The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-04-22; City Council; 19416; Skatepark report/a"«ix /*&^§:?-W\ CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL \3fftHgy AB# 19,416 MTG. 4/22/08 DEPT. REC SKATEPARK REPORT DEPT. HEAD CITY ATTY. CITY MGR. 13 /fr^> (&£ (J^ — RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a report from staff on expanding the current skate park at the Safety Center, consider alternative sites for a skate park, and direct staff accordingly. ITEM EXPLANATION: On May 22, 2007, the City Council received a report by staff at the request of the Parks and Recreation Commission to expand the current skate park at the Safety Center. Because there was a substantial discrepancy in the cost to construct the expansion between staffs estimate and a contractor's estimate given to one of the Commissioners, Council directed staff to return with more information. Specifically, Council asked that: 1. Staff take a closer look at the costs. 2. Report back on the schedule of the Joint First Responders Training Facility (JFRTF) and Public Works Center in order to assess the viability of expanding the skate park in terms of length of use. 3. Work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to identify potential additional / alternative sites for a skate park. Costs Analysis Staff has received further information on current pricing and asked the contractor for clarification of his pricing to provide apples to apples comparison of costs. After a closer comparison and adding onto the contractor's cost all the soft costs, contingencies, lighting, fencing, etc., the difference between staffs estimate and the contractor's is insignificant. The total cost for the expansion is estimated at $480,000. The true cost would not be known until the project is actually bid. Schedules The following are the current estimated schedule milestones: JFRTF • Award of construction contract January 2010 • Completion and occupancy July 2011 It is not unknown at this point whether the JFRTF will affect the existing skate park site or proposed expansion area. PUBLIC WORKS CENTER • Award of construction contract June 2011 • Completion and occupancy January 2013 DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Mark Steyaert 760-434-2855 mstev@ci.carlsbad.ca.us FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED WITHDRAWN AMENDED D D D D d CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D RETURNED TO STAFF D OTHER - SEE MINUTES D Council adopted Alternative No.4 (See Minutes for details.) Page 2 It is more likely that the Public Works Center would encroach upon or eliminate the skate board park for the purposes of a possible parking structure. EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING SKATEPARK AT THE SAFETY CENTER The schedule to expand the existing skate park, assuming the project is started immediately, is estimated as follows: • Award of contract August 2009 • Park Open October 2009 This schedule includes soliciting proposals for design, an 8 month allowance for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, required bidding periods, and construction. If the existing skate park must be removed with either the construction of the JFRTF or the Public Works Center, the expanded skate park proposal would only be in use for 1 year to 2 years. That means all but the modular skate park elements that are re-usable ($175,000 out of a total cost of $480,000) would be a lost cost. Consequently, staff is not recommending the option of expanding the current skate park at the Safety Center. Additional / Alternative Sites As a result of Council's direction, the Parks and Recreation Commission established "Skate Park Sub- Committee (SPSC) to investigate possible sites. They focused on the northern part of the City since Alga Norte Park (S.E. Quadrant) has a skate park component in the Master Plan. The SPSC visited several sites and originally identified 3 potential sites; 1) the abandoned reservoir on Buena Vista Way, 2) Hosp Grove at the southeast corner of Monroe and Marron streets, and 3) Pine Park (Madison properties). The SPSC also enlisted experts in the skate park field to give their input on the viability of each site. The experts were Mikki Vuckovich, Executive Director of the Tony Hawks Foundation and Brian Moore and Kanten Russell of The Site Design Group (who designed the Alga Norte skate park). They visited all the sites identified as well and developed a pros and cons list of each site. All sites were felt to be suitable. The SPSC then used a set of criteria such as suitable size, available infrastructure, visibility, neighborhood disruption potential, adjacency to public transportation, etc) to rate the sites. Subsequently, after some polling of neighbors surrounding the Pine Ave. Park site, this site was dropped for consideration due to a negative response to the idea by the neighbors. In lieu of the Pine Park site, the SPSC decided to take another look at the former vacant fire station site adjacent to Calavera Hills Community Park. This site is no longer needed as a fire station. After closer examination, this site measured out at between 16,000 and 20,000 square feet (for comparison, the current skate park is approximately 11,000 square feet). This site was also considered a feasible alternative. As mentioned before, there are pros and cons for each site (Exhibit 2 and 3). On February 4, 2008, the SPSC recommended to the full Parks and Recreation Commission that the 3 sites (Reservoir, Hosp Grove, and Fire Station) be considered. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Fire Station and Hosp Grove site be considered by Council (the Reservoir site was dropped due to concern of visibility and possible neighborhood concerns). Alternatives 1. Go forward with expanding the current skate park; or not. Page3 2. In addition, or alternatively, further study the 2 recommended sites. This would require hiring a consultant to perform more involved feasibility studies and produce conceptual designs to determine the best site. This could be done now or the timing of the studies could be considered in the upcoming Capital Improvement Budget process so the cost implications and priorities could be established in conjunction with other City projects. 3. Eliminate one or more of the alternative sites for consideration proceed with a project now or at a later time. 4. Defer action at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: EXPANSION OF EXISTING SKATE PARK AT THE SAFETY CENTER The cost to expand the current skate park is estimated at approximately $480,000. Currently there are no funds identified in the Capital Improvement Program for this project. Possible funding sources include the Park-in-Lieu (PIL) N.E. Fund, the General Capital Construction Fund, or the Public Facility Fees Fund. At this time, the possible funding sources do not appear to have capacity to fund the skate park expansion without negatively impacting another project(s). If one of the aforementioned funding sources is used for the skate park expansion, existing projects may have to be eliminated or reduced in scope to accommodate the skate park project. ADDITIONAL / ALTERNATIVE SITES Currently there is no project cost estimate for the additional/alternative skate park sites as site designs have not yet been produced. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING SKATEPARK AT THE SAFETY CENTER On April 15, 1998 the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration (Resolution 4270) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 98-05) for the existing skate park. The Planning Department has determined that this expansion project would require a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, which can take 6-8 months to process once a plan is developed. ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE SITES The recommended staff action in this Agenda Bill does not involve approval of a specific project but rather direction for staff to either proceed or not with developing specific project proposals. As a result, no environmental review is required for this portion. EXHIBITS: 1. Proposed expansion of existing skate park 2. Calavera Hills site map 3. Calavera Hills site pros and cons 4. Hosp Grove site map 5. Hosp Grove site pros and cons e ft. c:COLLi 42§-S^coo-bCOc:oCD S O COLLCOiI 1 LU • 2 •«•- O 0 0 CO '^0*** CO0CO 15 "c0 •D "co0 O)p**1 8 D) O Zi Z 1 1 COCOCOE csS n> CO0 -t-»4 ^^ *-CO fZ-8 aO co "o co o CO oo CO CO O)c CO X 0 o ^^^^> 0 n^c ® 8 '55 CO^ ^£ V CO < Q. ^^ 03 t CO Q. O «vtfCO D) C 1^ CO Q_ c >% ^p^_Q CO 0 E Restroo• "o • Eoo ^**^^ CO D -Q C 0 Located0 _Q "co >" _>s _c_g> •^corner - 73C<ftui *504so LJJCOLJJ O O Q_ CO O I co O O COg Q. CO013COCO• ^^^—£ Eco '>c LJJ • Oc• ^^^"DCO O)nsive3"x LJJ • •D * 0 "5CT 0 •5> & S= w£3 CD _ - E 9> w CD ^) ro .E --LES-^ o o E 0 "w °EO co CO Eo CO O) CO 0. CO = O = CO 'o co • skateboard park reportRECOMMENDED ACTION:•Receive report•Consider alternative sites•Direct staff Background• Council directed staff to:1. Work on analyzing costs of expansion2. Update Council on schedule of projects at the Safety Center3. Work with PRC to identify alternative sites •Cost analysis:–$480 k for expansion•Schedules–Joint First Responders……….....6/2011–Public Works Ctr…………….......1/2013–Anticipated earliest completion of skate park expansion………..10/09= 1-2 yrs. of use IFimpacted by JFRTFor approx. 2 years IF impacted by PW Ctr.EXPANSION OF EXISITNG SKATE PARK • PRC Skate park subcommittee held mtgs. and conducted tours of potential sites• Developed pros and cons of each siteALTERNATIVE / ADDITIONAL SITESPRC RECOMMENDATION• Calavera Hills Park (Fire Station site)•Hosp Grove (Marron and Monroe) 16,600 s.f.3,287 s.f.2,170 s.f.Cell/storage bldg.FIRE STATION SITECALVERA HILLS PARKTotal acres = +/- .5 acresCarlsbad Village DrG la s g o w NOTE: Acreage approx. and may be effected by unknown constraints. “calavera hills fire station site” pros and cons– CALAVERA HILLS F.S.• Adjacency to existing park site• Parking (all or partial)• Restroom nearby in com. ctr.• Located on busy corner – highly visible• Adjacency to residential area–Lighting–Noise • Not close to mass transportation*+- Existing parkingMarronM o n r o e HOSP GROVE SITE+/- 1.5 acresNOTE: Acreage approx. and may be effected by unknown constraints. “hosp grove”(marron and monroe) pros and cons– HOSP GROVE SITE• Close to mass transit and shopping mall• Large,multi-level site • Separated from residential• Area for parking existing• Area for ancillary amenities (walking trails, totlot, picnic areas, etc)• Visible • Environmental issues • Extensive grading required*+- skateboard park reportQUESTIONS ? SKATE PARK SITES EXPLOREDPine Phase IIPine Phase IIÃVeteranVeteran’’s s Memorial ParkMemorial ParkReservoirReservoirZone 5Zone 5ÃÃÃÃÃCannon LakeCannon LakeHosp GroveHosp Grove H ighlan dBuena Vista WayAbandonedreservoirRESERVOIR SITE+/- 1 acreNOTE: Acreage approx. and may be effected by unknown constraints. “reservoir site”(buena vista way) pros and cons– RESERVOIR SITE• Large site• Buffer area from neighbors • Area for parking• Area for ancillary amenities (totlot, picnic areas, dog park, etc.)• In residential area–Lighting– Traffic • Not close to mass transportation• Not easily visible (visibility could be improved though grading)• Infrastructure not in-place *+-