption.
a IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this26.th day of April 1994.
AYES: (5) Mayor Knight; Councilmembers Berto, Casey, Pedgrift and Wright
NOES: (0) 1 ABSENT: (0)
I ABSTAINTO)
1. ATTEST: ,I I +PC& A, sistant City Clerk
1 **
1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
LI
. .. 0 e
,. ' Skateboard Park Sign:
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK
Rules for Use
Skateboard and skates only - no bicycles
Users are required to wear helmets, kneepads and elbow pads
suitable to. provide protection in the event of falls or collisions ;-- .a. R . n7 . c - 13 - 29. 0 77
- " .
.. - ....
Please observe park hours, keep noise to a minimum and
protect your 'skate park from graffiti and abuse. . This is your
park, please help to preserve it. +
WARNING
Skateboarding 'is a hazardous recreational activity. Use of this
facility may result in death, paralysis, brain damage, concussion,
broken bones or other serious injury. Any use is at your own risk
(California Government Code Section 83 1.7).
SkPaSign
I: 'li' .
1'
0 0
I
1
t
!
T
*a, .. m. . genda Item #
.. . ..
For Council Meeting of November 23, 1993
CITY OF SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL
TO : MAYOR AND CI.TY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SKATEBOARD FACILITY DESIGN AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SKATEBOARD FACILITY IN YOUTH COMMUNITY PARK TO COLLINS AND SONS OF SANTA ROSA AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND PARKS TO PROVIDE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION; INCLUDING PAYMENTS AND CHANGE ORDER AUTHORIZATIONS.
INITIATED BY: RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT ',
AGENDA ACTION: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SKATEBOARD FACILITY DESIGN AND ACCEPTING THE BID OF COLLINS AND SON, P. 0. BOX 2216, SANTA ROSA 95405 IN THE AFlOUNT OF $119,296.00 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SKATEBOARD FACILITY IN YOUTH COMMUNITY -PARK AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND PARKS TO
AUTHORIZATIONS. PROVIDE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION; INCLUDING PAYMENTS AND CHANGE ORDER . .
- ISSUE
~ ~-~ -
Should the City Council approve the design 'of the skateboard facility, and award a contract in the amount of $119,296.00 to Collins and Son, of Santa Rosa, to construct a skateboard facility in Youth Community Park, authorize a contingency fund of $11,930.00, and authorize the Director of Recreation and Parks to provide contract administration; including payments and change order . . authorizations . . .
BACKGROUND
..
.. ..
1. On July 7, 1992, Council authorized the commencement of a design process . for a skateboard facility in Youth Community Park. The tentative construction budget was set at $85,000, with a design budget of $20,000. The design process consisted of the contracting with a designer .(Ken .Wormhoudt, designer of skateboard facilities in Santa Cruz, Palo Alto,. and Napa), three design meetings with the skateboard community and design approval by the -Board of Community Servites. It was originally intended that the skateboard facility would be built as part of the construction of Youth Community Park, Phase 11. However, the identification of vernal pools in the Youth Phase I1 area has delayed the project, resulting in the skateboard facility being designed as a stand-along facility and 'necessitated the identification of about $40,000 from Youth Phase I1 funds to prepare grades and drainage for the skateboard faci 1.i ty . .,
2. The design consists of a 113 acre concrete area consisting of three bowls connected by runs, with the deepest bowl being three feet deep with a two foot raised edge. A surrounding ten foot.apron contains a
_. I
~~ ~
1:. . 'I' - 0 1' Skateboard Design Approval, &ontract Award Council Meeting of November 23, 1993 1'
1:. . 'I' - 0 1' Skateboard Design Approval, &ontract Award Council Meeting of November 23, 1993 1'
0
I
1
I
raised platform and curbs for street style skating. The area will be unsupervised, and open to the pub1 ic during hours of park Operation. . Temporary fencing will be installed to separate it from the undeveloped
section of the park. Once .Youth Community Park phase I1 is developed, the fence will be removed. Signage will be posted requiring the wearing
inherent dangers of skateboard activities. The design standards and intent are described by the architect in the attached letter, which has been approved by the City Engineer.
I . of helmets, kneepads and el bow pads , and warning participants about
3. A skateboard task force has been meeting for 'the. past year to. work on jssues of graffiti, fundraising, and operation. Working with art students and instructor Buzz Cleek of Comstock Junior High, a mural
concept has been developed to provide an a1 ternate to random graffiti. Under this concept, each bowl would have a design theme and individual artists would present designs for preapproval and develop the themes on the site. No scenes of drugs, weapons, nudity, unneccesary violence, and other inappropriate topics would be permitted.
m
1 . Fundraising has taken the form of .a raffle, solicitations, and special
events. A skateboard contest at the fairgrounds in May 1993 did not cover its costs and other fundraising has been only mildly successful. If Council awards the constru'ction contract, we expect that fundraising will be reinvigorated. Mural costs could come out of the fundraising revenues.
S
i ' We expect that an ongoing group of Friends of the Santa Rosa Skatepark will assist with operation, rule enforcement, and possibly training of Q young skaters.
1. This project was advertised for bids on October 11, 1993 and bids were received on October.27, 1993. A total of five bids were received ranging from $119,296.00 to 5197,810.00. The low bid is 30% below the m Engineer's estimate of $170,000. This lower figure reflects the current state of the economy and a v.ery conservative engineer's estimate based on 1 imi ted experience with this type of project. The project includes
both the skateboard facility, grading, drainage and tree work in Youth 6 Community Park, Phase I1 necessary to accommodate the skatepark.
5 Attorney. The contract agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City ,
ANALY S IS
Construction is scheduled to begin in December 1993. The length of the 1 ' contract is sixty working days. Winter weather could cause delays. ,
The Public Participation Plan has been approved by the City Manager's i Office.
1
1
. /e.-.. I
.,d*
0 0
I. 7 Skateboard Design Approval, Contract Award . .Council Meeting of November 23, 1993
The total project cost is $131.216.00 including Contingency. The skateboard Capital Improvement Project ($8417) has 475,394.00, leaving a deficit of 555,822.00. Of that deficit, approximately $30,000.00 is grading, drainage, and tree work, which is part of Youth Community Park, Phase 11, but necessary for the construction of the skateboard fati1 ity. Should Council award the contract for the skateboard facility
. construction, 62% of the basic contract would be charged to the skatepark project and 38% to Youth Community Park, Phase 11. Should contingency expenditures be necessary, they would be charged to Youth Community Park, Phase 11.
RECOMMENDATION
It is, recommended by the Recreation and Parks and Public Works Departments that "the City Council adopt a resolution approving the design of the skateboard facility for Youth Community Park, awarding construction contract
Park, to Collins and Sons, P. 0. Box 2216, Santa Rosa, 'CA, 95405, and authorize funds in the amount of 511,930 for construction contingencies, and
administration including;. payments and change order authorization. Funds for the project to come from Project Accounts 8417-Skateboard Park, and 5765-Youth
Community Park, Phase 11.
. f93-007, in the total amountLof $119,296.00, Skateboard Track-Youth Community
. authorize the Director of Recreation and Parks to provide contract
11.9b\skate.sr
. ..
' - .';'. r' I* /Y- e a
'* , Xen Wurmhsudt LanacapekcaitectaSu 1 827 Ca'liQaxzzia Street, Santa Cm, GB 9S060 428-8434
8 June 21, 1993
8 y-3 & "&
.&T 99 -f
..$$ 1
Rosallnt! Daniels . " C. I Dirsctor of Public Works CFty of Santa Eicsa "
69 Stony Circle -$ @ % I $anta Wsa, CA 95401 % I
I
Dear Ms Daniels: a)' ...
Attzched for YOU= use an8 z,gprovl are t3e completed plans and specifications far a skatsboard facility in Youth Community
Park in the City of Santa Rosa. Altkough tkeze art no I established engineering stansards which a??ly to the desisn or^ skateboare fzcilfties, in my opinion as a lieensat! la&scape
archzFtect and Lie designer of saveral previous skatebozrd facilities, the design is reasonable for the skateboarding puAqoses proposed for this facility. 1 The skataboad track will cave= 14,200 sqare feet of space -
at Lbe site, The material for tibe track will be a 5 in& thick cmcrete slab, with a smooth, troweled finish, reinforced with b No. 3 bars at 12 incfies on center, The slab will be poured
over 4 inches of compacted drain rack OV~= = sub-grade compacte
to 95%. The track will consist: of a series of intezconnected. ,l bowls surrounded by a level apron apprCXfmatSly 12 to 20 feet
wide, None o'f the bowls will be deqer than 3 feet and none
of t5e ridges. at the edges of the bowls will be higbez L?an
2 feet. No vertical drops will exceed 24 fnckes. None of the u slopes, from the apron to the bottom of the bowls, will exceed a 4 foot radius, or transition. Each of the 3 bowls will have
a deck drain cannetted to an underground drainage systea to remove. water from the track I
1 would consider the design of this facility to attract begfnni 4 through intemnediate skaters.
I have complied with these standards in Lhis 'design, and to
the best of my kaowledge and experience, they will create an . @ effective, safe and popular skateboard facility,
kk p
Cordially,
1( Ken Wornhoudt Landscape Architect ASLA
1
t -
I(, b. . ..I
8-Y -02 BID8
./ . skateboard Track
Youth Community Park
Five bids were received on a unit price
basis as follows:
0
COLLINS b SON
of S;LNTA ROSA
$119,296.00
JOHNSON mSTERN GUNITE CODUlY $135,000.00
Of S3LN L-RO * - " .
ALT3fA.N GENEXAL €XG. CONST. $139,587.00
of Yn3A CITY
. W R FORDE aSSOC $157,360.00 .
of .GREENBRAE
ACT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
of NAPA
ENGINEEXS ESTIXATE
$197,810.00
$170~000.00
It. is recommended that the award of
this contract be made to the .low bidder, ....
COLLIHS b SON Of 8B;wTA ROSA
for the Bid Price of $119,296.00.
' .. .. ....... ...... .... ..: ......... ;. ... .:. .. .=" . *. ..... - .>e. - _. .. r:. ......... -; . .- .. ... .. ....... ... .. .e _. -. .. -. .........-. .. -_.' -.."b ". ' .. ... ..... ..
, .._ . 5..
*. . .. .. ....... 1. *' . ..
.. .. ..
.- ...
.. ... .. . :, . . .%. ....... . . ::. ...... .. . .". .L.L. r :. .-"'L;; <."E,. -.. ...,I +y,2,7?y7:-v;. ... - ?%-:- +.&;&;: ". ':"..,. .
. -!. ,;:;:;. :j yL;-, . ::- ., . i: ;;*"-: .. :- , , , '
-.,_.., 2. . -. . "\-.".,. ... .."P ........... . ;-: ?. -. .. ~ .. ?: -:..: -,s." ...~ -. . - ... ?+:=.- . .: . e".- ... /;---...x .-..--'-. - .. ,_,-. .__i,,. .. ~ :-;--.--. ..;.. ::".-;." :- . . ,.,;,>,. ..f ..... :" : .:i:,-:., -.....:. : .. -;.$,<&, ). *-,, .... .". .... '.- ...
.... , .e.+::-;?:.;;., .-.". , ."-;..&,,-.:., , *
:;. ,y::.: i_ .-.-. . _. ;- ' - .
... .: - ::".:': >.*. ... ..... .. i .I-.._I. f -.- -...-- -. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .&
..... -. . ".- .- .. I - .~ -.,
' +;,;-.A+ :~=.~~-~,=.~~~~~~~~~~~-:;- :.:-: -.
.......... .-: " ..
.. " . .... . " ..
.-
.. ... ......... .- * .. ..
..
.. ...
.+ ?. ..' % 4 ..,,y ' - .. . -. ...
I- -:- .m rn -@ u) z 0
i
-I
0 0 - 0
5 I z D vi
o
2. 2. 0 2
I 3,eaz .-<--= ,,e: Cn-2;~ 5:;i gu k
an-- mau mo
-00 In= { ,ggs pizp. p:: 00, 2z Y
g a1
7 -0
D ZZG \ 0 4-
---a
Y no s
a
I ..)
I
cw -I- 00 23 %" ;$; gE ; %= ii 0 us c
x =I -.
::*
zc
n -4 nawm ma- 2r.g 2ia$:g4 I
I
-l
i!3! 3Q 1U-l no 7 <ag z 1! 1: n- R -0 ZB? c \ zz a "5 ann an 1-
"
ir a -noons;: Y k* a 31 18P80;u .- " . vo1a-l a a -l nm n 10
3 0
-
I
I
I
1
1
0
I
I
.I mtnmwmu ow7 5aa wrc I! !pmgE;ag;l 55: 8, 7tr?i i58, E ci Z$< YE- m
01- an u- a< zx 1
": f +E
laos-5; -3 4" 2 X $3: $;$;! l! Ez*
N
%- bg
\ -. [ "cv
3:s b El
om@>$
mo~mma ? z (D a- .e \
.-u -a E3 %i2 >a -* I* n E nm -
nn~u 7 - - %xa- m 2~2 2.07
vu aa
mH
c 0 U
n 3-0 Egg iLpg
pgJ
c 0,
0 2=c
s
r Y c
a Y rd
Hum my c 3 3 a cw w
9%
Z n
0 -I
f
- 1 D 2 0 " - - 2 - n z 5 3 E5i$ c
L
:Ea_ p
n n 2 ~n
" n 4 8 %5?! m
" -4
a 2 3 urn1
s ::2 zs 7
c.
II
I
I
I
a ;3. a&. -I* .I -1% z Iff i;= 50 7
un
n Y
= f z u
CHZ W" 0.- =. c 0- : i:
=2% cn
hi$
ma aa-l
?? .. 5
c)-. pa" 8; gi%$g -l-c -I2 !z$ " eRgg Si@ ta $E
nn lR-c-- h
6 *U
7" mul
LO 0-c urn
% * !
n 2. P 9 a. c
""0 "0 -tmm*m an 0, 3 -I a zpa %i:% "4- % ;!;hge, 0:s $$Q -m zz E.&
=;5$ ?'< ef;;:
:"g p 2% or^ i 33
-a %z$Z
i,-aa
PP f F?.
-0
p
- .. .-(n
3- on
U" mo
no 'Er
22 . m-9
%3 5"
P 5
Q?
g2
-n
mn
.* .In 2; *o on
-m 0" o 5-;
0 ?$
Zi x:: as
oon-hm FZ
-.< 3 m re2
SY-hDON
1 < E *OW :z3?F:?
4" .a.
J
X ?
0 < - @ S SK c 0 8 z
\m -5 s*
:
01 '*- PI W% P r:
D
car= 20 -0 x3 22
J
5; 2 N3 E a 1% >
oa c
ZF -
ii 0
E) 2 g 2 s ww< E?, E E55 0 ;X o n
* 0 z ; N
N * ;tr !$@ n- n -NI n
25 o 2Z$
3 Gi 25;
DU
on p2z4$q 3 t'Sw-- n =vnu E
342
2 1. 111 rn 0
a a $go::ap. =7r*.B_q no-:":" L. u c; f"
-7- .c : Ul
fam u)*
a- 2%:" 52fkez3 0 -< 1 -l 1 "I 5' PPlr" rl% 7 0 - rm
m L ZIW 5 re :+j ? za
- " .
= e 03- Ozp i a- Q 5 *
"-e
cw nn
-h
1 L
n
a a w-c sa .*
3
ji.
m gz "
re
p:3 nm jp'B
5 N 'I
-0 f n -m s-1 5 ij 99
ST5 -:2
4 Ul c.
3
\ 111
N 0
s p
!!.
::
o 0 n 5
CI n
T n -
is rt
1
0 i * t r,
" !ii I
2: a@ - ID-* "b - 0 3 "1 : pp
-1 4 c
a 3 "p
-n - 1 gFaEi EEZzgZi u-3n'*~~~Zi sj z%-<Z -9: 2: ;a E!:] i 7 qTq9 2: 9 1 *m o 3 n 9- m ZZ .n 8 yI 7
70- -oaza- c9pq "y;xi$."e:: om a-rs::; E. Ej2 fq- < 2 m n-IA
9 "gi \ = .(- B P=
c z ?Zj$
q;B
I
< 0
.) n-
o
:.3,-r
1 p. z;: - en
a.
1 ?jiH23. *% RQ E $ja f
"f :g
w5 mXm4 ezzg E n -
<I='* -I - gznz
2? $9 2 z:= ip1 g" z
I' .' a 0
I
8
I
1
I
I
II
8
I
11
I
8
I
I
8
I
1
8
City of Benicia Parks and Commuity Services Department
Willow Glen Skate Park
PACTSHEET
Description: The skatepark is located in a 2.5 acre neigborhoc
park. The park is bordered by two streets and a fast foc
restaurant. The skatepark consists of several smooth finir concrete structures on 2 ~~~9th asphalt finish base. The strucrurc are 3 I high.
" Size. The skate area is 75x150'.
Plannins Process: The planning'process started in January 198 The process involved the City Council, the Parks, Recreation, a:
Cemetery Commission, City staff and a core group of youth skater
Construction: The project was completed in July 1987.
, cost : The total cost was $24,500. The cost included closing
existing parking lot and resurfacing it with a smooth AC finis We used City crews to do the resurfacing work. The balance of t work, which included placement of the concrete structures, w contracted out. The City recieved a $lO,'OOO donation from a loc business. All of the design work was donated. The balance of t project was funded from an appropriation from the City's Pa Dedication Fund.
Staffins: The City does not assign staff to supervise the facility. The area is not fenced and is open to the public fr
9:OO a.m. to dark everyday. The facility is insured by ABAG. T City's deduct3.hl.p is $25, 559.
Restrictions: A sign is posted advising the public that th should wear protective gear. Bicycles and amplified equipment a
prohibited.
FVarlcsWikeWW
0 e
L zi x & 2
fJ<: Si y$
9 < 9 s a!
/u 0 0 ..
. .. . . . **
mu >r
1:'. ' REQUE~ FOR CITY COUNC~ ACTION QM 1
I
I
8
I
I
I
II
I
I
n
vi/ /
Date July 29, 1991
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Prepared by:
Subject: & Honorable Mayor and City Council
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator 1J1
Ron Hagan, Director, Community Service
SKATEBOARD AREAS AT EDISON AND MURDY COMMUNITY PP
Consistent with Council Policy? [ I yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments -
There is a need to appropriate Park Acquisition and Developme]
Funds to have the city's contract landscape architect prepare
topographic site survey, plans and specifications for construc tion of skateboard areas in Edison and Murdy Community Parks.
RECoMMENDATIoN
Approve an expenditure not to exceed $23,190 from the unappro, priated Park Acquisition and Development Fund balance for Pur:
Rose and Associates to prepare a topographic site survey and specifications for construction of unsupervised, low-intensit
"street-style" skateboard areas in Edison and Murdy, Community
Parks
ilmuxxs
Y-
1
I
II
1
I
On June 17, 1991, City Council approved conceptual plans for skateboard areas in parks throughout the city. Since that ti
staff has met with the skateboard committee and the landscape architect, and it has been determined that the best sites for skateboard plaza areas are Edison and Murdy Community Parks.
These two parks have the best access from surrounding streets
park areas. Both skateboard areas would have minimal impact the current facilities and activities in these parks and the sites chosen are as far from residential areas as possible. Also, from a design standpoint, the sites selected at Edison Murdy work the best for this initial phase.
The two areas which were being considered earlier, Worthy
problems and possible conflicting use issues. However, t.hey still potential sites, and may be included in a later phase.
Attached is a memo from the City Attorney regarding the risk
exposure/liability issue. It is Community Services' viewpoir
Community Park and Central Park, presented neighborhood impac
1
I., n r I"
e e
Request for- City Ccluncll Act ion Page 2
that these skateboard areas are similar in risk exposure to tot lots, ballfields, and other active recreation areas normally
found in community parks.
All design features will have no vertical drop over eighteen inches, thus eliminating the potential for falls from great heights. Our research indicates that most skateboard injuries
occur from doing tricks on half-pipes, ramps, and large jumps, none of which will be included in the proposed skateboard plazas. All concrete will be extra hard and color coated to resist van-
dalism and discoloration. Safety rules and regulations, complete
with ages and times, will be posted at each site. A safety bro-
chure will be produced for an extensive publicity campaign on the
proper use of the skateboard areas. No skateboarding will be allowed before 7:OO a.m., after 1O:OO p.m., or in wet weather. While there is recreation staff onsite during operational hours,
the actual skateboard plazas will be unsupervised and-free to the
public, as are tot lots-and other play areas in community parks.
It should be noted that the proposed skateboard areas are n skateboard parks and DO NOT have the half pipes, ramps, or large
jumps traditionally found in commercial skateboard parks. The
proposed areas are low, concrete structures containing a curb, wall and bench, such as one would find in a commercial, business district in which the city has now made it ‘illegal to skateboard.
By constructing these skateboard plazas in Edison and Murdy Com- munity Parks, the city is providing alternative places to skate- board in rather than commercial areas. This should significantly
reduce the conflict between shoppers and skate-boarders and make enforcement of the “no skateboarding in business districts”
ordinance easier if the police can refer skateboarders to a legal
skateboard area. However, if after a time these areas prove in-
effective or become a problem, the City Council can declare them
off limits to skateboarders and the areas will serve as pedes-
trian plazas and picnic facilities within the community parks.
v
Unappropriated Park Acquisition and Development Fund balance
IVE ACTIONS
Consider other sites for skateboard areas.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Designs for skateboard areas
Exhibit B - Location Maps
Exhibit C - Memo from City Attorney
Exhibit D - FIS
Exhibit E - Letter of support
RH:BF:cs
6-a- a-
I’ I
I
0 0
I
” \.”/
I
! NEW HARDSCAPE AREA
g SCALE: 1 /8” I 1’ - 0”
JULY 22, 1991 5“
EX
.*
8”
1
1
II
1
1
I
1.
K
I
a
I
1
I
E
1
1
I
1
m 0
/-”
”“
4
e
.i
0 3-GI
I 6; $5
e
I
p2 -10 gj
I
GOLDENWEST STREET /
-UT I
I 5;
%!2 2:
I
-% ;!
r 'I ( !
(
D r x
0 0' z 0
2. v, : c z! XI
0 .-I.
C cn
ID .. '. D
" D - cn- .. . g. '0. , ..
-. 2 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL z I - ' I I
3 zI
cn
F Y I
IING (’ -
F TIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-1 I 7
!JNTIE:oNOFBEACH
kNGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
USE OF PROPERTY MAP I
EDINGER AVE
(ZIRLIROClOOO
wmn’?%wKwXu
(Urn QUUIJH’
ROPOSED SITE FOR SKATEBOARD AREA
AT IWRDY COMMUNITY PARK EXHIBI
0 0 M CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINCTON BEACH
YO Honorable Peter Green, Mayor, From Gail Hutton and Members of the City Council City Attorney
Subject Public Liability for Date July 12, 1991 Skateboard Parks
BACKGROUND:
The City of Huntington Beach is considering the establishment of
skateboard facilities at various parks within the city. After checking with several insurance companies, none has been located as a source of commercial liability insurance for the city's'
operation of these facilities. The insurance companies indicated that the potential risk exposure is too great to insure .
We spoke with Wes Bannister about the insurance issue, and he felt that this is a risky venture, since (1) there is a high level of accidents, (2) injuries tend to be serious,
(3) accidents tendj to happen to Children, resulting in long term
payments.
QUESTION:
What is the extent of the city's liability for the operation of
skateboard parks?
ANSWER :
The city is-liable for any injury proximately caused by its maintenance of a dangerous condition which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred.
ANALYSIS:
Government tort liability in California is governed completely
by statute. Under Government Code section 815, public entities may be held liable only if a statute is found declaring them to be liable. One of these is the public entity's liability for a dangerous condition of its property. (Gov. Code § 835.)
Section 830, subdivision (a), defines a "dangerous condition" as
"(A) condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used."
Property is not "dangerous" if it is safe when used with due
care and risk of harm is created only when a foreseeable user
EXHIBIT C
I- '
I
I
I
ID
1
1.
,i '
I
1
I
f
'1,
S
I
R
1
I
t
0 0
Honorable Peter Green, Mayor
and Members of the City Council July 12, 1991 Page 2
fails to exercise due care. (Gray v. America West Airlines Inc. (1989) 256 Cal.Rptr. 877, 109 Cal.App.3d 76,) Therefo~
city must see to it that the skateboard facilities in quest:
are safe enough for foreseeable users who exercise due care
If property is deemed to be in a "dangerous condition," the]
city loses its governmental immunity and is held to the samc standard of care as a reasonable person.
This is not to say, however, that the public entity has the
to ensure the area against all possible danger since any
property can be dangerous if used in a sufficiently abnorma:
manner, (Fuller v. State of California (1975) 51 Cal,App,3c 926, 940, 125 Cal.Rptr. 586.)
CONCLUSION:
The skateboard facilities may constitute a dangerous condit' for which the city may be held liable for torts under Gov. ( S 835 if measures are not adopted to render them safe from
foreseeable users including children of tender age.
RECOMMENDATIONS IF THE CITY'DECIDES TO ESTABLISH SKATEBOARD
FACILITIES:
1. Adopt and implement rules for the safe use of the skateboard facilities such as the certification of
competent skateboarders, prohibition of alcohol or drul
the park, disallowing any skating when it's wet or rai,
regulating the day and hours for skating, prohibiting children under certain age from using the facilities, requiring that skateboarders wear safety gear, providi
warnings and requiring such other measures which can promote safety in the use of the facilities.
2. Secure the area from unauthorized usage by installing fence around the facility and the path leading to it i. order to deny children of tender age access to the
facilities. The park ranger on patrol should be assig to lock the facilities after skating hours.
3. Conduct further studies regarding reasonable safety standards for skateboard parks and adopt measures conforming therewith.
While these measures may help to reduce liability, they do insulate the city from liability. /fly/ -6 fi ail Hutton ' City Attorney f-
0 I .. e' '
I.
<"--, c.: ,.-$"c 3 b : 7, L
3- 'pulIabrlrflrrr U!l+
16400 SPRINGDALE STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92649
AREA CODE 714 . e46.33se
June 29, 1991
Councilman Earl Robitaille
City Council
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Councilman Robitaiile:
I am writing to express my support for the proposed skateboard facilities in Huntington Beach. Our
church grounds are frequented by skateboarders who tell me that they have no place where they can skate without running into objections. So they frequently skate in dangerou driveways and on school picnic tables where there is a high chance of injury.
I know that safety and liability are your concerns as well. If a safe environment can be established
expressly for this purpose, the citizens of our community and the skateboarders themselves will be much
better off. It is certainly worth a try. Count me in favor of establihing the skateboard facilities that
have been talked about at City Hall meetings.
Sincerely,
2000 Main Street
' Rev. /+b- Kerry Beaulieu
Pastor
KEVnc -
D r- i:: h /j b c 11 $ p [$ i-i $!! E R I .i _* t!Q II I ~
: !J, ;J
F-
CID 0; ~~>~~~~~~~~~~: z~,:,c+ ,c{y PC8. :,!"!:
Lb - . . _._ e:.;is5
EXHIBIT E
1
E
REQUE~ FOR CITY COUN~~ ACTIO^^:?: 'Q,
Date May 18,1992 , Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Submitted by:
L Prepared by: Louis Ron Hagan, F. Sandoval, Director Director Community of Public Services Works F"- PPROVED 6. BY CIT: /1
El 3
Subject:
SKATEBOARD FACILITY; CC-830
CI'
Consistent with Council Policy? [ kYes [ I New Policy or Exception ..
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachment
~~ ~ 1, STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Plans and Specifications for the construction of the Skateboard Facility in Mmdy Park $, ' complete.
RECOMMENDATION b 1. Approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize the Director of Public Works
8 2. Approve:.the attached Sample Contract, subject to award of Contract to COUI
solicit construction bids.
approved lowest responsible Bidder.
'il ANALYSIS:
On July 29, 1991, Council authorized staff to have plans and specifications prepared
the coxktruction of a Skateboard Facility in Murdy Park. ~~
6 The landscape architectural firm of Purkiss-Rose has completed the Plans Specifications for the Skateboard Facility in Murdy Park (see Location Map). This faci is located in the southwest section of the Park. The project includes approximately 1,
park light, modifications to the existing irrigation system, and landscaping. a' square feet of an oval shaped concrete ramped track for skateboarding, one additic
4 Staff of the Community Development Department has determined that the envirorrrne~ impact of this project is categorically exempt (see attached): therefore, the City proceed to construct improvements as shown on the Plans. 1' Furthermore, the passage of Measure "C" is not applicable to this project because structure is isolated and not part of an "integrated" facility, as per memo from ( Attorney dated January 11, 1991.
Therefore, the Directors of Community Services and Public Works recommend approva the Plans/Specifications, the sample construction Contract and, hereby request Cou
I)
# authorization to solicit bids for construction.
I
E
PI 0 5/85
a
Request for Council Action Skateboard Facility; CC-830
May 18, 1992
0
Page two
FUNDING SOURCE:
The Landscape Architect's estimate for the construction of these improvements is $47,450. The funding source is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project funds and is contingent upon Council approval of the entire allocation of fun& for FY 92/93. Once approved, . the funds will be transferred to Fiscal Account E-SK-CS-614-6-39-00 (Murdy Park Improv6ments).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Deny approval of Plans and Specifications and forego the construction of these improvements.
JTTACT~MENTS:
1. Sample City Funded Construction Contract
2. Project Location Maps
3. Categorical Exemption
4. Memo from Gail Hutton Regarding Measure C Issues.
MTU:LFS:RH:gd
3204g/15&16
1: %' REQUE # FOR CITY COUNC il ACTION
U Date '+ntemhP1- 8; 199;
1 Submitt* to:
The Honorable Mayor and.City Council
8 L:zb;y
1.: Subject:
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works
Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services
SKATEBOARD AREA IN MURDY COMMUNITY PARK, CC-8
@id
1 Consistent with Council Policy? [ 1 Yes [ 1 New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments
fl, STATEMENT OF ISSUE
3'
1c
1
&
4 'II.
I
j
T
f,
I
E'
Bids for the skateboard area in Murdy Community Park were received and opened
June 16,1992.
RECOMMENDATION
I. Approve- the low bid of $62,443 submitted by Construction Engineers; and
2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to expend $71,687.30 to cover
contract costs of $62,443, estimated GonstruGtion change orders of
$6,244.30, and anticipated incidental expenditures of $3,000.
ANALYSIS
On May 8, 1992, Council approved the plans and specifications for the construdior
a skateboard area in Murdy Community Park, and authorized the Director of Public
Works to solicit bids for construction. Bids, as summarized below, were received ai
opened on June 16, 1992:
Contractor Base Bid
0 Construction Engineers $62,443.00
0 Hondo Company 62,51500
0 J.D.C. General Engineering 87,688.00
0 Amtek 107,730.90
0 Gillespie Construction 74,180.50
0, n c I0C
0 0
Project Costs
Contract Costs $62,443.00
Construction Contingencies 6,244.30*
Incidentals, Le., soils testing, utility costs, etc. 3.000.00**
TOTAL $71,687.30
*Resolution No. 4896 authorizes the Director of Public Works to spend up to 10 percent of a contract
amount, not to exceed $50,000, for change orders. Staff recommends a budget equal to 10 percent of
the contract amount. Examples of possible change orders include such things as changes in field
conditions, unavailable materials, weather delays, errors in the plans, and changed city requirements.
**Miscellaneous soils testing, Edison electrical hook-up, water service, etc.
AB2487 has recently become law which limits.the liability of public agencies that
provide skateboard areas. Although the Huntington Beach design is completely
different than other skateboard parks in that there are no structures over ?8" in height
which limits the risk of injury substantially, the city will have immunity from claims under
AB2487 if it posts the appropriate signs in the area. Signage is included in the city's
project and staff has requested the City Attorney's Office to amend the municipal code
pursuant to AB2487.
Engineer's Estimate
The original cost estimate for this project, as reported to Council on April 20 1992,
totaled $46,450; however, this cost did not include subsequent plan changes that were
made during the design review process. The changes include a more expensive type
of concrete, area lighting replacement, asphalt concrete patchwork, a concrete bench,
and plant establishmenVpost installation maintenance periods. During the design
review process, the location of the skateboard area was moved within Murdy
Community Park from next to the tennis courts to an isolated area so that there would
be no noise impact on other park elements. This move necessitates grading a mound
and relocating park security lighting. However, it is necessary to make the skating area
compatible with other park uses.
FUNDING SOURCE
Sufficient Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are available for this
project in fiscal account E-ED-823-HM-6-39-00 because CDBG contingency funds
approved by Council in the 92/93 budget will cover the additional cost of the above
changes. The bids received were competitive and staff feels rebidding would not result
in a lower bid. If Council approves this project, t9e skateboard area should be
completed within 90 days.
I" I 0 e
E
I
1 'i. c
8,
L
t
D 8
@,
I.
I
Y
1
B
.1
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Deny award of contract to Construction Engineers, and select one of the other
bidders.
2. Rejed all bids and forego the construction of these improvements.
3. Redesign the project to reduce construction costs by moving the area to the e;
to avoid a large portion of required grading; however, this option would impact
other park uses.
ATTACHMENT
A82487
LFS/RH/cs
1
c -... " . . "., . _.. 0 e
I>I;sIGNATED SKATEBOARD
AREA
OPEN 7 AM TO 10 PM
Local skaters have been meeting with city staff to design
and provide you with neighborhood skateboarding areas.
If these areas cause problems, there could be major
restrictions placed on them or skateboarding could be
prohibited. Keep skateboarding alive and well in
Huntington Beach and obey the following rules:
No alcohol or drugs.
Put trash in the cans provided.
Graffiti is a no no, don't tag the area.
Don't skate on the curbs & driveways of the
surrounding area.
Don't try to skate when it's wet or raining.
Any person riding a skateboard in the facility must wear a
helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. Any person failing to
do so will be subject to citation. H.B.M.C. 13.48.125.
If you want to skate something as fun as this, then follow
the rules. If you don't, don't complain if the city shuts it
down and you lose your skateboard areas.
IT'S UP TO YOU!
"
1' REQUE~ FOR cm COUNC~ ACTION
# Date November 16, 1992 1 Submitted to:
Submitted by: 1 Prepared by:
5 Subject:
b7L
- - . "" " . r'P!<ol;kD !:y The Honorable Mayor and Cit COuncil
/A Michael Uberuaga, City Administrat - "_.
Ron Hagan, Director, Community Servicesr++e _.""
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTOB
BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING SECTION 13.48.125 THERETO PERTAINING TO SKATEBOARD s 1.
E
Consistent with Council PolicPCILITtf$ Yes [ 1 New Policy or Exception &=d #a
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
rd of om. #3/8/ /+yob
STATEMENT OF ISSUE /47/9 2 - ad -9 3,- d'F'
The Health and Safetv Code, Section 25906, mandates that operators of skateboard
parks require that any person using the facility wear a helmet, and elbow and knee 8' pads. The municipal code has been amended to allow public agencies to conform to
this regulation by passage of an ordinance. ' RECOMMENDATION
!i Adopt the attached Ordinance amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by
adding Section 13.48.125 thereto pertaining to wearing of safety equipment when usi I skateboard facilities.
..
.~ ANALYSIS
I.
11, The city will soon begin construction of a skateboard facility at Murdy Community Par
and is presently attempting to reach an agreement with the Huntington Beach Union
High School District for the inclusion of a skateboard facility as part of entryway I improvements at the Huntington Beach High School Stadium. The state Health and
Safety Code mandates that operators of skateboard parks require that any person
using the park wear a helmet and elbow and knee pads.
The municipal code has been amended to allow public agencies to conform to this
at the skateboard park of these requirements. The ordinance should provide better
protection for the city in the area of liability, by reducing the number of potential injuric
1 1 regulation by passage of an ordinance requiring the above, and by the posting of noti
1 occurring from the use of skateboard areas.
I FUNDING SOURCE
1, Not applicable
ntn rmc
0 0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION November 16,199 Page tw
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Do not require safety equipment to be worn when using skateboard facilities.
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance
BF:cs
1"
Y
P
c
I
I
I
t
II
P
1,
E I
f
1
b
t
2
t
0 e
SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT
*SKATEBOARDING*
Q: IS SKATEBOARDING A FAD?
A: No. Skateboarding was first practiced back in the late 195O's, and since that time
developed into it's current standing as the United State's 6th Laraest Participant !
Skateboarding competitions in the United States are sanctioned by established I
and State Associations.
Q: WHO SKATES?
A: It is estimated that the United States has over ten million skateboarders: 75.2% r~
24.8% female, with an average age of 13.8 years.
Q: IS SKATEBOARDING TOO DANGEROUS? A: No. Technological developments in safety equipment and skateboard design hav
greatly reduced the number and severity of skateboard injuries. In 1988, the U.S
Consumer Product Safely Commission (CPSC) ranked sports and recreation equ
on a Mean Severity index which ranged from 10 to 2,516 (1 0 being-the least seve
Skateboarding was given a score of 34, compared to 70 for bicycles, and 335 for
swimming pools. According to a 1986 CPSC report, irregular riding surfaces am1
over half the skateboarding injuries. Skateparks with smooth riding surfaces exhil true safety of the sport.
Q; WHY SHOULD CITIES AND ADULTS SUPPORT SKATEBOARDING?
A: When adults offer support to young skateboarders and the sport, they are showins
they care about skateboarders lives, needs and interests. This in turn encourager
skateboarders to become more responsible and less deviant toward authority. W adutts do not give support to our youth, the opposite occurs, which only further irnl
the bright future of this society. And it is for this reason that many cities have alrea
installed, or are currently considering installing, low intensity skateboarding areas
Q: ARE CITY TAX PAYERS GOING TO PAY FOR SKATEBOARD AREAS IN OUR PA
A: No, like all other public park facilities in Huntington Beach (baseball, basketball, tc
courts, swing and slide areas, etc ...), the money comes from a park improvement f
that is comprised of Developer Fees and State Grants. The money will not come '
the General Tax Fund.
SKATERS, PARENTS, MERCHANTS, ADULTS, PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPOF
OUR YOUTHS! CALL OR WRITE:
Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services Parks-n-Recreations Dept.
2000 Main St., Huntington Beach, CA 92648
71 4-536-5292
H. B. Skateboarding Task Force
Alec Schroeder 71 4-892-4004 Marie Davis 77 4-373-0353 Chris Brokate 71 4-960-8506
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 29th. 7:OO p.m. CITY HALL
&ATEBOARD ASSOCIAT~~ tyb
Colorado Skateboard Assoc. (C.S.A.)
Paige Marshall
P.O. Box 4688
Breckenridge, CO
Fia Amateur Skateboard League (F.A.S.L.)
Linda Miller
P.O. Box 358
Sanibel Island, FL 33957
Heart of America Sktbd League (H.A.S.L.)
Dave & Becky Selders
7120 West 79th Street
Overland Park, KS 66204
Maui Skateboard Association
Martha Ferris
Wailuku, Maui Hawaii 96793
New England Amateur Sktbd League (N.E.A.S.L)
Trish Sherman
2900 Hertbertsville Road
Pt. Pleasant, New Jersey 08742
P.O. Box 2086
Nor-Cal Amateur Skateboard
Assoc.(N.C.A.S.A.)
Bill 8 Terry Baker
2760 Silver Fox Circle
Fairfield, CA 94585
Oregon Amateur Skateboard League (O.A.S.L.)
Peter & Heather Beach
6780 S.W. 205 Court
Beaverton, OR 97007
Texas Amateur Skateboard League (T.A.S.L.)
Tom 8 Donna Thornhill
9007 Bridgewood Trail
Austin, TX 78701 -
Washington State Skateboard Assoc. (W.S.S.A. Linda Fisher
Box 1362
Battle Ground, WA 98604
t
0 D -@
BWTEBBABD GONErnB Erin7 BF WrnNrnBN BEAEH E E22
NoscAL€ ~
The proposed drawings are for low intensity skateboarding and will be located
in remote areas of the parks, offset from pedestrian areas.
t:
I a
I
0
1
P
.#-
I
t
I 4
1
I
I
8
II
I
U
-a"3z&
c, NB== =Q)m 3 2 a= v) & a E aLQ) aiC&:,u
c'd 0 - a
Q 3 (nss (n
Q) 8% 3-
b@"Z
E OS ceasg
9ug; ZQ)SZ$
g 3&a$
1 !i!x 3pAa 0
e& Q
2 a 08aiuo 1: av)a 4;
Q, C 0
C x
a
5
&
t: a d
acr) Es $3
Q) g5
ZF Q .- uu *- Q 0, 0
Q-s
0 $1
34 d
5;s
"SO !bg
+a 0 .e,
E 3:e $1 43
2%9 cnb v)
&*
fi k r! E t &
3 0 ).
L. Q) c( c( 2
a C Q
J! iz
N 8
$3 g as .t!
as
9 Z8 qs 02d -v)
*bS,X~QUQ&O 4 uz xu "4
Q) 2 (n2c""",@ as 4a O3aQ'
L $ cu a "- co 2 cc a a3 052% cu-z Q c 8 3s
LOC Q)o& 0
"~g;-Gy-qsx
8 8.45 0 cb x ogqs
Ho h h$SS a mat M3 Q) 90 L.
6- ss&ps42a a=o Q $",.,A
42- v)
7 $33 @.%Q ua & cd ad*O 3.g~
c-aor. a-q)
=Jay csu-eoo
4
20 O %L kas g-pa v, 5; g&4hq Q)uv)ai u osg
h 6 a 7 Q) & a* 8% 30 uLJu)aa(na 9zq
2?%j%jF%S2ZbInB4
Ob*%$Z"$bb .-. v)
Q) s1.u a a x!=_, C 7 d 3a42 .-US ma saua"Q0 !I & L& k 8 7s-
Obap a& a
d "E h z:%g!! a Mp- a0 Y)z$=o) a9
p gz 8.2 "a&M =l dg4 g&lsgu p El 2s 0 SI,,, 2 An.
bl as h8s Q) 8 k +*-z G c, E .-I ggsgp 'oaQa3
%WQ~~~ao 3ag-z
c5 Lo Fl.y h2Q) zp
c(
Ed c 2 fie
33v)u
aoJ=ao.
uu
-wr&cCrJ""saE a2424 3 C c L
S"' Ef!d)gpd)
w3s gu Q)C
0 a 53- g; 3&"2 3 z* x323 sg$ xa x
nu.%% 5 5dt: :-w> 4 -E$d 2ZLk gms22 25
2 =1zt-. CJ zz crJooz-g ;Gb
24 xaO mphn fn ikJde;gg m-
mwQ,m aG Ga5!%2dd
auc 'd
c ocucc Mu) C
nOcm
gg @LJ 5a-g
8s G 2;s
.z + 2
p3: F G .E
3 zrn Q, 2 d z-z
cr 0 20 g .- a %
Q) "W a zm,
t. ad% I=Q)
.5(/,Qcp
Ad - -4
0 L.- 3
" - L E 3: c3 2 5l 0 ).
td
b)k sg
m
2% .3 5
La
0 UC 0
L.u C @
21
c .H Q,
'co D
Q) 3u z:
Ca)k3
t;ps 0 h3- %bCv) u 3; 45 p 25 ao, aj Q,u how -
03 4
CJ QE-5 L a EZkc-
cb a2 g 2.3 P) L_c >- k5 g2
o>o
Qs%Z a"P
2bgsc L a.- 0 0)
x L --
-ala - 6t.U
a Mu*
uQ)= 55 S'
3.5 Q &S"; -2 E.& 3 a3
ca a- 8 3 2 a, 4 .* v)
e; E g)
d
c a, .- 0 a* m.2 0 -5 v) = um mQ,Q, ALL. V)aa
0 a - 3: C 7 -I
7 n
z
I
3
T W
n J:
SWTEBOAR
IS N ClTAC Fe-
%-x q
.- - TsT&T .*
~“-----~~~
R
“-.cr - ” .. -
IM E
111 IF YOU follow the HOBo City Qrdinance.
f;? P 0
s
I
I
I
111
I
I
1
I
,B
I
I
1 s
I
8
1
I
RCA: CC-886 March 2 1 , 1994
Page two
Contractor Base Bid Deductive Alternates Total Bid
9. Tehachapi Landscape $208,454.50 $13,680.00 $194,774.50
10. BoPark Enterprises 217,967.70 21,736.70 196,231.00
11. E A Mendoza 234,930.70 27,760.00 207,170.70
12. Excel Paving 294,216.11 26,039.66 268,176.45
Staff and the Huntington Beach High School District met to determine which Deductive Alternates be eliminated from this project. Due to budge restraints, the Alternate iten which were agreed to be removed, are the ticket booths,t ri, e Polyester coated chain link fence/&rolling gates. Tubular steel fencing, which was included in the Base Bid, was preferred to the chain link fence, and the tick booths will be completed at a later date under a separate contract. $-
FUNDING SOURCE
LA4 md,y&--
Contract Amount $162,872.30 *Project Change Orders 16,287.23 **Project Supplementals 5.840.47 TOTAL $185,000.00
* Standard 10% administrative Change Order limit (not to exceed $50,000) per City Council Resolution Number 4896. Examples of possible Change Orders include chan
requirements.
in field conditions, unavailable materials, errors in the Plans, and changed City
'>* Examples of Supplementals include soil testing, City sexvices, etc.
The Architect's estimate is $156,425.57 for the same portion of work. $185,000 is avail: in Fiscal Account No. E-SK-CS-719-6-39-00 (Huntington Beach High School Stadium Er and Skateboard Area Improvements). The Huntington Beach Union High School District z the City will share the cost. The City's contribution is $125,000, with the District contributing $60,000.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Deny award of contract to Civil Works Corp. and select one of the other bidders.
2. Reject all bids and forego the construction of these improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
1ATU:LFS:RMH:gd
3509g/23&24
REQAT FOR CITY COUNCIL %TION
Submitted to: HonorabIe Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Date: .June 6.
Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services
Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works
Subject: Huntington Beach High School Stadium Entry &
Skateboard Facility; CC-886
Consistent with Council Policy? LXl Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
i I Statemeat of Issue, Recammended Action, Analysis, Environmental Status, Funding Source, Atexnative Action, Attach&:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Bids for the Huntington Beach High School Stadium Entry and Skateboard Facility were received and opene
April 5, 1994.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve the low bid submitted by Hondo Company; and
2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to expend $21 5,003.86 to cover contract costs of $192,731
anticipated construction Change Orders of $19,273.08, and supplemental expenditures of $3,000.00.
rnALYSIS:
On January 18, 1994, Council approved the plans and specifications for the constmction of the Stadium Entq
Skateboard Facility at the Huntington Beach High School and authorized the Director of Public Works to SI
bids for construction Bids were received and opened on February 15, 1994, however, on March 2 1, 1994 Co
rejected all bids and approved a redesign and re-bid of the project. On April 5, 1994 bids again were received
opened. They are as summarized below:
Contractor Base Bid Additive Alternate Total Bid
1. Hondo Company $ 192,730.78 $ 6,336.00 $ 199,066.78
2. Bo Park Enterprises $ 193,024.78 $ 6,336.00 $ 199,360.78
3. United Builders $ 193,346.90 $ 7,603.20 $222,850.30
4. Civil Works $ 197,506.30 $25,344.00 $222,850.30
5. Crlllespie Construction $ 198,995.35 $ 6,969.60 $205,964.95
6. Damon Construction $256,984.05 S 6,969.60 $263,953.65
The only additive alternate included in this project was for the installation of sod in place of hydroseeding.
I:
I
€&HS Skateboard; CC-886
June 6,1994
Page 2
0 0
Staffhas met with the School District and the Architect to review the bids and to determine the reasons t 8 has ~n~u~y been bid higher than the estimate. The final determination is as stated in the attached 1
purfr;ss Rose, MI, the Architect, which states that the cost overruns is due to the inadequacy of the ir
provided by the School District regarding as-built. Specifically, the electrical service and related demc I consistently, across all bidders, approximately $20,000 over the estimate. This indicates that the bidders
cautious in their bidding of the unknown. In addition, when the project was re-bid, the ticket booths were
from the project, unfortunately, this did not help in reducing the base bid to within a the estimated amoull @ therefore recommending that additional bds be encumbered to complete the entire project including
booths. 8 Based upon an award of a contract to Hondo Company, the cost of the project would be as follows:
1
t
Contract Amount $192,730.78
*Project Change Orders $ 19,273.08
**Project Supplementals $ 3.000.00
TOTAL $215,003.86
I * Standard 10% administrative Change Order limit (not to exceed $50,000) per City Council R
Number 4896. Examples of possible Change Orders include changes in field conditions, UT
materials, errors in the Plans, and chan~ed City requirements. 1 * * Examples of Supplementals include soil testing, City services, etc.
J FUNDING SOURCE:
$145,000 is available in Fiscal Account No. E-SK-CS-719-6-39-00 (Huntington Beach High School Stadit
and Skateboard Area Improvements). The Huntington Beach Union High Schooi District and the City 6. 4 the cost. The City's contribution is $145,000, with the District contributing $70,000. The School Disr
provide its share of the hnding afier the contract is awarded, but before construction commences. 1 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
& 1. Deny award of contract to Hondo Company and select one of the other bidders.
It 2. Reject all bids and forego the construction of these improvements.
ATTACHMENTS: 8 1. Letter from Purkiss Rose dated May 3,1993 I MTU:RH:LFS:rh
I
t
0 e pwkiss*vose -qi pub\ic b Works CEIVED Special Pro~ects
May 3, 1994
.. .. MAY 0 ("5 1994
HUNTINGT00 BEACH, CA
,.
Randy Huttenberger
Public Works Departmenp:'.
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Huntkgton Beach, CA 92648
(!:",.' ....,. ii
Subject: Huntington Beach High School Stadium Entry & Skateboard Facility
Dear Randy:
I am disgppointed that the results of the reyb:d for the High School Entry andskateboard
Facility did not bring the cost within budget. I have had the opportunity to review the bid
breakdown of the six bidders to analyze the difference between our construction cost
estimate and their submitted bids.
During the bidding phase we got numerous questions about the adequacy of the electrical
source for the new lighting and locations of any existing underground utilities and drainage
devices within the demolition areas. The existing improvements in this area are very old
and there are no "as-built;l,drawings" to clearly indicate lqcations of existing unknown
improvements. The bids 'for these two items, electrical work and demolition, came in
$20,000 over our estimate. Our plans indicate an electric source given to us by the school
district, however the contractors anticipate extra work to upgrade that source and
underground the existing electrical utilities. Our cost estimate for the demolition is based
on average cost per square foot, however the bidders anticipate additional work, patch and
repair, due to the lack of "as-buiIt drawing".
As per our conversation, review of the project and bids, the $20,000 seems a reasonable
rather than construct the project in phases or eliminate any of the improvements. This
recommendation takes into account the security, maintenance and important timeline issues.
I was very pleased with the enthusiasm displayed by Superintendent David Hagen, Assistant
Superintendent Patricia Reid Koch and Principal Jim Staunton. Not only will this project
clean up the area, provide better access to the stadium, build the City's second skateboard
facility, allow additional opportunity for the City to utilize the stadium facility for special
events, but also emphasize the win-win relationship between rile Huntington Beach Union
High School District and the City's Community Services Department.
cost. It is; our recommendation to seek the additional increase in the construction budget
Landscape Archttrc!dre 'ecreasor. and Park Pianzmg
';$ !<>.;I. +::+)2! ~>.:v",,.~
ra!ly:,y :::,!:g!rl:$ c;: ::
I. I. . .. T, ..<2 - . -,. ,
-.. .. - -, , : 'i
I :- 0 0 rH CITY OF HUNTINGTON EEAC
2000 MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 190 CALlFORNlA 9:
.. - . _- .. ... .. 4 October 4,1994' Public Works Departr (71 4) 536-5
Mr. Bob Lloyd
2121 South Lyon Street
I Hondo Company I Santa Ana, Ca. 92705
I Subject:HBHS Stadium Entry and Skateboard Area; CC-886
Plant Establishment Period
1 Dear Bob:
" Pursuant to the field meeting on Thursday, September 29,1994, the City of Huntington Beach hereby accepts 1
. construction improvements and places the project on the 30-day plant establishment period as of Tuesday, Sepl # 27,1994. Please contact this office at the end of the 30 days to schedule a field review and to be placed on the
4 Below is a list of items that were covered at the above meeting and which need to be addressed prior to the new
4 1. Re-fence the landscape areas so to allow for access to the plaza and skateboard seas.
maintenance period.
review:
2. Paint letters on concrete sign.
3 ~ Install pole lights in plaza area when delivered. B 4. Wipe downlclean digs.
5. Finish sawcut score lines in skateboard area.
6. Install remaining railings in skateboard area. 6 7. Install caps on fence railings.
8. Patch concrete chips in flatwork in skateboard area.
9. Removddispose steel plate over concrete drain box in landscape area. I - If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 536-5242.
i Sincerely, Be *- -
i Sincerely, Be *- -
1 1 Randy Huttenberser
Project Manager
I
1
cc: - Ed Baker, HB High School District
Bill Fowler, Superintendent, RecreationiHuman Services J
Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer
Jack Miller, Construction.Manager
Chuck Davis, Landscape Architect
Ken Bd, Sr. Public Works Inspector
File CC-886 "Misc. CorresD" 8. -
" - " .
0 0
We are pleased to be a part of this very interesting project and if you have any questions
regarding our review or recommendations, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincere
Landscape Stephan s,, D. Architect
[xanta I Rosa Sk;!epar 11 Grand 1
Openin6 d
I 1
i II
Saturda I June 18,1994 Ya:60 am
Vouth Cornmunit Park Fulton Roa I
(Across ftom Piner High)
* Opening Ceremony * Professional Demonstrations
* Music - Mason lane and Clee * Food * Skatepark Mural Contest
and Mural Auction * Skate ark Benefit Raffle * Open 5 kating**
Real Team, Think Team & Santa Crur Skate Team
Note: Please park in Piner High School parking lots. ff **Ska+ing requires helmets, kneepads and elbaur pads.
For information call the - Recreation t& Parks Department, 543-3292 or 543
It^ r
s
I
I
I
1
..
I
I!
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
1
@,
1
t
0 0
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION PAGE !
FUNDING SOURCE
Park Acquisition and Development Fund
Account #E-SK-CS-340-3-90-00
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Do not move forward with proposed joint project.
2. Scale back joint project at direction of City Council.
BTIIIICHMENFS
Purkiss-Rose quotation for services. Map of area
RH: BF: am
REQUEQ) FOR CITY COUNC@ ACTION
March 21, 1994 Date
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
qubmitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ‘..
Prepared by: Ronald Hagan, Director of Community Services
Subject:
\
.. - ” - - -.
Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works
HUNTINGTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM ENTRY AND SKATEBOARD FACILITY; CC-886
Consistent with Council Policy? KI Yes [ I New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: -
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~
Bids for the Huntington Beach High School Stadium Entry and Skateboard Facility were received and opened on February 15,1994.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve the low bid submitted by Civil Works Corporation; and
2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to expend $185,000 to cover contract costs of $162,872.30, anticipated construction Change Orders of $16,287.23, and supplemental expenditures of $5,840.47.
ANALYSIS:
On January 18, 1994, Council approved the plans and specifications for the construction of the Huntington Beach High School Entry and Skateboard Facility and authorized the Director of Public Works to solicit bids for construction. Bids, as summarized below, were received
and opened on February 15, 1994:
Contractor Base Bid Deductive Alternates Total Bid
1. Civil Works Corp. $219,810.30 $56,938.00 $162,872.30
2. Metro Builders 218,774.19 50,918.00 167,856.19
3. United Builders 221,558.70 45,975.20 175,583.50
4. Gillespie Construction 212,649.74 35,507.24 177,142.50
5. Hondo 239,547.08 60,732.42 178,814.66
6. Plaza Landscape 229,373.75 49,790.00 179,583.75
7. Wakeham-Baker 221,662.40 40,912-00 180,750.40
8. Clayton Engineering 226,412.34 41,038.00 185,374.34
1’. : REQUEST~OR CITY COUNCIL~TION
! October 4, 1993 Date
tmitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
&pared by: &uis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services
CONSTRUCTION OF SKATEBOARD FACILITY AT MURDY PARK, CC-830 Ibject: kr
f nsistent with Council Policy? 14 Yes f ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
t Construction Engineers has completed the construction of the Murdy Park Skateboa] Facility. 1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Accept the construction improvements of the Skateboard Facility at Murdy Park I authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. I ANALYSIS:
On September 8, 1992, Council awarded a contract to Construction Engineers for tl construction of the Murdy Park Skateboard Facility. The construction included a concre 1 skating facility, a park light, and landscaping around the facility. The construction of the! improvements are complete, per the approved Plans and Specifications; therefore, tl Director of Public Works recommends that the City Clerk be authorized to file the Notice t 1, Completion.
8
I
8
The cost of the project is summarized below:
Council Atmroved Actual Emenditure
Contract Amount $62,443.00 $61,991.00 (1) 1 Construction Change Orders 6,244.30 1,805.00 (2) Incidentals 3.000.00 7.274.00 (3) Total: $71,687.30 $71,070.40
(1) Final construction costs were less than budgeted because the Contractor did D successfully complete the maintenance portion of the contract and therefore, $1,5
was withheld from the final payment. However, actual quantities for fine grading a] 8 sod were greater than estimated.
(2) Construction Change Orders included additional temporary fencing and tl
removal/replacement of concrete.
1
Q
0 RCA: CC-830 0
October 4, 1992
Page two
(3) Incidental expenditures included the application of a concrete waterproofing agent, and the addition of a concrete coating along all edges to prevent chipping, cracking, etc., due to extensive use by skateboarders. Note, although the cost of incidentals exceeded our approved budget, the overage was offset by a less than anticipated Change Order
expenditure.
FUNDING SOURCE
Staff budgeted $71,687.30 for this project in Fiscal Account No. E-HM-ED-823-6-39-00.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None
. ATTACHMENTS:
None
MTU: LFS: RH:gd
34418/11&12
1: 4 * s Date
I a
" .-"-
REQUEgC FOR CITY COUNcl() ACTION
c'
September 8,- 1s
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrat &fi I Submitted to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services dY
Subject: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION €UGH SCHOOL DISTRICT/ CITY JOINT PROJECT APPROVED BY (
5yA
Consistent with Council Policy? [: 1 Yes i: 1 New Policy or Exception e p Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative A-
I
ii
Y
8
.I
fl
I
1
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
There have been preliminary negotiations with Huntington -Beac
High School District staff concerning a joint project, which
includes a new entryway into the Huntington Beach High School stadium, and establishment of a bicycle parking area and
community skateboard area. There is a need to have the city' contract landscape architect prepare design and construction documents in order to enter into formal negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve in concept a joint project with the Huntington Be
2. Approve an expenditure of $13,200 from the Park Acquisitil
Union High School District;
and Development Fund for Purkiss-Rose and Associates to
prepare design/construction documents for the Huntington
Beach Union High School District/City Joint Project; and
3. Direct Community Services staff to negotiate an agreement
with Huntington Beach Union High School District for the proposed joint project and then come back to City Council approval.
ANALYSIS "
I
f
It
Recently, Community Services Staff had a number of meetings w. Gary Burgner, Assistant Superintendent Business Services for
Huntington Beach Union High School District; Jim Staunton,
Huntington Beach Union High School Principal; and Steve Rose ( Purkiss-Rose and Associates to work on a project that would provide for a new, upgraded entryway into the high school stac
along with the establishment of a bicycle parking area and
community skateboard area.
U
t Pi 0 5/85
e m
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION PAGE- TWO
The proposed joint project between the district and the city would resolve three problems: Provide for a new entryway area
that would address landscaping, ticket booths, security lighting and bicycle parking areas; provide an alternative skateboard site
that would serve high school students and the community; and,
events free of charge. At its May 13 meeting, the Community
allow the city to use the high school stadium for community
' Services Commission approved the concept as presented.
The city is currently in the process of installing a skateboard
area at Murdy Community park and, pending City Council approval,
construction should begin this fall. In the near future, a
similar site will be selected at Edison Community park. The
skateboard facility planned for part of the entryway area at
Huntington Beach High School would be very similar in design,
with the infrastructure under 18" in height, keeping the
liabiblity exposure at a minimum. The high school district has a
tremendous problem with maintaining its facilities due to the
destruction caused by skateboard activity on campus. The
district is anxious to find an alternative place for its students to practice their sport. It is extremely difficult to carry out
an enforcement program without providing an alternative area to
skate.
City staff proposes that the district lease an area to the city on which a skateboard facility would be built by the city. The city would assume all liability and hold the district harmless for that area. In exchange for the no-cost lease, the city would participate financially with the district in the development of the remaining entryway improvements to the high school stadium.
The cost estimate to do the improvements is approximately
$140,000. Approximately $60,000 of that amount is for the
skateboard area which the city would build with State Park Bond Act funds. The remaining $80,000 for the entryway improvements
would be spread between the district and the city, making each
agency's share $40,000. The project, if approved, is estimated to begin construction in the spring of 1993 and be completed by
the start of school in September, 1993. This project has the makings of a win-win-win situation for the high school district,
participate in the sport of skateboarding.
the city and the children and teens of this community who
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
, 0 /w-&zzJ% u e '%4/ ""e
SKATE PARK HUPiTPlNGT BEACl -
~~ -
PU%j@l!t ~@SC~'8jphiO~!
The City of Huntington Beach, in response to
the demand by skateboarders to provide
skateboard facilities, after the banning of
skateboards downtown hired hrluss Rose-RSI
to review a series of potential sites that could
accommodate skateboard areas. A result of
that study was the development of the Cities
first skateboard area at Murdy Park. The
design team worked with a group of volunteers
who included riders, professionals, editors of
a skateboard. magazine and parents. A final
design layout was present to the Council for
approval. With strong support from the
community and the Community Services
Department the project was approved.
The design includes a street scene wL
curbs, benches, and small ramps. IF]
facility is heavily used and has prow
to be very successful and a positil
alternative to streetside congestion ar
conflicts.
~ ~~-
I
BJ, =
EXUNTmGTON BEACH
MURDY PARK
Purkiss Rose-WSd
I.
I
II.
I
1
t.
1
1
i
E.
c
I
lli
I
1
I
i
1
I
0 e
MUIVTIPINGTON BEACI
I "" ~~ ~____
PH.Q&XE DeSCkipBiOn:
The City of Huntington Beach in concert with
the Huntington Beach Unified High School
District staff and students worked together to
make a dream come true. The site, which is
the main entry to the football stadium at
Huntington Beach High School is utilizes by
the City for special events. City representatives
wanted to expand programs at the stadium.
The school, trying to reduce damage to
property on campus and address safety issues,
banned skateboard use on campus. In a win-
win effort the City and District both
contributed to the cost of the improvements;
The rejuvenated main entry and the skateboard
area provided for both the high school students
I I i 1 as well as community use. fie des:
d
team worked with students a
skateboarders in the development
the design layout. The skateboard a
includes a streetscene look with cur
benches, small ramps and rails. 2
overall layout has proven to be a gr
success.
€€UNTI.NGTBN BEACl
HIGH SCHOCI
Purkiss Rose-R
u’. > 4 e 0
I’ mkB CITY OF HUNTINGTON EEAC
2000 MAIN STREET P, 0, BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9:
I October 4, 1994
Public Works Departr;
(71 4) 536-5
I Mr. Bob Lloyd
Hondo Company 4 2121 south Lyon Street
Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 I Subject: HBHS Stadium Entry and Skateboard Area; CC-886
I Acceptance of Skateboard Area
Dear Bob: ’ Pursuant to the request of the City, the High School District, and pressure from the skateboarding pu
City of Huntington Beach hereby accepts the improvements of the skateboard area as of our field me1 I Thursday, September 29, 1994. This is prior to the hal acceptance of the project and is exclusive oj
portions of work that remain, including the plant establishment and maintenance periods and any pun
items, as noted by the field reviews.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (7 14) 536-5242. 1
8 Sincerely, /
lSZ3&0 1 1 Randy Huttenberger &7-
Project Manager
I
II
I
1
I
cc: Ed Baker, HJ3 High School District
Ron Hagen, Director of Community Services
Bill Fowler, Superintendent, RecreatiodHuman Services /
Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer
Jack Mller, Construction Manager
Don Noble, Maintenance Operations Manager
Chuck Davis, Landscape Architect
Ken Bazal, Sr. Public Works Inspector
File CC-8S6 “Misc. Corresp”
- Daryl Smith, Superintendent, P&k, Tree, and Landscape
1. ”
”
.. . ”
..
8'' : REQUESeFOR CITY COUNCmA.CT1BN
1 "_ ,... 7
Date April 15, 19b1
c.
lSubmitted tg: Honorable Mayor and City Council ._ .
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Ron Lowenberg, Chief of Police
CITY CODE 10.20 REGULATING SKATEBOARD USE WITHIN
HUNTINGTON BEACH
<t;;TI-=T-e;. Submitted by: . .-. -..- - uprepar* by:
I
., .
- .. - .. .I "..-
crcJ
.. -
Subject:
Consistent with Council Policy? Z 1 Yes [ 1 New Policy or Exception &zd# -4
Statement of issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
I
1
I
I
II
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
i
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Amending City Ordinance Code 10.20 relating
the use of skateboards.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Ordinance. No.3099 and the1
amending Ordinance Code 10.20 which regulates the use of skateboe
and other similar types of equipment.
ANALYSIS: The Police Department continues to receive complaints f
business owners and school officials in the community describ
hazards to customers and property damage committed by skateboarders
The existing code relating to the use of skateboards requires identified victim in order for the officer to cite the violator. T
requirement makes enforcement extremely difficult. The recommen
revised ordinance eliminates the identified victim requirement
business districts anywhere in the city. Business districts described using an extrapolation from the California Vehicle Code
support the definition.
A citation could be issued in other parts of the city only wher
skateboarder has used a skateboard in a manner which is a Ruisance
defined by the code revision. In all locations, enforcement would
discretionary by the officer, as are all other municipal c
sections.
In addition, the revision provides a means for the City Council
designate areas for skateboard use as they deem necessary.
PAGE 2 0 0
CODE AMENDMENT 10 e 2 0
Community Services staff has made contact with several of thc
skateboard manufacturers and shops located in Huntington Beach as wel:
as with individual skateboarders. A meeting has been scheduled tc
review possible 1ocati.ons for skateboarding. The local shop owner:
and manufacturers have been very helpful in providing information tc
staff regarding a desirable location and methods for handling th,
risk/liability factors. A proposal will be prepared and presented tc
the Community Service Commission for their recommendation and the:
brought to the City Council for final approval.
ALTERNATE ACTION: Deny approval and allow existing Code 10.20 ti
remain in effect.
FUNDING SOURCE: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Revised ordinance.
RL/BP/pad
1' .' 0 0
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 3099
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 10.20, PERTAINING TO PROHIBITED
AREAS FOR VEHICLES AND SKATEBOARDS
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Huntington Beach Municipal CQde Chapter
10.20, Section 10.20.010 relating to protruding loads, and
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.20, Section
10.20.030 relating to skateboards are hereby repealed.
SECTION 2 : Section 10.20.040 of Chapter 10.20 of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
! follows:
U 10.20.040 Skateboards and Roller Skates - Definitions.
I (a) A "business district" is defined for purposes of
1
I
this section, as any area within the City of
Huntington Beach bordering one side of a local
street or a highway for a distance of at least
i
1
II n
600 feet, or bordering both sides of a local
street or a highway for at least 300 feet, where
at least 50 percent of the property is occupied
by buildings in use for business.
c4
1
0 0.
(b) Rollerskate and rollerblade shall mean any
footwear or device which may be attached to the
foot or footwear, to which wheels are attached
and such wheels may be used by the wearer in
moving.
(c) Skateboard shall mean a board of any material,
which has wheels attached to and such wheels may
be used for moving or propulsion.
10.20.042 Skateboards and Roller Skates
Prohibited. Uses.
1 J (a) No person shall use a skateboard, roller blades,
or roller skates in any business district.
(b) No person shall use a skateboard, roller blades,
or roller skates in a manner which creates a
nuisance. For purposes of this section
"nuisance" is defined as any activity which:
1) threatens injury to persons or property;
2) creates an obstruction or presents a
hazard to- the free use of public or
private property by pedestrians or
motorists; or 1 L\ : I . _I < 3) generates loud or unreasonable noise. 2"
2
I.-:
I
1.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
11
L 0 0
(c) The City Council may, from time to time,
designate certain areas for skateboard use. Such
areas shall be designated by resolution of the
City Council and posted with signs which are
consistent with the standards for signs utilized
by the Department of Public Works.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)
days after adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof hela on the
day of , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
6- ,. \.- //A 1 ' d&L
.'I/. /c. . 5, ~%../fi~ Cify Attorney $e Y-
REVIFVIED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
.- , ' ,.: ../ .,\ : i " / z ??
c I ("' $",( ,;! . i i.. .:<;...'I/? .<.<- .-# 1". C" City Administrator *- ./ ~
3
1': , w' REQUEST q OR CITY COUNCIL~~CTION p
8 Date June 17, 1991
Bbmitted to:
I
ir
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Submitted by:
epared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Cornunity Service &
bject: PROPOSED SKATEBOARD PARK SITES
10 nsistent with Council Policy? E 1 Yes C 1 New Policy or Exception
r
I
I
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: -
The recent adoption of HBMC Chapter 10.20, prohibits .
skateboarding. in business.districts, and in all other areas of
the city when they are a nuisance. The ordinance also allows the
City Council to designate certain areas for skateboarding use.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the conceptual plans for providing skateboard areas and
have the Director of Community Services return to Council in July
with the cost to develop plans and specifications for
unsupervised, low-intensity, mini-skateboard areas in Edison
Park, Worthy Park and Central Park.
ANALYSIS
Skateboard riding has become an extremely popular mode of youth
recreation and transportation. Skateboarders are seen nearly everywhere in the city and at all times of the day. Having
prevailed since the 1960's with popularity and refinement growing
in recent years, the "fad" stigma no longer seems to apply to
skateboarding. According to statistics compiled by the National
Skateboard Association (NSA), skateboarding is now the sixth largest participant sport in the United States - and the third largest among participants aged six to eighteen. In researching
the needs of skateboarders, staff has found that there are four
types of skateboarding activity. Skateboarders learn the sport
at unsupervised sites usually in school areas or business
districts by using curbs, walls and benches. They then graduate
to making ramps and half pipes in backyards around town. Once
they become good, they then need a demonstration area to show off
their skills on large half pipes and ramps. Finally, they want a
skateboard park with large bowls and competition areas. Staff,
with input from a committee of skateboard manufacturers, dealers
and riders, has prepared a four-component approach addressing
each type of skateboarding activity.
..I ,. r ,_.,
0 e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Page Two
The first component (see Exhibit A) is small, unsupervised,
skateboarding areas in city parks near three of our local high
schools. The first area is Edison Park, or more specifically, the
Southern California Edison Company easement along Hamilton
Avenue. The site is south of the main recreation areas in the
to a skateboard site. The second area is in Worthy Park, just
south of the Pay-N-Play Racquetball facility, between the '
softball diamonds and the. play equipment. It also has a natural
slope and would be an ideal alternative for skateboarders who
have been causing a great deal of damage to the Huntington Beach
High School grounds. Finally, the third mini-skate area would be
in Central Park at the southeast corner of Golden West Street and
Slater Avenue, or more specifically, just south of the parking
lot off Slater and would involve improvement to part of the small
earthen drainage channel located there. The site is fairly close
to Ocean View Hig.h School which is another advantage.
At all three sites the'design would include a concrete curb, wall
and bench no higher than 18 inches, which would keep the city's
risk exposure to a minimum. (See Exhibit B)
park and is a natural, sloping area that lends itself very nicely
In researching other cities' experiences, staff found that
incorporating unsupervised skateboarding areas into a park
setting was the most desirable. It encouraged continual use,
reduced police and maintenance problems, and generated a family
atmosphere at the facility. Parents are more likely to attend
the skateboarding areas with their children when amenities such as picnic areas, barbecue pits, and playground equipment are
provided. Supervision of the facility increases as the adult
presence increases. A stand-alone facility, not in a park, tends
to attract a less desirable group of users, is not utilized with
as much frequency, and generally creates more police and
maintenance problems.
The second component, which is recommended for future
consideration, is the use of the Adventure Playground site during
the school year when the regular summer program is not operating.
The "Adventure Skateboard Park" would be open from 3:OO-5:OO p.m.
Monday through Friday, and 1O:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m. on Saturday
and Sunday during the school year only, possibly beginning the
fall of 1991.
Skateboarders would build their own wooden ramps, walls, small
quarter and half pipes, multi-use obstacles and they would use
the empty cement pond area, The site would be supervised with a
city paid recreation leader, and would also be under the guidance
of volunteers, made up of skate sho;? owners, parents and pro
skaters. The participants would have to wear the proper equipment (elbow/knee pads, helmets, etc.), pay an admission fee,
and sign a waiver form in order to use the facility. A special
liability insurance policy would have to he obtained for this
o pc> 1-a t: i o n .
1' 'C 0 e
1
8
I
I
I
I
II
1
1
i
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
1
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Page Three
The third component to implement is a "demonstration" area on the
beach. This could be planned for opening in the summer of 1992
when the pier has been completed. The demonstration area would
potentially be set up on the sand on the northwest side of the
pier. At least one skateboard equipment dealer has indicated an
interest in coming in and setting up a portable platform with
portable ramps, etc. that skaters could then use for a fee. This
private company would then provide the necessary insurance and be
responsible for supervision of the activity. This would provide
an alternative for those skateboarders who frequent the beach in
the summer and are not allowed by ordinance to use the Main
Street area.
The final component involves satisfying the need for
skateboarders at a higher level. This would be a'year-round,
indoor, full-scale skateboard facility that a private developer
would build, insure, and operate, It would be on a lease
agreement with the city receiving a percentage of the revenue,
Staff has not had time to look for a possible site for this
facility. This final phase is obviously at least a year or two
away from implementation.
Plans, specifications and construction costs for the first
component will be paid through the Park Acquisition and
Development Fund. The preliminary cost for the first component
is estimated at $100,000.
During the meetings staff has had with the "skateboard committee"
made up of manufacturers, shop owners, professionals and local
skateboarders, there was unanimous support of the proposals
presented herein. They have also expressed a willingness to
volunteer their help to seeing the plans become a reality. At
the same time, they are also willing to work on the educational
aspect of this issue. Some of them have expressed a willingness
to speak before service groups and community organizations to try
to make people understand that skateboarding is a worthwhile
sport and that it is a great alternative to gangs and drugs.
Staff feels that creating skateboard areas in the city will give
youth an alternative place to business districts and school
grounds to release their energy, learn their sport, grow with
their accomplishments and develop a camaraderie with fellow
skateboarders. Staff believes the City should start with the
first component and, if successful, then implement the other
components in the future.
FUNDINGSOURCE If Council approves the concept, unappropriated Park Acquisition
and Development Fund Balance.
m e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Page Four
ALTERNATIVEm Do not have city provide skateboard areas.
ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Conceptual designs for skateboard areas.
Exhibit B - Memo from Risk Management, National Skateboard
Association letter and skateboard demographics.
Maps
RH:BF:am
- ’ TOTAL SKATERS- i0,071,000 ,
Male - 7,576,000 (75.2%) Female - 2,495,000 (24.8%) Average Age - 13.8 years
Skateboarding is the sixth largest participant Sport in the United States - and the third largest among participants ages 6-1 8. The average participant skates 50.5 days per year - nearly once per week. Nearly 4 million skaters come from annual house- hold incomes exceeding $35,000. :
81.8% of skaters are 18 years of age or under. Nearly 4.8 million skaters live in cities Or metropolitan
areas with populations exceeding 500,000.
Under SiS.OO0 232%
18-24 937.000
25-34 602,000
35-0ver 287.000
Basketball - 60%
Roller Skating - 542%
Camping - 522% Less than 50,000
500,000-2 million
More than 2 million 28.O’YO Football - 45.0%
Running - 39.2% Baseball - 35.6%
THE NUMBERS -~
8
la-, I The Natw a1 Skateboard Associa n
-0. Sox 1916 Vi- CA 93083 10
1 Tdqhon~ (619) 941-1844
FAX (619) 945-7893
I.
P"* 6, 1989
i illage prtsident and Board of Trustcts
akpark,Illinois . ' a: (Q Ei 3'. A
1
)irs:
1,
It,
Lonception numb one: "sktetm-g is a fd not a .p.ni ne btebd is a mans for pcr!
Ebtc~ ~ssociation (NSA) pro contat in ~a~aii last arch out kw the prtvious u- sQt#
Gymnastics Federation competition. "he total draw was 6,000. The World Chaxnpionships held in
&lunster Germany last month drew over 15,000 spectators and had over 600 enaants. The entrants c
from a of the westem ELubpean muntrics, some of the East- European COWI+ including Russii
om South America. New Zealand, Canada and of course the United Statcs. The top pfessioaal
teharder, an American, grosses about %UO,OOO annually. There art skateboard associations in
aly every induspialized c~untry in the world. Tbe NSA bas put on professional and amateur em
e United States and Canada for the last eight years, This year's NSA pro serits has ken to Honoll
avannah, Anaheim, and Chicago and will continue on to Virginia Beach, Santa Cruz and Jacksonvi:
c Jacksonvillt contest is a bcncfit for the American Diabetes Association and will have nationat Tv
coverage. Thc NSA amatcur program sponson a nationwide series of nine contests which cukninate
understand that you arc about to make a dccision which affects the kcs ofthousands of your diza
owthatyouwanttomakcadccisionbastdonaratioaalinterprttatonofthefacts. Imspecxtbatc
ou, your city attorney and your staffs have few facts available and have several misconccp~ons ab
ters and the sport that they love so much This letter should set the record straight,
transportation, a tool for sdfcxpdon and a unique-pise of sporting equipmen~ The National
9,
t 6
#an*dfi..l.
'sconception number two: "Skateboarders arc all a bunch of degenerate p-." Skaters have one :
P"mmmon, their love for thcir sport. Beyond that one common bond, they come in all races, crctds
t
II
ation&&, The dress of skaters ranges &om GQ to the surfcr look, and from punk fo fink. Thcir
usicd taste ranges from heavy metal to classical and from rock and roll to jazz. The other intcrcsrs
skaters range from computers to scouting and from team sports to art and music-
1
1/
e 8 Misconception number thrcc: "Skab.~jo0aring is vcry dangerous." The . Consumcr Product Safety
Commission found skateboarding to be far less dangerous than football and hockey and yet both sports a
mainstays in our school systems and public recreation departments.
Skateboarding has much to offer the individual, the community and the nation. Thest bcncfits fall into
three categories, the physical, psychological and cultural. The most obvious physical benefits art
conditioning through rcgular aerobic exercise and impvai coordination. Skating provides psychologic
benefits to our youth such as a feeling of individual accomplishment, an opportunity for creative self
expression, a forum for the positive release of youthful aggression and an escape from the pressures of
family life, school arid the wurld. The main cultural benefits art the fostering of a spirit of friendly
competition coupled with mutual respect and providing a positive alternative to dmgs and gangs.
Skaters as competitors arc unique, The intense rivalry that has resulted in sqious injuries and even dca~
to participants and spectatas at other professional and amateur sporting events across this nation and
around the world arc not to be found at skate contests. Although the d& to win is strong, skates che
each other on and applaud a good performanct. ..
The positive physical and psychological benefits of skating arc exactly what psychologists tell us arc
missing from the lives of most drug users and gang members. Thus, skating is clearly a healthy
alternative to the escape found by taking drugs and the comradary found in joining a gang.
As a parent and a former teacher, I know that a nation's youth is its greatest national resource. From th
living resource will come tomorrow's teachers, businessmen, craftsmen, parents and politicians. The
actions of tomorrow's adults will reflect the skill and care with which you and I have handled the minir
and ref~g of this precious resource.
I ask you to carefirlly consider what message your actions will send the youth of your community. I h
that your message will be that you value and encourage their need for positive sclf expr&on; That y.
accept their need for a means of personal uansportation; That you care about them as individuals; and
that you encourage their involvment with any activity that is a positive alternative to drugs and gangs.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this important issuc.
sincereiy, 9-&-
Tom Cozcns
Pnsidcnt, NSA
2