HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/02/05 - Agenda Packet - Spec.( Mtg. Future City Park Proj.)AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, February 5, 2007 ~ 4:00 p.m.
Rancho Cucamonga Central Park Community Center -Rancho Cucamonga Hall
11200 Base Line Road ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call:
Mayor Kurth
Mayor Pro Tem Williams
Councilmembers Gutierrez, Michael and Spagnolo
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council on any item
listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and
set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes
per individual.
C. ITEM(S) OF BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE POTENTIAL CITY PARK PROJECTS
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a
true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 31, 2007, per
Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
RANCHO
Date: February 5, 2007 ctlcAMOIVCA
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
From: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
Subject: DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE POTENTIAL CITY PARK PROJECTS
The City Council will be meeting at Central Park on Monday, February 5, 2007, to discuss
and prioritize potential future park projects.
Attached is a notebook which contains important background materials to help guide the
discussions. If possible, it is suggested that the Councilmembers take a few minutes to
read through the materials prior to the meeting.
The notebook contains the following information:
A proposed working agenda for the workshop
A summary of the community survey results from the 2000 Facility Needs Survey
• An overview section containing summary sheets for each of the potential projects;
along with potential discussion issues for each
• A series of exhibits providing more background information for the projects
During the Workshop, staff would like the opportunity to briefly summarize all of the
potential projects, followed by City Council discussion of each project. Staff will then
request the City Council to prioritize the projects in order of importance.
Once the Council identifies the project priorities, staff will begin to develop an
Implementation Plan for the highest priority project.
Respe ully sub itte ,
Community Services Director
Attachments
City o(Rancho Cucamonga, Recreation Needs andSystem Recommendations Study
2007UpdateSee HHighlighted Changes Table 2-9
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS - BUILDOUT ESTIMATE (192,767)
Facility Need Existing School Total '
Ratio -Rancho Buildout City Facilities Facilities - Total
Facility Cucamonga Needs Facilities' - Difference Avail." Avail. Difference
Softball Game Fields""" 1/6,500 pop.~P97~ 9.0 ~ -20.7 17.OgF T 26_0__ _._J 37i
Baseball Game Fields"" 1/3,500 pop. ~ - 55.1 17.0 r , -38.1 12.0 29 0 -26.1'
Football Fields*"` ~ 1/48,400 pop. r! 4.0 2.0 ~ 2 0 _ 1. 0 _ _ 3.0~ ^ tA0_
Soccer Game Fields'"" 1/3,400 pop. ~__._ 56 7 I 17.0 ~ 39.7 X5_0 _ _ _ 22:0_ _ 34.7:
Indoor Basketball Courts 1/9,150 pop. ~ ~ 21.1' ~~-~
______.~ 3.0 1-
~ -18.1
___.__ 8.5
___s~_ 11:5
. -9.6~
__._._ ,
Picnic Tables 1/490 pop. ~ _393.4 ,242.0 _ -T51.4 0 0 ; 242.0 -151.4'
Swimming Pools (Public)
Recreational 1/23,950 pop. , 8.1 I 0.0 ~ ~ ~ 8.1 1.:5 1,5 -6:6~
Competitive 1/34,000 pop v5.7 0.0 _ -5.7 _20 2.0 _3:7;
Tennis Courts 1/3,300 pop. 58.4
~ 10.0 -48 4
3 16.8 26:8 -31..6'
_
._- ._ _ _-.._ _.. _._... .__. _. _.- ... n__.:_J
Golf Courses 1/80.900pop.~~2.4 !! **`**1.0 ~-.1~.3~ 0.0 1.0(~~'-1.:4;
Equestrian Trails (mi.)
1/8,900 pop. ~ ~~21~7 _.._._..... _._..
26:5 ~_._....._...._._..,
~ +4,8 ~ r_......
0.0 L _......_........_ .- _._....
26.5 +4.8!.
Roller Hockey Facilities .._.. ___
1/73,150 pop. 2.6
2.0 ,..._........__...._v.,
I -0.6 !
0.0 , ....._.._ ._..._......,
2.Ou -0.6,
r..~-~- -___ _._r r- ...._.._.......~___. - __...~_ . __.
Senior Centers"" ~ 1/39,050 pop. ~ 4.9 2.7 ~ _2.2 I 0.0 2 7~ X22
- ___._ .
Indoor Classrooms 1/2,250pop.)~ 85.7- ~ 40.0 ~ ~ ~-45.7 6.0 ~ 46.0 ~ 39.7'_
`The supply numbers for this projection include facilities in parks, which were not built in 1999 -Mountain View and Golden
Oak parks were completed in 2000 and La Mission Park will be completed in 2001.
"'Assumes public access to school facilities including tennis courts, swimming pools and basketball courts is restricted
during weekday school hours. A use factor of 50 percent was applied to these school facilities, with the exception of
tennis courts for which a 40 percent factor was used as they are less available during the week..Ball fields at schools
which are not available to organized leagues were not counted in the supply.
"'Only those fields actually used for games are included in this analysis as survey only obtained demand for game fields.
""Senior Centers are assumed to average 10,000 square feet each. The deficit could be satisfied by one larger center as
well as several smaller ones.
""'Privately owned and operated.
Source: Coman Consulting, Inc., based on data from California State Department of Parks and Recreation and the
Rancho Cucamonga Recreation Needs Assessment Survey, January, 2000.
2-23
~`_ \~ ~~
RANCHO CUCAMONCA
CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2007
PRIORITIZATION OF'
POTENTIAL FUTURE
PARK PROJECTS
y1. 't, wi
nJ~V~
/V
1 JO~~
IIV
1ry~}
1
rti
r
O
Z
O
V
O
m
z
-~
v
r
c
-~
C
m
`~
D
'0
0
c.
m
C~
-~
O
m
00
c
-e
N
O
O
J
_~
O
C
z
0
2
O
~o
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City Council Workshop on Future Park Priorities
Monday, February 5, 2007
Discussion Agenda
1. Goal of the Workshop - Prioritization of future potential
park projects leading to staff development of an
Implementation Plan
2. Overview of facility needs identified in 2000 Community
Recreation Needs Assessment Survey
3. Overview of potential construction funding sources
• $4.1 million in Park Development Fund from Etiwanda
Estates
• Redevelopment Agency Funding for Capital Development,
within Redevelopment Area
• 2006 Prop 48 Park Funds
• 2006 Prop ICPark Funds
• Earmarked FederallState/County Funds
• Private sponsorship partners
• Partnership with CCWD
4. Staff overview of the five potential future projects
• Central Park -Phase II -Family Aquatics Center
• Central Park -Phase II -Passive Recreation Areas
• Etiwanda Creek Park -Phase II
• Napa Street Soccer Complex
• Acquisition of Future Park Space
5. Council discussion of individual project issues
. 6. Council prioritization of potential park projects
1
SURVEY
_ Rancho Cucamonga LJbrery ServJe and Recreation Needs Survey January, 2000
i~
V. RECREATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS IN PROGRAMS OR FACILITIES
Ratind Need for Suggested Facility or Program Improvements
Rancho Cucamonga households polled
were probed regarding their needs for
additional parks and recreation facilities
inGuding eighteen specific listed types of
community facilities or programs. For
each facility or program, the respondent
was requested to rate the need for the
facility using a scale of "high need",
"moderate need", "low need", or "no
need". The highlight results of these
inquiries are evidenced in Figures 14 and
15 (see Technical Appendix Tables 60 -
80 for detail).
Rating Need for New Community Facility
Percent High Need Rating
TeeNYouth Services ~ ~~_~-
Perform Arts Ctr ~~~~ '
Recreation Pool ~~~-~' ~ ~~
Community Center 4+x
Fine Arts Ctr ~~~°~=~~' sex
Picnic Facility ~i-= ~ sex
Senior Services ~ ~'~= 9e+~
Gymnasium ?~=~ ssx
Soccer Fk~lds '~~~~ ~x
Dog Park s+x
3096 40% 50%
Figure 14
Figure 14 reveals that ten of the eighteen tested facilities or programs garnered a "high need°
response from at least 30% of respondents polled. As Figure .14 reveals, those tested facilities
or services garnering the highestvolumes of "high need" responses included Teen and Youth Club
Research Network ltd.
28
(949J 888-3770
2
~.-
Rancho Cucamonga Library Service and Recreation Needs Survey January, 2000 ,
Facilities and Programs (50%), Performing Arts Center (50%), Swimming Pool for Recreation or
Lessons (42%), and Community Center (41 %).
In addition to those tested facilities or programs presented.in Figure 14, "high need" response
rates for those facilities or programs receiving less than a 30% response rate included Baseball
Fields (27%), Tennis Courts (26%), Swimming Pool for Competitive Events (26%), Public Golf
Course/Driving Range (24%), Football Fields (24%), Softball Fields (23%), Roller Hockey Facilities
(17%), and EquestrianFacilities (14%).
Figure 15 reveals that eleven of the
eighteen tested facilities or programs
garnered a "low need" response from
at least 20% of respondents polled.
As Figure 15 reveals, those tested
facilities or services garnering the
highest volumes of "low need"
responses included Equestrian Facili-
ties (34%), Roller Hockey Facilities
(28%), Public Golf Course/Driving
Range (28%), Dog Park (26%), Foot-
ball Fields (26%), Baseball Fields (24%), Soccer Fields (24%), Softball Fields (23%), Senior
Facilities and Programs (22%), Swimming Pool for Competitive Events (22%) and Tennis Courts
Rating Need for New Community Facility
Perce
Equestrian Facility
Roller Hockey
Golf
Dog Park
Football Fields
Baseball Fields
Soccer Fields
Softball Relds
Senior Services
Competition Pool
Tennis Courts
Figure 15
(20%).
Research Network Ltd.
29
(949) 888-3770
3
15% 20% 25% 30°k 35%
Rancho Cucamonga Library Service and Recreation Needs Survey January, 2000
,,.
(~
One Facility Resoondents Want in the Ciri
Respondents were asked to volunteer
one facility their household would MOST
like to see added in the City. The top
nine response results of this area of
inquiry are presented in Figure 16 (see
Technical Appendix Table 81 for detail).
The answergamering the largest number
of responses from Rancho Cucamonga
residents was a desire for a Performing
Arts Center (volunteered by 14% of
those interviewed). The second largest
One Community Facility Wanted Most
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Perform Arts Cir
Fine Ar6s Ctr
Nottung
Recreation Swim
Bike/Jog Paths
Dog Park
Teen/Youth Club
Soccer Fields
Golf
Figure 16
volume of responses was a Fine Arts Center or no new facility (each at 8%). The fourth largest
volume of responseswere stated desires fora Swimming Pool for Recreation, Bike/Jogging Paths,
Dog Park and Teen/Youth Club (each stated by 5% of respondents polled). Ranking eighth was
Soccer Fields and Golf Course/Driving Range (each receiving 4%). The remaining responses
were diverse with response volumes below 4% for each of the facilities volunteered.
The results of this open-end inquiry cannot be directly compared with the previously described
series of ratings of facility or program needs since the ratings are each prompted based on the
group of tested facilities or programs. However, in general terms, it is noteworthy that four of the
top seven facilities inGuded in Figure 16 were also among those with the largest volumes of "high
Research Network Ltd. 30 (949) 888-3770
4
096 5% 10% 15% 20%I
Rancho Cucamonga Library Service and Recreation Needs Survey. January, 2000
•
r'.
•
i
•
need" responses in the prior rating inquiries. (Performing Arts Center, Fine Arts Center,
Recreational Swimming Pool, and Teen/Youth Club). This apparent consistency in responses
from two diverse interview approaches serves to confirm the desires of the polled population. The
following table provides an overview of actual response rates.
ACTIVITY
Nothing
Outdoor Facilities
Swimming Pool for Recreation
Bike/Jogging Paths
Dog Park
Golf Course
Soccer Fields
Roller Hockey Facilities
Baseball Fields
PicnicJGroup Facilities
Tennis Courts
Equestrian Facilities
Swimming Pool for Competitive Events
Softball Fields
BandshelllOutdoor Concert Stage
Outdoor Basketball Courts
Football Fields
Indoor Facilities
Performing Arts Center
Fine Arts Center
Teen and Youth Club Facilities/Programs
Community Center for Indoor Classes
Senior Facilities and Programs
Gymnasium
Indoor Basketball Courts
Other
Research Network Lid.
RESPONSES
8%
37%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
•%
•%
14%
8%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
32%
25%
31 (949J 888-3770
5
Rancho Cucamonga Library Service and Recreation Needs Survey January, 2000
--
/,_..
In attempting to aggregate these responses into meaningful groups, it was beneficial to note that
approximately one-third of the responses (37%) were for outdoor facilities while 32% of the
respondents desired indoor facilities or programs. Further, the outdoor facilities responses
inGuded facilities for organized ball play by 8% of the respondents. .
One Program. Class or Activity Wanted
Those polled were queried regarding
what one program, class or activity their
household would most like to see added
in Rancho Cucamonga: The question
was posed was open-ended which
means no suggested responses were
given. The top nine answers garnering
the largest volumes of responses are
presented in Figure 17 (see Technical
Appendix Table 82 for detail).
One Program or Activity Wanted
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Pertorming Arts
None
Concerts
Art/Craft Class-Adlt
Swim Lessons
Summer Camp
Dance Class=Adlt
Art/Creft Class-Yth
Exercise-Adtt
Figure 17
As Figure 17 illustrates, one of every five households polled indicated they prefer Performing
Arts/Entertainment Programs (21 %). An additional 19% of respondents stated they prefer no new
programs, Gasses or activities be added in the City. An additional increment of respondents,
representing one in twenty of the total, expressed a desire for concerts (6%), or ANCraft Classes
for Adults (5%) or Swim Lessons (4%).
Research Network Ltd.
32
(949) 888-3770
6
0% 10% 20%
Rancho Cucamonga Library Service and Recreation Needs Survey January, 2000
,.,.,
All other response categories; whether noted on Figure 17 or not, garnered less than 4% of the
responses and included summer youth camps (3%), dance Gasses for adults (3%), aNcraft
classes for youth (3%), adult exercise Gasses (2%), holiday/seasonal fairs or celebrations (1 %),
and spring recess youth camps (1%).
Research Network Ltd.
33
(949) 888-3770
7
OVERVIEW
~
`
m
M y OI
~~~
_
p; `oa ~
°,~ '3v ~
c~
°cm ~O
d
~ u
N d c ~ a
~ 9 p « -
O y p V
C N v C O
~
C` V
~`
3
d O.U ~
7
~ p o 9 m
d
~
• c
c
d o
c a u~ ~ m
w~-`P=t
V '~ ~ A ~ ~ ~
V w ~ .O. N tl
~ ~`
~ j
e ~
d v ~ $
d
3 a
i
'E
~
~ o
~ v.
o
E
Q m
. E m e
N O w~; Z o
~ 6 d a T m U
~
EcEm~m
~pooy3
m
a
~
~2rnP
ea
C
m
N .~ U
V N C R
c c y m» ..~
W
C p
d
~ d
a ,
LL
V
d
a
a a
Y ~
E
d p'~% d e
y
~
a A
d'~v_ yT,~,ma
a
k y L V
d N O. y ~
u O ~TiSyF
V ` o~ a¢N~°
a
~I
0
M
O
5i
a
v
N
d
d
O
a`
c
0
E
n
r
r
N
O
U
C
O
d
2
0
V
A
E
y
w
y
d
m
y
W N
m c
w
m ~ ~.
3 y c c
W N LL p
U
~°k ~ n d °%
C ~
~ ~ °°-'v~
LL S. ~ O. N
0
dd~ad
E o, ocgLL
Oa ¢ y O (p
C d N C
d
d E i o
D O~'c w v
0
m > ° ~ o
_~
c
c y mw m
C ~' ~ ~ C
O
O ~ d O
'~d ~?a
n ~' c d
«aw~acn
¢mUOUi
y
d
d
7
O
N
O)
C
C
7
W
C
O
r
2'
y
c
U
A
C
d
O
a
O
U
O)
C
Y
L
d
o.
O
d
Z
V
Y
E
N
w
a
::
C
m
a d
~ o
~,, >
d
h a
`~ c c
a c m
_
m ~ D c
E •- m
~ d '~
c o
° E d
U N O~1
U C ~ ~
~p c
m d ~
Q C W d
d c ~ C ~
= aoU ~
y+
~ ~' d c `o c~
fi
N c c
p
p O
~
c C
o ~ ~ Q
o
-.
~-c
otc~c
L'i't E~+
d yw~
~ma'+~ ySo
y
° w O
a
o
rn~
d.L c o rn
p y _
N
c0
O
~
Ul ~ d > ~ O y
'd0 N 9
d pp p O d d 0
C U~i ~`.'L.. d~
U my ~ m m
~ ~ ~ o d ° ~
~ d E a~ B a
Q O N O O O p y
Q 3 m a 3 '~
.E Z.g a~ci ~ N ~ a~i
N
l~1 c O N
d ~ ~LL~
'' N M Q 47 fD
C
0
w
d
a0
D
d
O
d
s
~ C m
~p
Ol R ~ C
C K ~,
a;~~ m w ° n
{p ~ V O C y m
d ~+ m 7
+~ d~
L d , c m m
~ o
C U ~ C _ ~ N
`
`°-°'a m m E ~ m
uim~ 3 ~ yE, ~
o = ~
~°
c u'1 ~°
7 _
m m ~ c
y
C~ m U
C ~ 'C N
~~ N O.
7
d v a
a3 m
~
>.
m a ~ _ ~ m
a ~~E~~
_a
Q C
y ~i
m
~
C
y
c d d m lL m
C
O
° °'
O ~o° n
a m a
a m
~ a
mr°:
~nmom E
R d
~ m v N ti v
oi rn~~ n 3
L
O p
p~ N ~ ~ C ~S C O.~ N
Q' ~ C~$
ocm O N m~ m a m
d A ..
~ ~ ~
~ ~ d ~~°:
`° ~ mo„moE
°
~ d
i
y e
Qa~°~ ~~v ~
m~ n - y
o ~
m~ ~ y `
N
79 m~
w ro
m== ~
'5 mam
`
~ a
m
a y m V o c c a aIIi 3'3 -
~ o o y m o
- DyroV mm~ LLo.o_
C 'gmo a o
n
_ C O m 0 O C O ~ N ` C a? C m m
y .
y m~ ~°'E vc~ °~'' mmo~' ,
L
d
n
2a O
~ ~
'
t ` o m as ~ ~
m19 m
m g m
a q A~~ W>= o o d o
c > m
d~ rn
,
,~ u a o: 0. ~ c m m'
'
E o ° a~ m Q
d m
c
O dy~`y
o
`° c
o Smw
~ ~
~ a
~ d d~
m
>>u
vui c
~ mm.- ~
o
~
~
o
E - a
-w~
c
E
m
o- o- - o
mo~
m 3 3 E 3
._T,
G ~°`m
°' ° n~~ ~dm o Na°immm o ym
U oia
.
•cmy,N, r: vO1om E~Eo ~o m°Qmm" o7
O aoF tnwa~ :7~a daa~~ ~' a,2
Q CDU O W w ~NM V~ f0
a
m
0
N
~ tp
c
~
O
U 7 U
LL
Q
C c
y
V m
d ~. i
2 d o
c
2
O
m
c m
° U o v
_
o Z
v
am m
i d -, d o
O
d m A ~
M
d ~ Y ~ d
O ` w ° w a
a
. a
9
N
7 @ ~
E m
E "~ _m
A `'
u y <v a°,
A ~ d t
$ ~ ~'
-
Y ~.-
l0
c ~
i O
t
N m
m O m
«.
N a~. (0
tl! ~ C y N O
'O W
d C ~ ~ 41 U
~.~ ~ N
C .~ ~ rn m n m
~
a a ~ c
d LL
N m ~ o -
m d~
> U
y 11' ~
Vl y N W
~ W
N l1J a
~ "' C O O OI
" O
S ~
w~ y
7~
C U
l9 .
(0
m L y= C
07
7
q
O o1
V ~. t/1
3 O. 'O ._
d
N
. ~L ul ~
~
T
v~8 .f O
wa`~ ~E~~,D
d ff a E a d ... l0 N 0 0
t c~ c~
~ L`E.-_-o c
orvo m~ crn~~~
o a y c v ~ E D~ a a
m ~ ~ e ~i oa o E ~ = rn ~
~ mcm mad ~E-''d=
c
,=
a 9..a
~y m~~
ao~ o
~Ed
~t~~
~
R E N O Q
N f0 ~ O
~0
C d O~
ca N O S
w l0 C l0 N ..N..
a
E
O
m d
H-L
Y v Ea
7 .~ °"
O ~ v~mo,E
~ ~ ~ C n
y
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
a a o ~ 0 8 0 ~ d d y
v
c 2 ~ E E a v E ~
~
c
E C G
~
~~ d
N ~
~ d
_
N~ O O O
W
O u S
~
~ a°O ~
~ w
~ r~ ~ 4
Q m CU ~ ~i ri v
N
d
V
7
O
fA
C ~
U
~ O
U
LL C
O C
M
V Q
:.
L
2 "
2 c o
o y
a o c a ~
_
~ V
v O
V Z
v v
w
• C N m
V
W d
~1 D
M
;;
d
E C ~
E V
m
, p Y „
f1 y O
O a` w a w a`
10
• m E
L N r
C
N N Ti N
C m ~ N ~
N
d .. H
ay ~ n d °'
~~ m m m h
R ~ t O OC7
Y ~ C > ~
N C °.1 ~ m 'l0
d ~V.. m m '~ .m..
C ~
d 0 N r y m C
n .N E ~
~ oa ~`~- m
v w
oc amirn ~ ~ ~o
a~ d c~ E n c
T ~ N
O1 C LL ; y U h ~ ~ >~
y 10 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ a~~i m m E
u'~i`m mo- ~~ ~° n `m me
9>` 3~ y~ c mT $ v ~E
'C V W L N w =O. L 0' C m 3 OI
m C E " cS ~ U rn-
«c °~ m 10'x' L ~ E ° ~'c
,~'~aam d ~m
me ~~-O-~~mLd.aEi E ` mE
m~ oy ~n~~c ~c o 42 °'~
° E ~` ~ o o m w .o v ~ o ~
ao~ m~ ca m ~ m m c~ y Tm
d C E m n0 LL~ w y O ~ m n
p 'O9 nn f~O l0 m y >, N "m' ~'~
>>"$$~ O O m N C d' V =_ m m m o
` V d` j (0 m E~ r c V ~ N D. ~
n n d ~ n o
v ooa ~m carnm3 w d° m ~E~>
p o ~o octet ma m oa~~E
N d a m a o~ c > o c m o
a c m m n > m w
d~ m c `-0 `-°-° ~ m c 3 c o m d> v m
K o' c c c c o~ r E m n m o a~ j
o d d m v_
N ~d -aamo,m ~? Lc#.~'~m'~mm
~ d C `° ~ E o m~ E N b ~ ac 5 E ~v c c
d
2 a` v o ~ ~ in ~ a° in a° ~ c° ~ ~ ~ °v a° ~ uLi a°
Qm(~~ W LL ~N M a ~O
N
d
V
7
O
C ~
U ~ V
LL c
c
o c a,
o
2 v d c
a o
2 O H
°' o c m ~
a o z ~
o U
. _ d
C N w ~ w O
w m E y E adi
0
O a w a° w a`
11
N_
~ L
,+0 H
N
a
%
'°
w
a
o
v'~ E ~ y
a° ~ a
~ j y
C ~ ~+ `~ N
O C
~ d
~ v1
d
E w w
.
U v o ~
~ 4 ~°
0 o
w
~
~ w
~ ~
C O 9 3 ~
~ C C
O C Y O
E ~ O
~ :: c d d m N U c
N om: y~ L ~ m
n ~ E
°
v ~
~ w a
p ~ >
o y ~ o
~~~ ~a o,a ~ m ~ >
~~~ f0 'O C y E d p ~
N j
~ a
O
.d+
V 9~ '
C N
W aD w C O
L
.. p N
i0
rsw~ Enema m~ r a~i
.d a ~_ " ° ~ ~ ~ m ~ E
~ ~3a ~av~, ~~ ~ E
d d M °~ m E n o m c
y + LL N m o d~ a m
'l ~
w ~ E> >
c ' _
m w
'o .
~- ~-
° i
a
o m °
a ~ 10 ~ 3
a c r
o+• c ~ o°
o p» +te o m ~
o w
~
'~ d C ~ > '6 lL ~. ~ ~ N O
.Z' V d 7 ~ w C C O C •~' >
w ~ ~
~ u i
m~° a ~ a ~ E
~ ciiaWi °'ma> >~' ~ o
C my. c ~'~~~ °~
C
>
N
~
~1.. ~~
= ~ C d ~ C
p
~ ~ i
~ C
~ y
W
~
_
p
y O
~
. pp
U
.Z Iq V C O E ~ C C y N vi t0 O O
V r d
°
~
°
° = - _
> ~
Q vv
i3 ~v~a
a ¢¢
m «io ~
QmU~ ~ N M ~l
M W
O d
U ~
c ~
0 0
r N c
w a o
c
ei G
a
~ V
dl
d LL ~
O
~
V
d
M G d d
` w ° `
-0 a a a
~2
`J
d
.~ w
O
4 ~
~ y
aw
d~
.~
w~
ti W
'+%. C1
a ii
M
C
LL m O
~ U
c w
o a _
O c tq o c
O ya o ~
'~ ~
v
v
d ~
v
~ ~
~
> o ~
° o
v
n y _
c
o m 8
_ m ~
o
U ~
~
~
o ~
.
co ~
Z ~
Y
~
a `
m
c
- Y O
y o '_
C ~ W ~ O
U -
W L ~
O ~a ~ w
W ~
3
~
Y
W
d
N
~
~ N
r d
a>¢ o
_ ~
c
'~ ~ o
p
y. N O
N 10
'
O
a a
; ~
O
~ . ~' ~
r
r ~ V
d yrg '~
d ~
U
4/ N
U
_ a ~ ~ ~
o ~ a « ~ o
c
a n -
O E ~ ~
o _
C LL ~
U = ~ ~
0
.. a
o Z V
m '.+
~
m c
,~ 2
r c r m
W U W O
13
EXHIBIT 1
•
~'
i ~ ~ i r
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~
o,
~~~~
~~ ~
{
Fi
I ~
~i,~
zap
w a `
~~U
UHv
d ~o
~~a
~ U
Q S
y p. z
aa~
d ~.
~ c~ °
r
W
°' z
U W
O U
U
:.
W
d~
x
a
a
~'
14
EXHIBIT 2
Section D
e ~ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This section of the report presents a summary of the findings of the feasibility study.
More detailed information on process and how conclusions were drawn is available in the body
of the report.
Facility Planning Options
For the purposes of this study, four (4) different aquatic concepts, or facility planning
~ options, were analyzed for their appropriateness to serve the needs of the City of Rancho
~ .Cucamonga. The first option included three (3) swimming pools: an indoor 25 yard x 25 meter
swimming pool; an outdoor 25 yard x 50 meter swimming pool; and an outdoor recreation pool
3 with waterslides, zero-depth entry and wet play elements. Approximate development cost for
this option is projected at 18.3 million. The second option also contained three (3) swimming
3
pools: an indoor 6 lane x 25 yard swimming pool; an outdoor 25.yard x 25 meter swimming
pool; and an outdoor recreation pool with waterslides, zero-depth entry and wet play elements.
3 ~ Approximate development cost for this option is projected at $14.0 million. The third option
~ contained two (2) pools: an outdoor 25 yard x 25 meter swimming pool; and an outdoor
3 recreation pool with waterslides, zero-depth entry and wet play elements. Approximate.
development cost for this option is projected at $10.4 million. The fourth option included three
~ (3) pools: a 25 yazd x 25 meter outdoor swimming pool; a 1,000 foot-long lazy river with offset
~ waterslide receiving area; a 4,000 square foot children's activity pool with zero-depth entry and
3 wet play elements; and four (4) waterslides. Approximate development cost for this option is
~ projected at $13.7 million. Each facility option included allowances for appropriately sized
~ (based upon code requirements) natatorium /bathhouse buildings, site work, parking and related
infrastructure.
3
Market Analysis
The market for the Central Park Aquatic Center is likely to consist primarily of the City.
~ of Rancho Cucamonga and. surrounding communities within a 15 mile radius of the proposed
'~ ~ Central Park Aquatic Center Feasibility,Study Page 2
i
15
~ ~ project site. An analysis was performed for the resident market within 0-5 miles, 5-]0 miles and
10-15 miles of the City. These market areas contained a total of 1,422,409 persons in 2000, and
are projected to have approximately 1,582,240 in 2005. Demographic factors studied within
~ each of the market area radii include population, age distribution and per capita incomes. A
~ review was also conducted of market area competition and its potential influence on attendance
~ at the Central Park Aquatic Center
Projected Attendance
As discussed in detail within Section V, based on available market support, competitive
~ environment, year-round operation, and the Design Team's knowledge of market penetration at
other public sector aquatic facilities, recreation attendance at the Central Park Aquatic Center is
projected at 147 thousand in 2007 (the assumed first year of operation of the aquatic facility),
increasing to 150 thousand in 2008 and 154 thousand by 2009. Given these levels of projected
attendance, and assuming no major expansion projects within the first five years of operation, the
recreation components of the aquatic facility should be designed to accommodate 1,452 persons
3 at one time. In addition to recreational use, allowances have been made (where appropriate) for
~. use by local club swim teams, lap swimming, water aerobics, swim lessons, life safety classes,
~ and competitive meets.
Financial Analysis
~ Based on projected attendance and estimated per capita patron spending, revenue for
~ Facility Planning Option 1 is projected at $1.0 million in 2007, $1.1 million in 2008, and $1.2
million in 2009. For Facility Planning Option 2, revenue is projected at $992 thousand in 2007,
$1.0 million in 2008, and $1.1 million in 2009. For Facility Planning Option 3, revenue is
~ projected at $904 thousand in 2007; $995 thousand in 2008, and $1.0 million in 2009. For
Facility Planning Option 4, revenue is projected at $1.6 million in 2007, $1.7 million in 2008,
~ and $1.8 million in 2009.
For Facility Planning Option 1, deducting operating expenses yields a projected net
~ operating deficit of $562 thousand in 2007, increasing to $618 thousand in 2008 and $649
'] ~ Central Park Aquauc Center Feasibility Study ~ Page 3
is
i ..
i
~.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
~~
thousand in 20b9. For Facility Planning Option 2, deducting operating expenses yields a
projected net operating deficit of $281 thousand in 2007, increasing to $309 thousand in 2008
and $324 thousand in 2009. For Facility Planning Option 3, deducting operating expenses yields
a projected net operating deficit of $176 thousand in 2007, increasing to $193 thousand in 2008
and $203 thousand in 2009. For Facility Planning Option 4, deducting operating expenses yields
a projected net operating rp ofit of $34 thousand in 2007, increasing to $37 thousand in 2008 and
$39 thousand in 2009.
Central Park Aquatic Center Feasibility Study Paee 4
17
EXHIBIT 3
ao
r
W
z
z o~ _.
~~ ~~
~~
~~ ~~
wo ~Q
d oz~ aof
c. o ~, _.:
V °' cVA N-
l .~ a z a'' .~" ' .tom
~ -:
I
~ ~~~.~~ i~ ~ ~~I ~ ~ ~~1
,, ; ~ ,.
[.,
~: `-~~'1
~~~ ~ ~
_, I Q
~;
,',',
~I~~, , ~;
,, 1.
,~' i' ~~ II l~ ~I! I ~~' ';
1 +I ~~_.
(/Y~~fiil t ___-
~~,:
:,
., NF[ i~~ ~ l r
` ;~~ i
\ << ,
9. i
\ .LR.y77 r~ [ `
~\ 7 ~~ tx//AYE ~ 'I ~: ~f
~G
r
R,
,S
Na
a¢
¢F
N ~.
tia ~
,~
i
i ~ ,L
1", ~ ~;
~ r
,.
~~~.
m ~p N .
I ~
~ li{ ~ ~
' '+ _
[ 1 ~ ~
~ I ~ ~ '
i
,.
7
~ .. t
`~.
ti ~:
FI ~
a
~:
i' ~
~.:y 1;
~o
~ ;
a ,4
a ~~~
?
3~ o ~ 3
~
`
~
O ~
q
q
~~
~;
~~ ~z
py
,
W
~ .
..
~' 6:.
qW
~
O I .~ CN¢44~
~ ~
~
O
~, ~
~ ~
~ < F
I o~'
,.j
~~ ~ ~~
a
~ ~ N
{
A w
.
° +~~
,.
o
~ ~`
a }i;
0.'
F.
\ [. ~ a
i [ ~ •~ j
\\
~ ~ i
,. ~ , [
~ U,~ ; Q~
~a
~ 1wi
.~ z-
y~,~ ~~\ a~ ~.~~t a
I^
J~
~ -- • '
~:
~~.
~ ~;
~,
`e «:
7 ~ _ ~ ~ [ w
~~ U
h~ ~ O
m.
E~ ~1, [
.~ ~~
.,~ ~
~ E~ \
\, Po; \
\ ~
~~
O
~.
C
t!1 U
w x
"U _.
00
U
r ~ ~. ~
~.f ~~^ ~
- [+~ V~ - 1{~ ~ U ~
~'ti.. i.
t `' ~~~
~~ ~g
W j
1 ! ~_. r t.. _.. _IWl ~.. 8 ~O~A
a
~N [ [ \
• •
•
EXHIBIT 4
u
•
19
EXHIBIT 5
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Date: February 5, 2007
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
From: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
By: Dave Moore, Community Services Superintendent
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Subject: UPDATE ON MEETINGS WITH AYSO CONCERNING THE NAPA PROPERTY
AS A FUTURE SOCCER COMPLEX
In 2002 AYSO had identified certain issues that prevented them from considering the Napa
property site as a viable future soccer complex site. Recently, staff began discussing the
issue at the request of AYSO as their Region Commissioner (Ray Mclvain) had expressed
favorable interest in the site.. Staff had met with five members of their board to discuss past
and current issues that had prevented them from considering the site as a viable playing
venue. All of those issues identified in recent and not so recent discussions are as follows:
1. The close proximity of the West Valley Detention Center, the release of inmates
and potential crimes that may be committed against their participants:
2: The close proximity of the Inland Empire Water Reclamation Plant and potential
health concerns.
3. The location of the train track on the premises and potential safety issues.
4. The high cost of operations ($250,000-$800,000) that AYSO was unable to afford
to pay on an annual basis.
5. The constant loud traffic noise created from the large waste trucks that are
traveling 35-45 mph to and from the West Valley Material Recovery Facility and
Transfer Station. Note: this facility is currently in the process of expanding their
capacity by 50% (5,000 tons to 7,500 tons per day). Currently, they receive
about 60 trucks per hour Monday-Saturday.
6. The close proximity of the Energy plant and potential health concerns.
7. The heavy truck traffic that currently occurs on Etiwanda Avenue in route to the
Napa property site and the impact it might have on participants traveling to the
site.
8. The distance (approximately 10 miles) that the Napa property site is located from
existing parks, especially on the west side of the community and what kind of
impact would there be on families that have children practicing or playing at other
city sites and the Napa site?
After discussing the above issues with AYSO, staff researched each of their concerns and
met with them to explain the result of staffs research. Staff had shared with them all the
research results that staff had obtained. Through the four meetings (September-
November) that staff had met with the AYSO subcommittee it seemed that they were very
20
CITY COUNCIL PACE 2
UPDATE ON MEETINGS WITH AYSO CONCERNING THE NAPA PROPERTY AS A FUTURE
SOCCER COMPLEX
FEBRUARY 5, 2007
receptive and positive on most of the information that was shared with them. Attached is a
list of those issues and the research results that staff obtained explaining the extent or
operations of these facilities.
Attachment: Summary of Staffs Research Regarding What AYSO Has Identified As
Concerns
cc: JoAnn Gwynn, Community Services Supervisor
I: CO MMSE R V~Council&Boards\CityCounci I\CorrespondanceV20071AYS O'sl ssuesConcerni ng NapaSoccerCom plex.01.11.07
~~
SUMMARY OF STAFF'S RESEARCH REGARDING WHAT AYSO HAS.IDENTIFIED
AS CONCERNS
1. West Valley Detention Center- 9500 Etiwanda Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91739
• One of San Bernardino County Detention Center's -Type 2 facility -
houses pre-sentenced inmates; these are inmates waiting for their
sentencing or court date.
• May be minor or major offenders housed there.
• Have never had a major offender escape.
• The distance between West Valley Detention Center front door and the
Napa site is one mile.
• When released from the detention center the inmates are free to walk
anywhere they choose. They are not designated a driver or do not have a
cab called for them to be picked up from the detention center.
• At the West Valley Detention Center there is no-set schedule for inmates
to be released.
• The San Bernardino Sheriffs respond if there is an emergency call that is
made to the surrounding location of the Napa site.
2. Inland Empire Water Reclamation Plant # 4- 12645 Sixth St Rancho Cucamonga,
CA 91729
• Facility is in operation twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.
• Office hours are Gam-4:30pm Monday thru Friday.
• Out of the four reclamation plants in the Inland Empire this is the smallest. .
• When asked to describe the strongest chemical they would use to clean
the water, they replied that it would be bleach.
• An odor control facility is being built within the reclamation plant to control
any odor that might occur in the recycling process of the water. So far
there have not been many complaints about the odor. They are just doing
it as a precaution. When staff has driven by the plant they notice no odor
coming from the facility.
• This plant basically takes sewer water and cleans it up to be used as
irrigation water, not drinking water.
3. West Valley Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station- 13373 Napa St,
Fontana, CA 92335
• Office and operational hours are Monday thru Friday lam-6pm also
Saturday lam-3pm.
• An estimation was given by the West Valley Material Recovery Facility
and Transfer Station that Monday thru Friday between the hours of 7am-
6pm, there are twenty to sixty trucks that come in every hour to either
unload or pick up trash. On Saturdays between the hours of lam-3pm the
22
conditions are the same with the majority of the users being the public to
unload their trash. .
• This facility takes the blue cans (recycling) and green cans (green waste)
to recycle them both. This is also a transfer station, which means they
transfer trash to the landfills. The landfills are Mid-Valley Landfill off Sierra
and the 210 freeway and EI Sobrante just south of Corona.
4. Reliant Energy - 8996 Etiwanda Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
• Facility is in operation twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.
• Office hours are lam-3pm Monday thru Friday.
• This facility produces electricity.
• This facility used to be Southern California Edison and then was .bought
out by Reliant Energy.
• The white smoke coming from the smoke stacks is water vapor not
anything being burned.
• Future expansion of the site is currently being planned.
5. Train Track located within the site- Location on Napa Street
• The tracks are owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe
• The train track is fenced on both sides.
• There is no current use of the railroad spur, but future development south
of Napa will need use of the spur.
6. Distance between current Rancho Parks and the Napa site
• Beryl - 10 miles
• RCFSC - 8 miles
• Central Park - 6 miles
• Victoria Cultural Center- 3 miles
• Etiwanda Creek Park - 5 miles
7. Etiwanda Traffic
• Clarification on Etiwanda Street only having two lanes heading north and
south bound. They now have expanded the street to two lanes heading
north bound and two lanes heading south bound and in the future the
expansion will continue to Foothill.
• In two to three years 6"' Street will be made an off ramp from the 15 fwy.
• Throughout the day and night there are several eighteen wheelers that
pass through Etiwanda heading north and south bound.
• Etiwanda Street has already been repaved from Napa to 4th Street.
• I:COMMSERViSpecialProjects\Napa\NapaProperty\Napa Soccer.Site.doc
23