HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/12/17 - Agenda Packet - Adjourned 4:00
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4 4:00 p.m.
City Hall ~ Tri-Communities Room
10500 Civic Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
A. C;~I.I. rr0 Oltl)F:ft
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Mayor/PresidentlChairman Kurth
Mayor Pro TemNice PresidentNice Chairman Michael
Council/BoardlAgencymembers Gutierrez, Spagnolo and Williams
B. CO11 ~1 l ,~ l('.~'I'IO\ti I~ IZO11 "I'i l [: Pl:l3Ll('
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council, Fire Protection District and Redevelopment Agency on any Item
listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Council, Flre Board and Agency from addressing any issue not previously Included on the
Agenda. The Council, Flre Board and Agency may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of
Individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Council, Fire Board and Agency, not to the members of
the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between
audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging In any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this
one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further
speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing Items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda
commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business
portion of the agenda has been completed.
C. ITEM OF DISCUSSION
UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF CENTRAL PARK PHASE II PLANNING
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra L. McKay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December
10, 2008, per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY SERVICESDEPAR'I'MENT
RANCHO
Date: December 17, 2008 ~UCAMONGA
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
Subject: UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF CENTRAL PARK PHASE II PLANNING
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions relating to the
development of Central Park Phase II:
1. Approve the proposed conceptual design for the Phase II improvements;
2. Direct the Park and Recreation Commission to review the proposed conceptual
design in more depth with a Commission workshop; and
3. Authorize staff to continue with the completion of the project design.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has identified the development of a Family Aquatics Center at Central
Park as the highest rated goal relating to future development of parks and recreation
facilities in the community. The Council has been discussing plans for the future Family
Aquatics Center for the past two years. Following is a brief summary of the initial planning
which has occurred during that time.
Staff and the project design team completed a thorough Aquatic Center Feasibility Study in
September 2006 which contained an analysis of the region's demographics, trends in
aquatic center design, alternative design options, financial market analysis and financial
expectations for an aquatics center in Rancho Cucamonga. The results of this feasibility
study were presented to the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a
joint study session on October 9, 2006, followed by Council and Commission member
discussion. Attached as Exhibit #1 are the minutes and staff report from the October 9,
2006, workshop.
The City Council held a planning workshop on August 23, 2007, to review proposed
priorities and phasing for the future development of Central Park. As a result of that
workshop, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the design of Phase II for the park,
to include the Family Aquatics Center, service facilities and site development of the western
24 acres of the site. Attached as Exhibit #2 are the minutes and staff report from the
August 23, 2007, workshop.
P1
P2
UPDATE ON STATUS OF CENTRAL PARK PHASE 11 PLANNING
DECEMBER 17, 2008
PAGE 2
On November 26, 2007 members of the City Council and the Park and Recreation
Commission participated in a full day tour of three Southern California aquatics centers,
discussing the pros ahd cons of each facility.
On December 11, 2007, the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission held
another joint workshop for the purpose of sharing observations from the aquatics center
tour and discussing preliminary ideas and alternatives for the project design. Significant
results from that workshop included the City Council's desire for a primarily recreational
based aquatic facility which would include an indoor pool, outdoor pool, water play areas,
mid-sized slides, zero depth eritries, lazy river, flowrider attraction and picnic areas.
Attached as Exhibit #3 are the minutes and staff report from the December 11, 2007,
workshop.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Immediately following the idea sharing workshop on December 11, 2007, staff and the
design consultants began work on developing a conceptual plan to incorporate all the
identified facility amenities discussed by the Council. This work has continued for the past
year, and has resulted in the proposed conceptual plans to be presented to the City Council
at this workshop. At the workshop, the design team will present the following to the Council
for consideration:
• Updated Central Park Overall Master Plan
• Family Aquatics Center Plan Overview
• Family Aquatics Center Theme Concept
• Family Aquatics Center Element Descriptions
• Central Park Phase II Architectural Concepts
Copies of the presentation materials will be presented to the City Council at the workshop.
Concurrent with the development of the conceptual design plans over the past few months,
staff and the design team, with the assistance of professional aquatics facility managers
and other City departments, have also prepared an operating pro forma for the Phase II
improvements. This pro forma represents the collective professional opinion of the team
relating to the annual operating revenues and costs for the project as of the date of this
report. Understanding the anticipated costs for the facility is of critical importance for
effective financial planning by the City.
FACILITY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
With regards to the capital costs for the project construction, the current allocated amount
includes $4.81 million in pre-construction funding for design consultants, geotechnical
analysis, environmental studies, constructability reviews and bid preparation costs.
Additional future capital project budget allocations will include $32.25 million in funding for
permits, construction contracts, construction engineering and facility equipment.
P3
UPDATE ON STATUS OF CENTRAL PARK PHASE 11 PLANNING
DECEMBER 17, 2008
PAGE S
OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
The operating pro forma was based on a number of defined assumptions relating to
attendance, operating hours, pricing, etc. which were derived from the aquatics center
feasibility studies. Following is a brief summary of some selected assumptions for the City
Council's information:
• Attendance Projections (Year 1 oroiected as 2010
o Market Area Population (15 mile radius) 1,738,185
o Ahnual Aquatics Recreation Attendance 157,359
o Annual Aquatics Program Attendance 10,730
o Peak Day's Attendance 2,842
o Peak On-Grounds Attendance 1,421
• Pricing Plan:
o General Admission $10
o General Admission -Under 48" $ 8
o General Admission -Senior $ 8
o General Admission -Under 2 Years Free
o Group Rate Admission $ 8
o Birthday Party Admission $ 8
o Consignment (Group sells for $8) $ 6
o Private Facility Rental - $1,500/hr plus purchase of all tickets
o Tube Rentals -Single $ 4
o Tube Rentals -Double $ 8
• Basic Operating Hours:
o See Attached Exhibit #4
Using the assumptions from the feasibility study, staff and the team developed an operating
annual budget pro forma. This pro forma anticipates that the annual gross revenues
obtained from the Phase II improvements will be $2,078,800. The anticipated annual gross
expenses will be within a range of $2,950,170 - $3,280,170/year. Therefore the projected
annual net cost to operate the facilities would be between $871,370 - $1,201,370/year.
The lower costs represent what staff would describe as a management approach using a
minimal number of full time staff and effectively maximizing use of part time staff and
contracted services. Staff has agreed that this is a reasonable approach for the initial two
years of operation; however the team has also studied what additional costs might be
incurred in subsequent years if staffing levels or the level of facility maintenance is not in
line with the expectations or if entrepreneurial projections fall short. If such a decision were
to be made at the conclusion of the second year of operation, staff estimates that up to an
additional $330,000/year of additional expenses may be needed for staff and maintenance.
It may be possible at that time to increase admission costs to further enhance revenues,
based on actual usage and experience. All of the amounts noted in this report represent
2009-10 fiscal year costs.
P4
UPDATE ON STATUS OF CENTRAL PARK PHASE 11 PLANNING
DECEMBER 17, 2008
PAGE 4
Given the state of the economy at this time, and the serious financial strains placed upon
the City's budget, there is no funding available to operate the Central Park Phase II
improvements for the immediate future. Depending on the time period for economic
recovery, it may be a number of years before City funds will be available for operational
costs. However, in order to be quickly ready to begin construction of the Phase II
improvements at the appropriate time, staff is recommending that the design be completed
at this time. This process is expected to require. about twelve months to complete. At
whatever time the economy improves and operations funding becomes available, the plans
can continue to move into the permitting and bidding process. As a time frame reference,
once there is an award of a construction bid, it is estimated that actual construction will take
approximately 14-16 months to complete. Following is a summary of the overall anticipated
time frame for the Phase II improvements, in sequence:
• Completion of project design - 12 months
• Improvement of economic conditions -Unknown
• Plan check and permitting process - 3 months
• Construction bidding process - 2 months
• Project construction - 16 months
Staff recommends that the Council direct the Park and Recreation Commission to conduct
a workshop to review and discuss the conceptual plans in more detail. Following that
workshop, staff will proceed on the design review process with the Planning Commission,
which will include the required public hearing for the environmental issues. Staff
recommends that the standard public noticing requirement of a 660 foot radius around
Central Park be utilized for the public hearing notice. Attached as Exhibit #5 is a diagram
displaying the 660 foot radius notification area.
CONCLUSION
Staff and the design team will present the proposed conceptual design plans to the City
Council at the meeting, to be followed by a period of City Council discussion. At the
conclusion of the workshop, staff recommends that the Council approve the recommended
actions contained within the report.
submitted,
Jack Lam, AICP
City Manager
Kevin cArdl
Community Services Director
Enclosures
Exhibit l~l P5
October 9, 2006
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
JOINT CITY COUNCIVPARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting
A. CALL TO ORDER
A special joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission
was held on Monday, October 9, 2006, in the Tri Communities Room of the Civic Center located at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to
order at 6:03 p.m.
Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez (arrived at 6:09 p.m.), L. Dennis Michael, Sam Spagnolo,
Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Park and Recreation Commissioners: Martin Dickey, Antonio Karraa, Francisco Oaxaca,
and Chairman Patricia Carlson.
Absent was Commissioner: Ann Punter
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Dave
Moore, Community Services Superintendent; Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Superintendent; Paula
Pachon, Management Analyst III; JoAnn Gwyn, Community Services Supervisor; Ryan Samples;
Community Services Supervisor; Melissa Morales, Sr. Administrative Secretary; Karen Emery, Sr. Park
Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
No communication was made from the public.
C. ITEM(S) OF DISCUSSION
Item C2 was discussed at this time. The minutes will remain in agenda order.
Ct. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RGARDING A FUTURE POTENTIAL AQUATIC CENTER AT
CENTRAL PARK
A staff report was presented by Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, who stated the purpose of
this meeting is to educate the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission on aquatics. He
stated at some paint, the Council will be advising what aspects of this they want staff to obtain funding for.
Re commented on the current aquatic facilities the City is using. He stated there has always been an
interest in having aquatics at Central Park.
A power point presentation was given by Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group.
P6
Joint City CounciUPark and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 9, 2006
Page 2
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, slated this is being presented for information only to give
everyone the ideas and options being though) about.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he hopes we can.find a way to move forward with this and that the City
Manager can find a way to make it happen. He felt outdoor recreation would be the best thing. He stated
he has always had a dream of a Cucamonga Beach.
Chairman Carlson stated she bought in the City because of Central Park.
Councilmember Williams stated she would love to see something full scale where people can bring their
kids to play.
Councilmember Michael felt a therapeutic aspect would be very nice.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated they need to know if everyone is interested in an
aquatic center, then what type, so they can go out and look for grant money.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked how it is determined whether to look at indoor versus an outdoor pool.
Randy Mendioroz, Aquatic Design Group, stated it depends on the type of climate the center is going into.
Commissioner Dickey asked if we did option 4, how much of our swimming program could we bring to this
facility.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, felt we could bring in all of our existing programs that we
are currently handling.
Commissioner Karraa felt we need to be careful not to scare people away by telling them haw many
people might visit the aquatics center.
Mayor Alexander asked if it is possible to have a senior only pool.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated yes.
Councilmember Williams asked when this project could be done.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the first step was to identify what everyone wants and then we can move.
forward with getting the money to build that facility.
Councilmember Gutierrez left the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
ACTION: Report received and filed.
C2. BRIEF UPDATE OF SENIOR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY FINDINGS AND
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN
A staff report was presented by Dave Moore, Community Services Superintendent, who was assisted by
Ryan Samples, Community Services Supervisor.
Joan Brannon, Ph.D., University of Laverne, was also present and pointed out she was involved in the
last presentation made to the Council.
P7
Joint City CounciVPark and Recreation Commission Meeting
October 9, 2006
Page 3
Dave Moore, Community Services Superintendent, stated 10,000 seniors were surveyed, with the report
given at a prior meeting.
Councilmember Spagnolo stated we need to think of the seniors and them driving so they don't get into
accidents like the one that happened in Santa Monica.
Chairman Carlson felt it was important to make this a friendly transition for people to give up driving and
depending on others for transportation.
Councilmember Michael stated he thought a lot of this was in their action plan.
Dave Moore, Community Services Superintendent, continued with the staff report talking about the action
plan.
Mayor Alexander suggested we look at sponsorships from places that might be visited by our seniors, i.e.,
grocery stores, doctor's offices, pharmacies, etc.
Councilmember Williams asked if we have looked at having a list of chauffer drivers that could take
people around in their own vehicles. She felt there was really a market for this.
Chairman Carlson felt it might work for seniors to trade in their car for hours of chauffeuring. She also felt
the boomer generation should be reached out to so they can encourage their parents to use the service.
Dr. Brannon mentioned the Metrolink Gold Line and how much fun it was.
Commissioner Oaxaca liked the term of "break the ice" being used and liked creative ways for people to
be ambassadors and wanted to get more people involved.
Councilmember Michael staled he liked the "Buddy Ride Program:' and felt this would get more people
involved.
Councilmember•W illiams stated we need to find a reason to make the seniors try this program.
Councilmember Gutierrez wished we could get funding for this program. He stated he likes the trolley
idea.
Commissioner Karraa stated we need something that will not challenge people financially.
Chairman Carlson wondered where we get the funding for these programs.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated staff. will throw these ideas into the plan and get
started on finding a way to fund this.
Chairman Carlson commented on the seniors that use the YMCA Transportation and how much they love
it.
Commissioner Dickey stated some of the seniors feel there is no transportation system for the seniors in
the City. He felt this is a perception that needs to be worked on.
Il was consensus of the group that this should be limited to just Rancho Cucamonga seniors.
MOTION: Moved by Carlson, seconded by Dickey to approve the Senior Transportation Action Plan.
Motion carried unanimously 4-0.1 (Punter absent).
P8
Joint City Council/Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 9, 2006
Page 4
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the Senior Transportation Action Plan.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
C3. DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS OF MUTUAL INTEREST TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK
AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Commissioner Karraa felt the soccer fields need to betaken care of and that this should be a priority.
Commissioner Oaxaca felt we have a lack of tennis facilities in the City and felt we should consider more
for the future.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated the ones at Los Osos High School will soon have
lights and that there are more facilities planned for Central Park.
Chairman Carlson commented how busy the facilities are at the high school and was grateful for the joint
uses we have with the schools. She felt we have been remiss in land banking for parks. She wished
there was a Code Enforcement Officer that could spend more time focusing on the trails.
Jack Lam, City Manager, added that the Code Enforcement budget has increased by two people. He
stated there are some trails that are private that the City does not get involved with.
Chairman Carlson felt there should be some space at Cehtral Park for community gardens.
Jack Lam, City Manager, suggested more discussions take place about the Aquatics Center at the City
Council's goal setting meeting after the first of the year.
' D. ADJOiJRNIVIENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Re pectful ubmi[~
ebra J. A s, CMC
City Clerk/Records Manager
Approved by Park and Recreation Commission: November 16, 2006
Approved by City Council: December 6, 2006
;r
R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
COMMUNITY SERVICES _
Sfiaff Report
DATE: October 9, 2006
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Park and Recreation Commission
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
BY: Dave Moore, Community Services Superintendent %J~
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING A FUTURE POTENTIAL
AQUATIC CENTER AT CENTRAL PARK
RECOMMENDATION
City staff is recommending that the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission
review a presentation on the different designs and programming possibilities of potential
Aquatic Centers and a presentation of the Central Park Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Report followed by discussion.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
This agenda item will consist of two parts. The first part will include a presentation on the
various types of designs and programming possibilities of potential Aquatic Centers by
consultants, Bob Mueting of RJM Design Group, Inc and Randy Mendioroz of Aquatic
Design Group. The second part will involve a presentation of the Central Park Aquatic
Center Feasibility Study Report that was developed by Randy Mendioroz as part of the
Central Park Phase I Project. This study was conducted to familiarize staff, Park and
Recreation Commission and the City Council with trends on City Aquatic Centers and cost
considerations for future planning. Following the presentation there will be an opportunity
for discussion. Attached is a copy of the Central Park Aquatic Center Feasibility Study for
your review.
Respectf ly subm'
Kevin cArdle
Community Services Director
Attachment: Central Park Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
I:COMMSERV1000ndlBBOards\CityCoundl\StaffReporlslCentralPadcAquaticCenterreaslblllryStudy.100906.doc
Exhibit ll2
• August 23, 2007
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the Rahcho Cucamonga City Council was held on Thursday, August 23, 2007, in the Tri
Communities Room at the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams called the meeting to order ai 3 15 p m
Present were Councilmembers Rex Gutierrez, L Dennis Michael, Sam Spagnolo, and Mayor Pro Tefn Diane
Williams
Also present were Jack Lam, City Manager, Pamela Easter, Assistant Cdy Manager, Fabian Villenas,
Management Analyst III, Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development, Joe O'Neil, City
Engineer, James Troyer, Planning Dtrector, Corky Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director, James C Frost, City
Treasurer, John Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services, Kevin McArdle, Community Services
Director, Dave Moore, Community Services Superintendent, Francie Palmer, Marketing Manager, Karen
McGuire-Emery, Sr Park Planner, Paula Pachon, Management Analyst fll, JoAnn Gwynn,, Communty
Services Supervisor, Daniel Schneider, Community Servtces Supervisor, Deputy Fire Chief Mike Bell 'and
Management Analyst II Pamela Pane, Rancho Cucamonga Fue Protection Distract, and Debra J Adams, Ctty
Clerk
• Absent was Mayor Donald J Kurth
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
B1 Jerie Lee wanted to thank the Council for the completion of the wellness pass expansion She also
wanted to thank Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, for hts efforts
C. ITEM(S) OF BUSINESS
C1 CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR
CENTRAL PARK
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the strategy of to proceed with the
next phase of Central Park He referred to the display boards at the front of the room, which identified the
order in which the phases would be built, and also displayed what was included in each phase He stated
Kevr McArdle, Community Services Director, would give more intormatton about this He stated staff will be
looking for direction how to proceed with their next goal of Central Park
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Drector, introduced Larry Morey with RJM Design Group He presented
• a staff report and referred to a hand out, which is on file rn the Cdy Clerk's office, with the options the Council
discussed at a prevous meeting for the aquatics center He stated based on the Council's previous
comments, staff is moving towards Option 2 He stated this is a starting point, but that this can be changed if
-the Council desires
P10
P11
Special City Council Meeting
August 23, 2007
Page 2
Counalmember Gutierrez asked how mariy acres the aquatics center would take up •
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated approximately five acres He stated staff is
recommending to proceed forward with Phase II and would Ike the Council's input to do this He stated they
are recommending to wait on Phase IV and allow staff some time tb do more work on this phase
Counalmember Michael asked if funding for Etiwanda Creek Park was different funding than what would be
used for Central Park
Kewn McArdle, Community Services Director, stated yes
Counalmember Michael asked if Etiwanda Creek Park could go forward
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated the operating cost is always what has to be looked at
Counalmember Gutierrez felt what has been done is a good start He stated he would like to see recreation
areas, but did feel the pools were great He felt there was money to be had for Phase IV He stated he has a
lot of ideas he would Itke to share with staff He stated he didn't like to see so many parking lots and felt we
should explore a parking structure He stated he is in favor of moving forward
Kevin McArdle, Commundy Services Duector, stated they do have parking lot ophons for the Counal to see
Counalmember Spagnolo stated he liked the idea of charging fees for people that Irve outside of the City He
liked the beach idea He felt it would be a good idea to see a presentation on the ideas that staff has
pertaining to the design of thmgs He asked it the cost shown included fees that people would be paying
Kevrn McArdle, Community Services Director, stated those are worked into the net cost
Counalmember Spagnolo felt we are on the right track He hoped this protect would not become unsuccessful •
like Pharaoh's Lost Kingdom in Redlands
Counalmember Gutierrez hoped we look outside the box and be creative He felt an indoor faality should be
looked at He felt we should use maximum use of space
The Counal felt if we need more space for the aquatics center or gymnasium,.they would not have a problem
eUminaUng or reduang the tenors facddy
Mayor Pro Tem Williams felt the tennis complex could even be moved to another area of the City instead of
having it at Central Park She stated she is still not happy to have the fire station in Central Park and felt it
could go in another location She liked the idea of water play for the kids and felt it should be m every park
She felt we should explore the cost of putting a concrete lid over the storm drain on the west side of the park
so it could serve as a parking lot She felt we are on the right track and stated she would like a lot of input into
the program design She stated again she felt the tennis complex was expendable
The Counal discussed putting the pool inside the gym
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated they can always change the plans to accommodate the
desires of Council He stated they do have photos of design ideas for the Council to see
Mayor Pro Tem Williams felt staff should invite people to gwe their ideas for things for the park
MOTION Moved by Michael, seconded by Gutierrez to move forward with the 3 recommendations as listed in
the staff report Motion carried unanimously 4-0.1 (Kurth absent)
Mayor Pro Tem Williams asked if there was any public input about this matter •
P12
Special City Council Meeting
August 23, 2007
Page 3
• James C Frost, City Treasurer, encouraged the Council to visit the Brentwood area and that it could
also be looked up on the Internet
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated they would get a Itst of cities to tour for the Council to
consider
Councilmember Michael asked about a diving area
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated they are not looking at building a divmg area because of
the habihty
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4 28 p m
Respectfully bm/itte~d~, m_A .
bra J Ada ~ CMC
Cdy Clerk/Re ords Manager
• Approved October 3, 2007
u
P13
P.1
STAFF REPORT _
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
RANCHO
Date: August 23, 2007 C,,UCAMONGA
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
Subject: CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL PARK
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions relating to the future
development of Central Park:
1. Approve the proposed Central Park Phasing Map and Priorities
2. Provide direction to staff for the scheduling of the proposed future phases of the
Central Park development
3. Direct staff to prepare and submit a proposed architectural services agreement for
Phase II and advance planning for future phases for Council consideration
BACKGROUND
The development of Central Park has been an important vision for the City since shortly
after incorporation. The 100 acre property was acquired in 1984 in 'an acquisition program
that took the next 10 years to complete. Although at the time of purchase, the City did not
have the financial resources to develop the park, it had a long term vision for its future
development and hoped to draw upon fiscal opportunities that might arise in the future. As
a result of this long term vision, the City began a planning process to further develop this
vision.
During the mid-1980's, City staff, the Central Park design team and an active task force of
community members worked extremely hard to determine the program/facility needs for the
.community and to develop a long term master plan for Central Park. In 1987, the City
Council approved the Central Park Master Plan which has conceptually guided the on-
going planning and development of the park over the years. While the design of specific
park amenities and facilities has evolved since the original master plan vision, the City has
remained very committed to the original overall master plan concept. Enclosed as Exhibit
#1 is a copy of the existing Central Park Master Plan.
A funding opportunity arose in March 2002 through the passage of the 2002 Park Bond
Issue approved by voters in California that allowed a $10 million grant to Rancho
Cucamonga, which in turn enabled a cobbling of other funds to make possible a Phase I
construction. The actual construction of the Central Park Phase I improvements began in
2003 and included the Senior and Community Center building, parking improvements and
.~
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGYFOR CENTRAL PARK
AucusT 23, 2007
PAGE 2
approximately 23 acres of open space landscape areas that opened to the public on May
21, 2005. These facilities have 'been tremendously successful in offering enhanced
programs and services to the community. As an expansion to these Phase I
improvements, staff has worked with the architects to design a youth playground to be
constructed by Spring 2008 adjacent to the Community Center.
As a separate but integrated project, the Pacific Electric Trail project that runs along the
north boundary of Central Park is nearing completion and will be opened to the public this
summer. This project was made possible with funding from the State Bicycle Transportation
Act, State and Federal Funds through the Transportation Development Act, City
Beautification Funds and City Park Developmeht Funds.
With Phase I of the park complete, the City Council has indicated their interest in moving
ahead with the continued development of Central Park. As part of the Council goal setting
process for upcoming year(s), the City Council identified the development of the Family
Aquatics Center at Central Park as the highest park and recreation facility priority.
The identification of the Family Aquatics Center as the Council's top priority was the result
of many factors occurring over the past few years.. The City has long had a strong interest
in the development of an Aquatics Center at Central Park, as evidenced by the inclusion of
a swimming facility in the original 1987 Master Plan. As part of the General Plan update in
2001, the Community Services Department implemented a community parks and recreation
facility needs assessment study to determine the most pressing needs of the City residents
for future improvements. The study results indicated a very high need for a recreational
swimming facility, desired by 42% of the survey respondents. The only higher needs
identified at that time were for aTeen/Youth Services facility and a Performing Arts facility,
both of which have been met through the development of the Central Park Community
Center and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center respectively.
The importance of insuring that the Aquatics Center is designed foremost as a recreational
swimming facility was also represented in the survey since a high percentage of
respondents (22%) indicated a very low need for a competitive swimming pool. When
asked to name the one facility the City most needed, a recreational swimming complex
received a very high response rate, again second only to an Arts Center. As planning and
design for the Park's Phase I improvements were underway, staff worked with a very
experienced aquatics center consultant to prepare a feasibility study which analyzed the
different types of pools and their associated construction and operation vests, identified
programming possibilities, studied the demographics of the community related to interest in
aquatics facility use and more. The results of this study were discussed with the City
Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a workshop in October, 2006. As part
of this study session, the consultant and staff informed the Council and Commission of the
significant programming trends towards recreational based aquatics facilities throughout
the country and the state in recent years.
P14
P.2
P15
P.3
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL PARK
AuGUSr23, 2007
PAGE 3
To prepare for the continued development of Central Park and specifically the Family
Aquatics Center, staff has been working on the development of future options for the City
Council's consideration based upon Council priority, logical design phasing, fiscal reality,
and all necessary processing steps.
PHASING AND FUNDING ISSUES
The complete development of Central Park
design and construction phasing as funding 4
available. There are still approximately 75
which includes the future development of the
Tennis Center and the lakes/open space p<
also includes incorporation of Fire Station 1
southwest comer of the park.
Phasinst Issues
is a long term project, consisting of logical
x both construction and operations becomes
acres of undeveloped park land remaining,
Family Aquatics Center, the Gymnasium and
rk areas. Planning for future improvements
78 and park maintenance functions into the
Development of now City facilities requires a considerable investment of not only design
and construction funds, but even more important is the ongoing funding of facility
maintenance, programming and supervision. Because of the realities of budgetary growth
and the continued needs of all other ongoing service programs. There are not enough
funds available to construct and operate the entire remaining park at once. As a result,
staff has been working on phasing options and the development of a multi-year strategy for
the development of Central Park, identifying what is required for each phase to become a
reality. In developing these phasing alternatives, staff and the design team are challenged
with addressing the issues below. It is suggested that the City Council consider these
issues in reviewing the priorities for the proposed phasing:
Availabilitv of design and construction funding -Because of the size and number of
planned amenities at Central Park, the costs for design and construction of public
facilities are considerable. Staff and the City Council are challenged with identifying
potentially available construction funds. Please note that capital projects are not
funded from the General Fund but from other special funds as these become
available.
Availabilitv of programming and operations funding -Allocating funding for ongoing
programming and operations of new facilities is even more challenging since these
costs continue every year after opening and net operating costs must be funded by
the General Fund. Any new projects must rely on future revenue growth for financial
support. The challenge is not only estimating what the future revenue growth might
be, but also tb anticipate what additional future costs the City will have to address in
other service areas as well as increased fixed operating costs for existing programs.
P16
P.4
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL PARK
AUGUST 23, 2007
PACE 4
When looking fonnrard to future City facilities that will require general fund support,
sound planning dictates that the required amount of. annual revenue growth be
preserved in advance for this future facility, to be. sure that the City will realistically
have the full funding in place to support the new operation once the facility is
completed and opens. Also, since some types of recreation facilities produce more
program-related revenue than others, this factor must be kept in mind when
determining phasing priorities and estimating on-going costs.
Meeting highest community program and faciliiv needs -While the realities of
funding availability often dictates what future park facilities can be built, the phasing
plan for Central Park also needs to consider which of the proposed • facility
components will help satisfy the highest community needs first.
• Construction related issues relating to phasing - From a logistical point of view, the
Central Park phasing plan must take into consideration the most effective manner of
how to develop different portions of the park at different times, while controlling costs
and minimizing the inconvenience to park users and neighbors.
Phasing Priorities
Staff has spent a great deal of time considering the remaining Central Parts Master Plan
facility components, in the context of the phasing issues discussed above. Based on this
analysis staff is recommending that the future build-out of Central Park be planned using
the following phasing components and priorities. Exhibit #2 is a Central Park Site Plan,
graphically divided into these corcesponding phases, each phase having a distinct time line
and funding requirement.
• Phase II -This next phase would include the Family Aquatics Center, site
development of the western 24 acres (including the park space adjacent to Fire
Station 178), the maintenance service area, required parking spaces and interim
landscape planting for the future gymnasium pad area (within the proposed Phase
IV area). This interim landscape area would be primarily turf and would serve as a
nice park play space and Family Aquatics Center programming area until such time
as the gym is built.
Staff is proposing this portion of the development as the highest priority for the
following reasons:
1. Construction funding can be realistically made available for this work in the
near future, allowing design work to begin immediately.
2. Based on the needs study, the Family Aquatics Center is currently the highest
unmet need resulting from the 2001 community needs survey, and the need
for a recreational swimming facility is one constantly heard by staff.
3. The Family Aquatics Center is a very cost effective facility due to its ability to
attract a large number of participants and their willingness to pay the
appropriate user and program fees.
P17
P.5
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL PARK
Aucusr23, 2007
PAGE 5
4. The landscaped areas are fairly contained in size and manageable in terms of
ongoing costs.
5. The maintenance service area will be a critical maintenance component to the
efficient operation of both the Aquatics Center and the existing portions of the
park.
6. Constructing this western-most portion of the park in the near future also
makes good sense logistically in order to minimize construction and use
impact on the Senior and Community Center facility.
7. Building the Aquatics Center during approximately the same time as the Fire
Station (approximately 2 acres) will result in a positive programming
relationship between the two facilities relating to water safety, lifeguard
training, community safety related programming and general park security in
the southwest comer as well as efficient use of two funds contributing to the
cost effective completion of this corner.
• Phase III -Staff is proposing that the following phase of the Central Park
development include the central 38 acres including the lakes, grounds,
amphitheater, playgrounds and picnic shelters. The City Council has also expressed
an interest in developing a space within the park to serve as a reflective spot
honoring the community's veterans, which would likely be adjacent to the lakes.
Additional parking spaces would also be developed in this phase.
These amenities are being proposed as the third phase of the park development.
The construction funding for this portion of the park will be considerable and funding
resources are not currently available, but could be available in the not-to-distant
future. An even more important funding consideration will be the ongoing costs
necessary for maintaining the lakes and the large amount of open landscape space
within the central portion of the park, especially since this phase of the park does not
contain any high revenue producing amenities. In terms of community need, it is
well known that most of the City's parks are heavily utilized for active recreation
purposes, particularly for use by youth sports groups. There is a significant interest
in passive park areas and picnic space. In the 2001 community survey, 39% of the
respondents saw the need for more picnic facilities within the City. As the City's
major park facility, residents are often asking for the development of playgrounds
and passive recreation areas at Central Park. However, due to the much higher
need for the Family Aquatics Center from the community, staff believes that this
central portion would be better suited as a Phase III development option after
wmpletion of the Family Aquatics Center phase. Staff anticipates no construction
related challenges with developing these Phase III improvements after completion of
Phase II.
P18
P.6
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL PARK
AuGUSr23, 2007
PAGE 6
Phase IV - It is recommended .that Phase IV of, the improvements include the
northwest corner of the park, which would consist of the community gymnasium and
tennis complex along with the required parking expansion. While actual construction
of these Phase IV amenities might be many years from now, staff is proposing that
the programming vision and the conceptual layout of these spaces be included with
the Phase II project to insure that the Aquatics Center and the future gymnasium
and tennis facilities are all.designed to operate effectively together, once these are
all built in the future.
The current Central Park Master plan envisions a large gymnasium of approximately
80,000 square feet and a thirteen court competitive tennis complex: Based on
programming trends over the past years, staff is proposing that the tennis complex
would be more efficient if it were designed and operated as an eight court
recreational facility, capable of hosting quality recreational lessons and tournaments.
The construction and operating cost estimates included later in this report assume
the gymnasium will remain at 80,000 square feet, but the size and programming
philosophy, and therefore the costs, for this gym could easily be reduced and still be
very successful in meeting the community needs. Staff is keenly aware that there is
a strong community need for an indoor gym facility, as evidenced by the waiting lists
for many of; our programs at the Family Sports Center. It is also getting more
difficult, and costly, to rent school district gymnasiums for Community Services
programs.
The estimated consttuction and operational .costs for the gymnasium and tennis
complex are substantial, and the community need for the aquatics center and open
park space outweighs the need for the gym/tennis complex at this point in time.
Funding Issues
Of course the most difficult challenge in the development of new community facilities is
obtaining the necessary funds for their design, construction and operation. Using 2007-08
dollars, the estimated amount of construction and operating funding necessary for each
phase is as follows:
Phase II -Family Aquatics Center Proiect
Design and construction related costs: $35 million
Annual program and operation costs (first full year): $998, 000
Phase III -Lakes and Open Saace Proiect
Design and construction related costs: $32 million
Annual program and operation costs (first full year): $1,222,000
Phase IV -Gymnasium and Tennis Complex Proiect
Design and construction related costs: $45 million
Annual program and operation costs (first full year): $1,409,000
P19
P.7
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL PARK
AUGUST 23, 2007
PAGE 7
The costs indicated are 2007-08 cost estimates, so it can be safely assumed that these
costs will increase each subsequent year by approximately 3%. The annual program and
operation costs shown are "net costs", meaning that projected revenues are factored into
the analysis and this is the minimum amount of general fund support that would be required
each year.
In providing design and construction related funding resources for the Central Park project,
a potential funding strategy would be to utilize a portion of the bonding ability of .the
Redevelopment Agency, specifically a portion of the proposed 2008 bond issue to fund the
design and construction of Phase II. Another potential but not guaranteed funding source
may be the opportunities for grant funding through some of the State bond issues for which.
guidelines have not yet been established by the State.
Providing for annual programming and operation funding is much more difficult and
requires much more advance planning and adherence to a long. term financial plan. In
planning for this discussion on the future Central Park development, it was necessary to
complete a thorough staffing and operations yearly cost estimate for each of the proposed
phases. These annual wst support estimates must then be evaluated in terms of how
much new revenue growth the City can anticipate in future years, and how much of that
revenue growth could potentially be "reserved" each year in the future to fund the operation
of the new park improvements. Using the proposed Phase 11 improvements as an example,
assuming that design on the improvements began immediately:
i
Design and construction would take approximately three years, so the Phase II
improvements would open during the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year.
Estimated annual operating costs for Phase II in current dollars are estimated at
$998,000 for the first full year of operation. Assuming a 3% annual cost increase,
the estimated annual operating cost for the first full year of Phase II in 2011-2012
would be $1,117,000.
This would require the City to reserve approximately $300,000 in new revenue
growth each year for the next four years to fund this annual $1,117,000 operating
amount at the time of opening.
Whenever the Phase III or Phase IV improvements are constructed, the annual operating
costs would have to be added to totals for Phase II, and the appropriate amount of future
revenue growth would need to be reserved each year for this purpose. As an example, if
the City were to proceed on all three remaining phases concurrently at this time, and
assuming they all opened for the first full year of operation 'in 2011-2012, the annual
operating budget requirement after the 3% annual inflationary adjustment would be
$4,083,000. This would require the City to reserve approximately $1 million in future
revenue growth each year for the next four years just to open the new facilities. This
scenario would be highly unlikely. Phasing is the only prudent approach.
P20
P.8
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL PARK
AUGUST 23, 2007
PAGE 8
Phasing Recommendations
Based upon the realities of supporting the annual operating costs, in addition to the
significant requirements for construction funding, staff has developed a phasing strategy for
the remaining Central Park improvements as described above, with emphasis placed on
completing the Phase II and Phase III projects as funding permits. Making progress on the
Family Aquatics Center and the open space portions of the park will accomplish the current
goals set by the City Council. Staff would propose that planning for Phase IV still continue,
and that alternative and creative funding mechanisms be pursued for the gymnasium and
tennis complex within Phase IV for the future.
Staff has developed a chart for each of the proposed future phases of park development
which indicates the time required for design and construction of each, as well as the
estimated costs for construction and operation of each phase. Each phase is represented
as a separate increment with its own construction and funding time lines. The specific
timing to initiate each phase will depend upon the availability of capital funds and the status
of cash flows in any given year and how these are managed to provide the necessary
maintenance and operations at the conclusion of any phase. These phases can be linear,
broken up or overlapped depending upon the above factors. Those charts are attached
and are labeled Exhibits 3, 4 and 5.
The City Council can use the enclosed schedule and funding charts to discuss potential
phasing and financing options.
Conclusion
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to how to proceed with developing the
next phase(s) of Central Park. If the City Council directs staff to proceed with the option
described above to develop Phase II now and plan to begin Phase III work to follow in 3-4
years, staff will finalize the work plan with the design team and bring back the architectural
services agreement for approval by the Council. To facilitate solid future planning, staff
would proceed not only with the actual construction design of the identified Phase II
improvements, but also include an update on the programming for the Phase III area and
updated programming/conceptual design of the Phase IV gymnasium and tennis court
complex. ,
Lam, AICP .,lM /~..~~
Manager l(
Enclosures
Community Services Director
P21
S P. 9
._
~,, - ~.
_~--,-.
t
x
w
~~
[..
i,
P23
ch
~_
W
ti
Cs
~e, a
~~
~^
o ~
ao
rn
~.
d ~~ N~ m ~ C a ~
~ E ~ c ~ o ao
c mmocc°~ ~ 4
N c '. c c
d . ~ ~"" ClC tL C c
~ ~ ~c~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ to ~ ~~ ~~ g m
A ~ ~ ~ s ¢v~ ~ ~ ~ C
c~ .L ~am~3~•~g a
c3e a aQ~~a~a~$ ~
P.11
P24
Lx
W
O
N
~ ~ w
N ~
r
M
~ ~
- N
GO
N
r, a c~
A
'^
W
Z
r
Q
Na ti
N
~ ~ r.
b9
z
r
C ~ ~ r-.
L
d ~ ~ ~ ~
O o0
~ ~ a o O
p~ o v
d ~ ~ O C_ t cC0 ~C
A ~ ~~~ 0.~ ...
~ W ~ V
~ t ~~ ~ a ~
a m ~m
~o ~va~a v
P. 12
P25
~
~ ~
F-
W
CO
~ ~
00
r
as w
_ m
c ~~~~
~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~
_~ ~~;~ ~ 4
C C ~ ~ C v
Id O~~'N C ~ U
~ N >Q ~~~ o'~ v c
c^ S ~>~EE1° a
c°~~ O- a~~88~ ~ o
P. 13
Exhibit 1/3P26
December 11.2007
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
A. -CALL TO ORDER
A special joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council/Redevelopment. Agency and Park and
Recreatidn Commission was held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at the Arrow Center (Mission Room)
located at 9791 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Councilmember Gutierrez called the Park and
Recreation Commission to order at 1:35 p.m. with all members present. The Council was called to order at
1:55 p.m. once a quorum was established.
Present were Councilmembers/Agencymembers: Rex Gutierrez, L. Dennis Michael (arrived at 1:55 p.m.),
Sam Spagnolo, and Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Diane Williams (arrived at 2:00 p.m.).
Absent was Mayor/Chairman: Donald J. Kurth, M.D.
Present were Commissioners: Martin Dickey, Antonio Karraa, Francisco Oaxaca, Ann Punter and Chairman
Patricia Carlson.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager/Executive Director; Tamara Layne, Finance Director; Kevin
McArdle, Community Services Director; Dave Moore Community Services Superintendent; Nettie Nielsen,
Community Services Superintendent; Karen McGuire-Emery, Sr. Park Planner; Francie Palmer, Marketing
Manager; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; JoAnn Gwynn, Community Services Supervisor; Michelle
Dazalla, Community Services Coordinator; Melissa Morales, Sr. Administrative Secretary; and Debra J.
Adams, City Clerk/ASSistant Secretary.
B. PUBLIC CO1VIIyIUnTICATIONS
No communication was made from the public.
C. ITEM(S) OF BUSINESS _ ____ . _
C1. DISCUSSION REGARDING FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated for the last couple of years everyone has been reviewing
material for the Aquatics Center. He commented that on November 26'" a tour of the Aquatics Centers in La
Mirada, Palmdale and Santa Clarita was taken. He informed everyone that just prior to this meeting, staff and
the consultants had met to discuss the proposed Aquatics Center, and now they are asking for input from the
Council and Commission. He referred to the pictures on the wall of the Aquatics Centers at La Mirada,
Palmdale, Santa Clarita and some photos taken by Dave Moore, Community Services Superintendent, at an
aquatics conference.
Robert Meuting, RJM Design Group, asked for the Council and Commission to look at all of the pictures and
put dots on the photos they liked.
P27
Special Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency and Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 1 t, 2007
Page 2
Santa Clarita Aquatics Center Comments
Councilmember/Agencymember Spagnolo stated he liked the snack area with access on both sides. He felt
there should be more area for people to eat. He mentioned the gutter system that La Mirada has and stated
he liked that.
Councilmember/Agencymember Gutierrez stated he likes a larger play area. He stated his dream is to have a
beach area.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael arrived at 1:55 p.m. Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman W illiams arrived
at 2:00 p.m.
Councilmember/Agencymember Spagnolo stated he would like the indoor pool for the senior activities.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael stated it was sad to see the discoloration of some of the equipment,
.and felt it distracted from the product. Randy Mendiorez, Aquatic Design Group, stated this will happen with
more vibrant colored equipment. He suggested using lighter colored equipment where the fading will not be
as noticeable.
Chairman Carlson expressed concerns about life guards and felt safety was important.
Rick Gould, City of Santa Clarita, stated he didn't feel a lot of deck would be a safety issue, and felt the flow
was more important.
Commissioner Dickey stated he likes the life guard area at Santa Clarita and liked the hills for spectator
viewing.
Commissioner Oaxaca liked the zero depth entrance at Santa Clarita as opposed to La Mirada's.
La Mirada Aquatics Center Comments
Councilmember(Agencymember Michael liked the lazy river and other elements it had.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, reminded everyone that the competitive needs will be taken
care of at the high school and college facilities, and that this center is more for recreation.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams stated she liked the deck level gutter system. She stated she was
concerned about colored equipment in the Aquatics Center not knowing what the surrounding neighbors would
think as they look into the park.
Councilmember/Agencymember Spagnolo stated he likes the family atmosphere that La Mirada portrayed,
and stated he agreed with Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams on the colors for the equipment.
Councilmember/Agencymember Gutierrez stated he loves La Mirada for obvious reasons.
Commissioner Oaxaca commented on the wrist bands for crowd control and piped in music.
Commissioner Dickey stated he liked the splash area.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael stated he liked the spa area.
Commissioner Dickey stated he liked the idea of using landscaping to separate areas.
P28
Special Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency and Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 11, 2007
Page 3
Chairman Carlson stated she liked the idea of separating the areas in case you have a "toddler-type" accident
in the tot pool, it could be shut down and not affect all the other areas. She mentioned separating areas by
age groups.
Randy Mendiorez, Aquatice Design Group, stated he agreed and felt there should be separate areas for each
age group.
Commissioner Oaxaca stated he liked the concession/store area in La Mirada.
Palmdale Aquatics Cenler Comments
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams stated she likes the punch bowl effect, but did not think it was right for
Rancho Cucamonga. She wondered if this could be worked into the design somehow.
Councilmember/Agencymember Gutierrez stated he likes this too.
Councilmember/Agencymember Spagnolo felt the south side of the park would be a good place for this.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams stated the staff at Palmdale told her that this is a revenue generator
for them. She felt we need to decide if this park is a revenue generator or just a family park.
Councilmember/Agencymember Gutierrez hoped that the Council would get to see some more drawings that
include this feature.
Councilmember/Agencymember Spagnolo stated he liked the lazy river in Palmdale. He stated the whole idea
is to create a family aquatics center and didn't think people would mind paying a fee to get in as long as there
are sections for all ages.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael felt there should be some kind of subsidy for those families that
cannot aflord the whole amount. He also felt out-of-town visitors should pay a higher fee.
Councilmember/Agencymember Gutierrez stated he was thinking of $5.00 for residents and $10.00 for
nonresidents.
Bandy Mendiorez, Aquatic Design Group, stated in some cases residents object to paying fees and felt the
price shouldn't be set so high people don't come. He felt the price should be se[ like a movie iickel is. He
stated someone can pay the price and enjoy the facility all day.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael felt it should be revenue neutral.
Randy Mendiorez, Aquatic Design Group, felt if the tickets are in the $6 - $10.00 range, people would get a
great value and will keep coming back.
Commissioner Karraa agreed. He stated he didn't think Palmdale's colors were as faded as some of the
others. He also thought it was interesting that Palmdale was only open a few months out of the year.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated that is why they are looking at the indoor option.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael fell it should be open year round except for the months of January -
March.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated Memorial Day to Labor Day is the peak time.
Councilmember/Agencymember Spagnolo felt possibly the oft season could be used for rentals of the facility.
P29.
Special Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency and Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 11, 2007
Page 4
Chairman Carlson stated she was concerned about the wind factor with the Devil's Bowl. She stated she is
concerned about the height of things. She stated the teens from 13 and above like to have an area for
socializing. She pointed out that the schools are probably going to start the second week in August.
Commissioner Dickey felt Palmdale was the least favorite for him because ii was like Raging Waters with too
much concrete and not enough grass. He didn't feel it was a relaxing atmosphere.
Commissioner Oaxaca commented on trees being planted too close to the water creating more maintenance
to keep the water clean. He also mentioned the use of rile and hoped something besides that could be used.
Randy Mendiorez, Aquatic Design Group, stated they would normally use pool plaster which he said has to
have water covering it all the time.
Commissioner Oaxaca stated he liked the lighting of the park at night, but didn't know if we could do that at our
facility.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael stated he liked the shower facilities at La Mirada, but felt we could
save money by having more outdoor shower facilities.
Randy Mendiorez, Aquatic Design Group, stated the shower requirements are driven by State codes.
Chairman Carlson stated she liked the outdoor showers for safety reasons. She stated she also likes the
lockers outside. She felt night use would be very beneficial and used a lot by people.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams felt it would be good to have a grassy area around the Aquatics
Center where people can set around it and enjoy watching the activities going on inside. She felt it would be
good to have some element on the outside that people could also enjoy.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, mentioned the indoor pool, a recreation pool and an outdoor
pool with slides are currently planned. He also informed the Council/Agency about the Flow Rider since
previous comments had been made atiout a lazy river element.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams felt this would be popular all year round in Rancho Cucamonga.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated an additional fee could be established for people that
wanted to use the Flow Rider.
Randy Mendiorez, Aquatic Design Group, stated possibly the Flow Rider could be put in and the outdoor pool
possibly reduced in size.
The Council liked this idea.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the Flow Rider requires a lot of maintenance.
Randy Mendiorez, Aquatic Design Group, stated there might be some maintenance involved because of the
surface material, but that it should last for 10 - 15 years.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated it they do away with the outdoor pool, they would
increase the size of the indoor pool. He stated we still want to continue with some of our programs by using
the school districts' swimming facilities.
Jack Lam, City Manager/Executive Director, felt long term maintenance should also be looked at.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chairman Williams felt it was important not to copy neighboring cities and felt the Flow
Rider is just what we need.
The Council discussed the financial feasibility of the bowl that Palmdale has.
P30
Special Joint City CounciVRedevelopment Agency and Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 11, 2007
Page 5
Robert Meuting, RJM Design Group, stated they develop concepts with and without the bowl.
Chairman Carlson felt year-round passes should be considered like some of the other water parks offer.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael asked what the time frame was for completion of this.
Jack Lam, City Manager/Executive Director, stated it would probably take about three years total.
Chairman Carlson mentioned the idea of shifts for people using this facility.
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Williams asked if there was a theme for the Aquatics Center. She wasn't sure
if we even needed a theme.
Chairman Carlson felt it should be flexible.
Councilmember/Agencymember Michael lelt the design was more important than a theme to him.
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Respectfully m/~i~n~t/~ed,~` ~~~~ ~
ebra J. A s, CMC
City Clerk/ sistant Secretary
Approved by Park and Recreation Commission: January 17, 2008
Approved by City Council: January 16, 2008
P31
STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPAR'[MENT
RANCHO
Date: December 11, 2007 CUCAMONGA
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Members of the Park and Recreation Commission
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager '
From: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
Subject: DISCUSSION REGARDING FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER
BACKGROUND:
Over the past two years, Community Services staff and the Central Park design consultants
have been sharing research information and programming trends with the City Council
relating to Family Aquatic Centers. Staff and the Aquatics Consultant completed an
Aquatics Center Feasibility Study in 2006 which provided an in-depth analysis of the
different types of aquatics facilities and the construction/operating costs associated with
each type. A number of special workshops were held with the City Council and the Park
and Recreation Commission since the completion of that report to discuss the scope and
components of the future Family Aquatics Center to be designed and constructed at
Central Park. At the workshop held on August 23, 2007, the City Council approved the
concept and priority phasing for a recreational aquatics facility, which would likely include
an indoor year-round 25 yard pool for instruction and fitness programming; an outdoor 25
yard pool for instruction, fitness programs and recreational competitive swimming
programs; and an outdoor recreational pool for family aquatics activities. The City Council
expressed their desire to have further discussions and facility tours to more fully develop
the programming and design concepts of the Family Aquatics Center.
During the City Council workshop on August 23, 2007, staff provided conceptual cost
estimates for the design and construction of the Family Aquaiics Center including the basic
components described above, plus .the administrative and support spaces necessary to
operate the facility. Also included in the cost estimate were estimates for the related site
improvements and the service yard that are part of the Phase II Central Park
improvements. Those cost estimates for both design and construction are summarized
below:
Site Improvements- $12,031,700
Aquatics Components- $ 6,418,000
Buildings/Structures- $10,716,000
Contingency- $ 5.833.200
Total- $34,998,900
P32
DISCUSSION REGARDING FAMILY AQUATI6 CENTER ~ PAGE 2
DECEMBER 11, 2007
On November 26, 2007 the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission, staff and the
design team took a tour of recently completed aquatic centers in La Mirada, Santa Clarita
and Palmdale. This tour provided the participants with ahands-on opportunity to see
different types of recreational pool amenities and begin a discussion on the pros and cons
of the various components. In addition to this tour, over the past two years staff has
provided the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission with photos, videos and
news articles of many other facilities throughout the country.
The purpose of-the December 11, 2007 Joint Council/Commission Workshop is to share
preliminary ideas and concepts for the City's future Family Aquatics Center, based on the
recent observations of other facilities. To facilitate creative thinking and references to the
recent tour, staff and the consultants will have many photos on display for the workshop;
highlighting the La Mirada, Santa Clarita and Palmdale facilities, as well as photos of other
successful aquatic facilities throughout the country. Staff and the design consultants will be
meeting on the moming of December 11 prior to the workshop to have detailed and specific
discussions on the same topic areas, the results of which will be shared with the Council
and Commission in the afternoon.
Staff would propose that the following discussion outline be followed for the December 11
Workshop, to facilitate idea sharing regarding all aspects of the Family Aquatics Center
design. As a discussion format for each topic, staff will first share the results of the moming
meeting discussions amongst the design team. Then the City Council would share their
thoughts and ideas on each topic, followed by members of the Park and Recreation
Commission. Staff will highlight discussion points on flip charts for easy reference.
DISCUSSION AGENDA
1. Informal review and discussion of the photo displays
2. Discussion of observations from the aquatics center tour on November 26, 2007
a. La Mirada Splash
b. Santa Clarita Aquatics Center
c. Palmdale Dry Town Aquatics Center
3. Discussion on potential aquatics facility water-related components/amenities.
a. Indoor Year-Round Pool
b. Outdoor 25 Yard Pool
c. Zero Depth Pool Entry
d. Water Playground/Interactive Components
e. Splash Pads
f. Lazy Rivers
g. Slides
h. Wave Pools
i. Other
P33
DISCUSSION REGARDING FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER
DE(EMSER ] 1, 2007
PAGE3
4. Discussion on potential aquatics facility non-water related components/amenities.
a. Deck Areas
b. Concessions/Merchandise Sales
c. Picnic/Party Areas
d. Other Activity Areas
e. Entry/Administrative Building
f. Other
5. Discussion regarding facility theming alternatives
6. Concluding Comments
Attached is a separate outline of this discussion agenda which the workshop participants
may wish to use to write down notes and ideas before or during the idea sharing session.
It is anticipated that the results of this Joint Council/Commission Workshop will prove very
helpful to staff and the design team as the actual conceptual planning for the Family
Aquatics Center_gets started in January.
Community Services Director
Attachment
P34
DISCUSSION AGENDA NOTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
12/11/07
1. Informal review and discussion of the photo displays.
2. Discussion of observations from the aquatics center tour on November 26.2007.
a. La Mirada Splash
b. Santa Ciarita Aquatics Center
c. Palmdale Dry Town Aquatiu Center
3. Discussion on potential aquatics facility water-related components/amenities.
a. Indoor Year-Round Pool
b. Outdoor 25 Yard Pool
P35
c. Zero Depth Pool Entry
d. Water Playground/Interactive Components
e. SplasFi Pads
f. Lary Rivers
g. Slides
h. Wave Pools
i. Other
P36
4. Discussion on potential aquatics facility non-water related components/amenities.
a. Deck Areas
b. Concessions/Merchandise Sales
c. PicnidParty Areas
d. Other Activity Areas
e. Entry/Administrative Building
f. Other
5. Discussion regarding facility theming alternatives
b. Concluding Comments
Exhibit ~~4 P37
a n a
~ ~ ~
0 0 0
E
a m
~ m W E
o
an
'- ~ ~ .
~ o.
m ~
o
~
~
~ ~
o
w n E E
m
~ m
E m
r-
n
n
Ea W
R E
~ '- rn rn rn
3
y ~ 0 0 0 0
Ts
p T r ~
p
p O O O O !n lL ll.. lL X 0 0 O
O U U U U to ~ ~ ~ ~ U U U
a a a
~ ~ ~
0 0 0
E E
N E
«f E
N E
G
ao
o.
~ a
,n
o
co
cn
ao
v)
w
v~ O.
,~
a
c a c~ cn to
a ` E E
m
~ ~ a Ea a
u
~ ~
y E
Q rn
0 rn
0 rn
0 E
OO
~
U
"O o ~,
C E
C6 E
N E
f0 j,
C
~
~
N
-~
j d
O N
O d
O N
O O
~ a0
LL a0
l.L a0
LL p
(~
0
0
O
O U U U U cn ~ ~ ~ cis U U U
`
E
E
E
n
E
n
E
a
E
o
E
a
E
s
E
a 0
U_
E
s 0
U
,..
E
a
~ a o. .
.+ ~ ~n m m ao ao ao 0o u~ ~n ~n
m ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V ~ E
l6 E
N E
tp E
t0 E
t0 E
f0 E
N E
l0 E
/fl E
l9 E
lC
~,
c0
,
cp
v
d
cp
~
cD
~
cD
cn
c0
cn
c0
~
cD
~
c0
~ y
cD ~
~n y y
cp N
cn
m W ~ a° v ~ h v n n v v v d v
~
~
m
~
7
I
m
C
o
C
O to
E cn
.
E a
~
m t
~
E v~
E c
E c
~
E to
~
E cn
~
E cn
~
E , •~
~ L
EU ~ ~~
~ L
EU
Q - ~ ~ '~ a a E o a a n a n a n o a o
A p
m N a m ` ao ao ~ .
rn rn rn rn rn a~ oo ao ao
R v c ~ ~
m o
~ 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
' o c
y ~ ~ E
f E ~ E
l E
l E
lp E
f0 E
c0 E
l0 E
l0 E
N E
(0
~
Ia
W
C f0
m
~ C
~
~ ~
7
O L
O
O 0
(D
lL N
cD
LL
~
y C
cD
tL d
c0
LL
cD
LL.
t0
LL.
tp
tL
tp
LL
tD
1L y
c0 C
lL l9 y
c0 C
LL (0
c ~ ~ (n ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IL- ~ It-
O
E
fl.
7
U ~
e~ L
~
L
p
t
C C
E ~
d
a~
3
co
~
r
L
~
N
~,
~
E
~ L
a~
O ~
~ .~
E
~
l0 ~ ~
~ O C
~ ~
i ~ O C
~ ~ ~ N U O
~ a ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ Q cn O z a
Exhibit ~~5
s P38
N
_N
d
V
la
d
O
m
m
N
"~ Q.
O ~
E H
'L
t0 /6
fl. Q
r .+
C C
d ~
U U
01
LL
O
O
CO
O
O
Q
OO
O
00
O
O
N
(i1
w
U
W
A
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
c~rltM r J
.is ~w
~f ~~~.?
.Y.
.lwy_
••
•~ ' r',
r
^'
~ ry
c-'
~~
:r
ci ~
r
r~: ~
. .
-. • . r
w
+~s __,„
~; ~
.,~:~. .
..-~' ~
V
b
',
i ~
~~~ M
?' V
~;
~':
~,
•
^
S
1
~.. ' f
~, ~ ; '
M
1.
1
i ~'
~•
ti'.
~", /~_ ~
~'' .. _ V ; f ~ ~i.
~ Ip V~a
,,
..
I` ,
•~.~
j*.t
(; 3.
~r
(: r
r•
~, •~
t ~ ,Y
-~~l
± .~
III ~ '7
~~ ~i
z
O
1~ ~
W
H ~U
~ ~ CQ7
~O
~~
U
U
O
U
(~ ~~
l r--~
~7 U
-a
No
I Ga
~ N
~ W ~ ~
o~..tv
O
v~i<
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
f~ ~ ~
~~
H
W ~O
w a~
wU
~ ~~
~O
'-'
~ ~
W U
~ O
`~ ~ U
a a~
w
O
H~
~-i U
~.r
4~
~f
~.;
~~
ow
o~
m
~~
Hw
¢°~
U
w
,!~ C7
H w
~ ~
~ ~
~ o
Q ~
o
a ~ r.~
~o
?~~_
B
I$
e
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ w ^ ^ ^
Yd
W
d
~p
ZJ
F
Ua
'u3
W
U
w
F
F
Q
Z
0
~J
as
~~
wj
a~
u~
z
0
F
u
Fz~}
gag
~aNa
a
H
a
w
U
O
V
H
r--~
U
w
0
w
a
U
z
0
U
U
x
U
w
H
U
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
r-.
Wn
J~
~~
~' W
~~
3 ~,
~~
V
_ZJ
ZJ
og
a ~
~ z
0 ~
~~d
~d~
w~~
O~CZWJ
U J
~a.w~
Z
0
~~wQZ
OC W
J
aU31~aQwg.
0
J
~N
Q OC
I~
~}
a.
N~
W JU^
~~~ZJ
ad~a~
Q
U
U
z
z
0
H
U
w
d
z~
a~
O
w
a~
U
C7
O
U
x
U
w
0
U
~ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
W
~~
~- ~ ~ ;~
'~
:~
`t.
~,~
~-,
O
w
a~
U
d
C7
z
0
U
U
O
x
U
w
0
U
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
0
w
a~
U
d
C7
z
0
U
U
0
x
U
w
O
U
W
W
W
m
rrY M
Ot W~~
d
~~u
aoQ~
z~
G4
O
w
U
d
C7
z
0
U
U
O
x
U
w
O
U
z~
t~
O
w
a~
U
d
z
0
V
U
O
x
w
O
H
U
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
0
w
U
z
0
U
U
O
x
U
w
O
U
U
`Z
V
a
ry N
!! W~t
U
a[~=Q
N
Quaff
^^^^^^^~^^^^^^^^^~^i^~^^~^^^^^^^r
J
0
Q
Z
0
u~
U
w
O
w
U
C7
z
0
U
U
O
x
U
w
O
U
^^^^^r^^^^^^^^^r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
z
0
w
w
w
x
0
z
0
w
w
w
F
z
0
w
w
w
w
z
0
Q
w
w
w
x
0
z
z
O
W
W
r~
w
H
z
w
U
z
o~
0
V
v
z
0
a
U
0
z
V
z
w
0
~-
U
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
~ Zz
;T ¢ ~ ~~
w A ~o
~ Q
__-
__ a
!i~ 3 ~ pq WU
~ z Z ~-+ ~
z
O
o
~ ~ ~
a o T ~ rw~ U
Q Z U
'~ D ~` ~ Q
O
D, _ ~ ~ V v
-~- ~ ~ a ~
~, ¢ ~ o °
~ ,' ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ W - ~ ~U
~ - ~;: U: ~
o ~- ~.
E z f ~ ~'~
U ~ -
~ ~ `I: t~=----- -
~ :. .., r. (._:_~..
L..
m - -~ I ... \\~ ~
~ O ~ ~ ~'.;. \ 1
ao. ~
F-
O u
U r~G
O ~
---_
~ ~
w ~
3 ~'
z - ~
~~,
~ ~
~ ~ g
3 ~
-~ r o
~ z ~; ~zd
._~_
~ - r ~~ I 14~~ r Jx
^ ~_ ~ `
I
_- ! v
~ ~ _ .~ „
o ~ ~ V „
W~=V
.Y1.-i- \ aua~
CL~ C!1 \
~: O O - z~ 0
Q
>- C/] ~ i L> - - - y~St
t¢z. U Z ~ a~~f#~
^^^^^^^^^r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^s^^^^
` ~3
GIs
ls~°
u~
g=
ao
nc
O ao
J ~
LL ~
LL
N
r
a
d O
CC
~ II
a
~~
~~
N
a
w
2W
J
Z
m
W
] W
U ~
~ ~
O
a Z v~,
V
Z
J_
m
Q
cn
w
V
Z
~ Z
w ~
a Z
OTC to Q
aW,. Z
~7
z
Q
w
z
z
W
F-~
Q
z
Q
L~
,''
W
U
w
V~
Q
z
0
U
Q
v
z
0
a
U
a
U
O
z
V
z
w
0
~-
U
r ,,,
1W~~
io~~
^^
z
0
w
w
w
w
z
0
w
x
H
0
^^^~^^s^r^^^^s^~^^^^^^ra
~--~
0
H
w
O
w
a
U
C7
z
0
a
0
U
z
w
0
H
U
~n
:~~
:am
,fi,r N
~W=S
So4~
^^^^~