20 Staff Report - Miles Ave for Skatepark
DATE: TO: FROM: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT APRIL 14, 2004 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DEBRA 1. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER MEETING DATE: 4/19/04 ITEM NO. ac SUBJECT: REPORT ON USE OF TOWN-OWNED PROPERTY
ON MILES AVENUE FOR SKATE PARK " \ RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff regarding the development of a skate park on Town-owned property on Miles Avenue. PURPOSE OF REPORT At the
January 2004 Council Retreat, the Council requested staff to report to Council on the feasibility of using the Miles Ave. Town-owned property as a potential site. for a skate board park.
This report provides a summary of the pasrefforts and Council direction related to the location of a skate park in Los Gatos, a high level overview ofthe current uses, ofthe Miles Ave.
property and environs, an indication of where a skate park could potentially be located, information about a similar skate park in Campbell, and the identification ofnext steps and policy
considerations for the Council. BACKGROUND: Town Efforts and Council Direction 1'0 Date The The Town has been exploring the possibility of locating a skate park in Los Gatos since 2000.
Attachment 1 is a report from the January 20,2004 Council Meeting that, in part, summarizes the Town's efforts to date. The most extensive effort related to the skate park occurred in
2001 when the Town hired a consultant to prepare a feasibility study to determine the suitability for building a skate park in Vasona Park and establish criteria for the design and use
ofa skate park. In September 2001, the Town Council approved the findings; recommendations, and next steps of the feasibility study, and other recommendations related to funding and
the type of skate park equipment. . &M-{ Cwv1h PREPARED BY: J HN E. CURTIS PAMELA JACOBS irector of Parks and Public Works Assistant Town Manager Reviewed by:
__Assistant Town Manager' Attorney __Clerk {v Finance Community Development Revised: 4/15/04 1:00 pm Refonnatted: 5/30/02 N:\B&E\COUNCIL REPORTS\Skate.park. report. revised.wpd
PAGE2 SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A SKATE PARK ON TOWN PROPERTY ON MILES AVENUE APRIL 14, 2004 Attachment 2 is the report regarding the
feasibility study, which was subsequently sent to the County's Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission did not approve the use of Vasona Park for the skate park. Key relevant
issues regarding the siting ofa skate park in September 2001, which the Town Council approved, include the following: • The Council favored the development of a modular (initially referred
to as a temporary skate park) with a flexible wood ramp system built on asphalt concrete, which was the least costly alternative presented in the study at an estimate of$360,880 in 2001.
The difference between the temporary skate park with a wood ramp system and a wood ramp skatepark not considered temporary is that the latter would be built on a reinforced concrete
slab as opposed to asphalt. This alternative was estimated in 2001to cost $587,080. These costs contemplated construction on undeveloped land at Vasona Park (picnic area adjacent to
Oak Meadow). • The feasibility study found that wood ramps may be more costly over tim.e, due to their limited durability, than would steel ramps or concrete ramps. Replacement costs
for the wood ramps was estimated at $80,000 eVery 5 to 8 years. No estimate was provided for replacement ofsteel ramps. It was estimated that the additional initial cosHor a steel ramp
system would be between $50,000 and $1 00,000. Ongoing maintenance costs ofa wood ramp System on asphalt concrete is also higher than a steel ramp system, or a system built on a conCrete
slab. • The feasibility study recommended a minimum size of 11 ,000 to 12,000 square feet for a skate park, and costs in the study were based on a skate park of 12,000 square feet. •
The Council designated $125,000 for capital costs (approximately 50% ofestimated costs) and $55,000 for operating and maintenance costs, with a recommendation that the balance be provided
through in-kind or cash donations. The uSe of State park bonds to fund the Town's portion was discussed. The Town has designated $125,000 of the Proposition 12 per Capita Grant for the
skate park project in the FY 2003-2008 Capital Improvement Program budget. These funds are not "in hand" at the present time as they would have to be applied for once the Town has an
approved project. The award processis estimated to up to three months. No funding source for the operating costs was identified. As noted above, Attachment 1provides a summary
ofTown efforts regarding the location ofa skate park subsequent to the September 2001 Council action. .
PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A SKATE PARKON TOWN PROPERTY ON MILES AVENUE APRIL 14, 2004 DISCUSSION: Town-Owned Property on Miles Ave. Staffreviewed
the layout and uses ofTown-owned and adj acent property on Miles Ave. to determine if the potential exists for siting a skate park in the vicinity. Attachment 3 presents an aerial view
ofthe area, with the types arid sizes ofuses denoted. Town uses in this area include: the Bob Bryant Service Center and Corporation Yard; South Yard; Balzar Playing Field; two parking
lots; and Miles Ave. and street parking. Bob Bryant Service Center and Corporation Yard The Service Center and Corporation Yard are the headquarters of the Town's maintenance staff.
These facilities house the administration ofthe Parks and Public Works Department, the sign shop, a metal shop, paint shop, carpentry shop, nursery, auto shop, tool storage, vehicle
storage, fue1r islands, wash rack (clean out) for the sewer vacuum vehicle, and the Engineering staff. The surrounding the buildings in the·Corporation Yard is used
for the large vehicles that serve the· Town, including garbage trucks, fuel tucks, nursery delivery trucks,. and the Town's larger vehicles. The Yard also provides storage and staging
for Town volunteers such as DART and the crews from:: the correction system assigned to provide weekend maintenance as community service hours. . Service yard layout must accommodate
crews, storage, deployment and circulation for large equipment and the operation ofindustrial activity. Parking adjacent to the Service Center is used for Town customers. South Yard
The South Yard is currently used to store materials and to house debris bins collected regularly by Green Valley Disposal Company. It is the Town's only storage site for this type of
material. The Town has recently upgraded the Yard, including general clean-up, the addition oflattices to the fencing separating the creek trail and the yard so that it would be less
visible to joggers and bikers, and repaving of the surface. From an operational standpoint, the South Yard location works very well beIng near to the Town's public works operations and
yet not immediately adj acent to residents. Other locations in the vicinity would not be ideal for this purpose, as the Town has attempted to orient the more disruptive activities away
from the residents in the Los Gatos Creek Apartments. units. In addition to being near the housing units, the other two potential sites for the storage yard are also owned and used by
PG&E and CalTrans. Balzar Field The Balzar baseball field is one of two Little League ballfields.in Town, and is used heavily by the Little League during the baseball season.
PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A SKATE PARK. ON TOWN PROPERTY ON MILES AVENUE APRIL 14,2004 Parking Lots The parking lot between the ballfield and
the Town's engineering offices is approximately 7,000 square feet and has 29 spaces. The lot is used by Town staff and customers. Attachment 4 presents parking count
data for weekday and weekend use, showing a range of 21% to 52% on weekdays and about 10% to 24% on weekends. These counts were taken prior to Little League season, when it is expected
that the lot would be full. The parking lot south of Balzar field is approximately 17,300 square feet and has 34 spaces. Parking counts indicate that during the week the lot is from
0 to 47% filled, and on the weekends it is from 12% to 26% full. The lot is used primarily by trail users. It is expected that the lot would be full during Little League season. Miles
Ave. and Parking At present, Miles Ave. can accommodate approximately 56 cars parked parallel to the side of the road. A parking count ofthis area (Attachment 5) showed a highweekday
use ofthe section ofroad from the PPW administration building north, and a very small usage'ofthe areato the south. Neither section of the road was used for parking on the weekends.
Non,-Town Property and Uses A number of non-Town interests own and use property in this general vicinity. These include the Los Gatos Creek Apartments, PG&EIAsplundh, and Caltrans. Los
Gatos Creek Apartments A l2-unit affordable housing project built by Community Housing Developers with funds provided, in part, by the Los Gatos Redevelopment Agency. The apartments
units are available for very low income tenants. PG&E/Asplundh PG&E maintains operates and maintains a sub-station at the most northerly end of Miles Ave. In addition, the tree service
company, Asplundh, stores their tree trimming vehicles and equipment in the extra space available at the PG&E yard. Caltrans The Caltrans property between Highway 17 and Miles Avenue
-is used by their maintenance forces to house work vehicles servicing this area.
PAGES MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A SKATE PARK ON TOWN PROPERTY ON MILES AVENUE APRIL 14,2004 Assessment of Potential for Skate Park Location Staffs
review of the current configuration, size and use of property in the Miles Ave. environs indicate that the Miles Ave. parking lot south ofBalzar Field has the best potential for the
location of a skate park. The use of other areas would require significant relocation ofcurrent uses and/or negotiations with other property owners. Attachment 6 presents a potential
layout of a skate park on the parking lot. This layout provides nearly 10,000 square feet for the skate park, with 18 parking spaces remaining for public usage. Staffbelieves that this
parking combined with the parking available on Miles Ave. and the parking lot north of Balzar Field would still provide parking for trail users, Little League attendees, skate park users,
and the general public. This layout would also accommodate a drop-offpoint for skaters. Skaters would access the skate park via the Creek Trail or Miles Ave, or by being dropped off
at the site. Public restrooms are available near the site. There is a tree line between the existing parking lot and the creek trail, which would serve to reduce noise emanating from
the skating facility, as it already does from the Little League field. Nearby housing is elevated and is further separated from noise generators by Los Gatos Creek. The existing parking
lot would need to be resurfaced to meet the needs ofskaters for a smooth surface. Restroom facilities are located just north of the ballfield and are accessible from the Miles Ave. lot.
If the skate park were to be a controlled access area, fencing would need to be installed. The Campbell Skate Park Model Staff has visited the new permanent skate park in Campbell, which
was built by the City as a part oftheir new community center. Given its size and type, the Campbell skate park could serve as a model for Los Gatos. Dimensionally, it is a 140' by 80'
oval, and is approximately 10,000 square feet in area. It has ten ramps Or bars, nine of steel construction and one of light weight concrete construction. The surface is concrete, rather
than asphalt. The park has a eight-foot steel fence around it. It is supervised by an of the Recreation Department, and it is locked when closed. It is open seven days
a week, weekdays from 3:00 to dark and weekends from 11 :00 to dark. During the summer and school vacations, its hours will be 11 to dark every day. It is not open during school hours
or at night. In one afternoon, staff observed about a half dozen users at a time, ranging from approximately 10 to 33 years of age. The degrees of expertise were also varied, with the
more expert users sticking to the difficult half-pipe unit. The noise level appeared to be low.
PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A SKATE PARK ON TOWN PROPERTY ON MILES AVENUE APRIL 14, 2004 The approximate cost breakdown is as follows: 1. Ramps
-Nine (9) steel and one concrete 2. Surface -All new concrete pavement construction 3. Fence -8 foot steel picket $50;000 $100,000 (estima.te) $30,000 These costs, in, particular those
for ramps, have not been verified with outside sources at this time. Also, the costs do not include engineering, design and inspection which generally runs 20 -25% of hard costs. Policy
and Technical Considerations Ifthe Council wishes to proceed with the development ofa skate park on the Miles Ave. parking lot, the following policy and technical issues would need to
be considered: • Should a public hearing regarding the location of the skate park be held prior to site design? ;, Should skaters be involved in designing the types and placement of
ramps in the skate park? • Should the Town's.commitment to the capital cost of the skate park continue to be $125,000 from State park bond funds? The $125,000 contribution was based
on 50% of the projected cost ofthe project in 200l. • If the State does not approve the Town's application for the use of State park bond funds, should funds be appropriated fromthe
General Fund Appropriated Reserve (GFAR)? • Should the Town wait until the Town contribution and the private donations to cover all project costs are committed before expending funds?
• What hours should the skate park operate? Should it be supervised? • Should staff develop cost estimates for a wood ramp system andlor a steel ramp system? Should staffdevelop cost
estimates for an asphaltic andlor a concrete surface? • Should Town funds be allocated for operations and maintenance in the FY 04-05 Operating Budget? CONCLUSION A staff assessment
of the Miles Ave. area inqicates that the Miles A'Ne. ,parking lqt south ofBalzar Field is a potential location for a skate park. Staff is seeking Council direction on whether to take
the next steps necessary to to pursue this location, with direction on the policy and technical considerations noted above. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The requested action in this staff
report is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required. The development ofa skate park at this location would require review under CEQA and
PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A SKATE PARK ON TOWN PROPERTY ON MILES AVENUE APRIL 14, 2004 should be considered in the timeline for the proj ect.
FISCAL IMPACT: Depending on the direction ofCouncil, the next steps in this process will require stafftime, and may require the use of a consultapt to provide additional information.
If the use of a consultant is required, funds are available in the Town Manager;s Contingency Reserve. Subsequent steps in this process will have greater fiscal impacts, which will be
discussed at that time. Attachments: 1. 01-20-04 Council Report on Public Input on Park Usage for Sports Facilities (withoutattachment) 2. 09-17-01 Council Report on Final Feasibility
Study for a Skate Park 3. Miles Avenue Land Use 4. Parking Lot Counts 5. Miles Ave. Parking Counts . 6. Skate Park Layout on Miles Ave. Parking Lot South of Balzar Field
DATE: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JANUARY 15,2003 MEETING DATE: 01·20-04 ITEM NO. J1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: DEBRA 1. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER PUBLIC
INPUT ON PARK USAGE FOR SPORTS At the December 15,2003 Town Council meeting, Vice Mayor Mike Wasserman requested that the Town Council discuss at a future meeting
the use ofparks, specifically Oak Meadow Park, for sp<>rts facilities/fields such as soccer fields. The.Council concurred that this discussion would occur at the Town Council retreat
scheduled for Saturday, January 24, i004. Subsequently, at the January 5, 2004 Council meeting, a resident spoke under Verbal Communications regarding the need for a skateboard park
in the Town. The Mayor requested that an item be placed on the January 20th agenda to receive public input on the use of Town parks for sports facilities prior to the Council discussion
onthe Sobra:to development and at the upcoming retreat. This staffreport provides a brief background on the Town's discussions over the past decade regarding sports facilities/fields,
and a summary of the scope of information to be provided in the staff report for the Council retreat discussion on tliis issue. . DISCUSSION: Town Discussions on Sports FacilitieslFields
Sports Playjields. In 1993, the Town Manager formed a Playfield Advisory Committee to identify additional sites for soccer, baseball and softball playfields. The Committee was formed
in response to neighborhood concerns raised about the heavy use of the playfields at Louise VanMeter and Fisher schools.. The Cormilittee identified and negotiated for the use of an
additional 11 sites (beyond the nine sites available at the time) for playfields, including two additional sites in Town parks, Live Oak Manor and Belgatos, and one in Vasona Park. La
Rinconada and Oak Meadow Parks were considered, but not selected as sites for playfields. The 1993 staff report is included as Attachment L This report could be useful in understanding
what has changed since the actions taken to increase the availability of playfields noted in the report. S PREPARED BY: Pamela S. Jacobs Assistant Town Manager
Reviewed by: 7/Assistant Town Manager Irown Attorney __Clerk Finance '__Community Development Revised: 1/14/04 10:10 am Reformatted: 5/30/02 ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCa SUBJECT: PUBLIC INPUT ON PARK USAGE (January 15, 2003) Skate park. In 2000, the Town Council established an Ad Hoc Skate park Sub-Committee to explore the
possibility of a siting a skate park in the Town. "The Sub-Committee first identified BlossomHill Parkandthe vacantlot at Lark and Winchester Blvd. as potential locations. Neighbors
at these two locations expressed their opposition to siting a skate park on these sites. The SubCommittee also subsequently detennined that two locations would not support (l
skate park of the size desired and that a skate park should be located iit an existing park or have amenities usually found in a park such as bathrooms, adequate parking, etc. In 2001,
the Town Council accepted the Sub-Committee's recommendation that the Town approach the County regarding locating a skate park in Vasona Park. The Town prepareda feasibility ,S,tudy
and presented a skate park proposal to the County for the propertyin:Vasonabehind BillyJones Railroad Roundhouse. The County's Parks Commission rejected the proposal in March, 20()2
by a 4 to 3 vote. In June, 2002, the Town Council established an Ad Hoc Interim Skate park Sub-Committee to identify a site for an interim skate park" pending the potential acquisition
ofCounty property for a skate park site. TIlls Sub-Committee assessed 20 potential sites, narrowing the potential ,locations down to a site at Fisher School not available for 2 years
and the use 0£2 ofthe 6 tennis cotuts at Blossom Hill Parkfor the interim skate park. Neighborsand tennis players expressed opposition to the use ofthe tennis courts, and the Town Council
subsequently in October, 2002, directed statIto abandon the pursuit ofan interim skate park and to focus on the acquisition of County property in Vasona. These discussions with the County
are not likely to yield resultS in the near term. The Town has designated $125,000 ofProposition 12 Per Capita Grant funds (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal
Protection Bond Act) for the Town's contribution to a skate park. Reference to this allocation is found the Town's FY 2003....2008 Capital II11provement Program. Soccer Fie/ds. In addition
to the 1993 effort to address the aVailability of sports fields, including soccer fields, interest in additional soccer fields surfaced in'2003 when soccer parents, coaches and players
requested the Planning Commissionto require asoccer field"as part ofthe Sobrato mixed-use development on Winchester Blvd. The applicant for this project does not supporlthe inclusion
of a soccer field on the site, but has committed to work with the Town and the soccer advocates in identifying another site. General Plan Considerations Although the Town's General Plan
does not include a recreational element, the Open Space element does address playing fields in the following goal, policy and implementing strategy: Goal 0. G.1.1.:. To,acquire open
space areas within the Town ofLos Gatos, particularly lands which provide recreational uses and will protect the public health, welfare, and safety of residents and visitors. Policy
o.P.1. 5: Promote a system ofTown parks and trails and maximize the use ofpublic utility easements, flood control channels, school grounds, and other quasi-public areas for I
iI PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWNCOUNCa SUBJECT: PUBLIC INPUT ON PARK USAGE (January 15, 2003) recreational uses and playfields. Implementing Strategy 0.1.1.5: Assess the need for additional
developed parks and '.. playfields in the Town of Los Gatos. The Parks Commission is noted as the responsible party for this strategy. This element also includes reference to preserving
school playing fields as developed open spaces in another policy and implementing strategy. Background Information for Council Retreat Discussion To inform Council's discussion at the
Council retreat regarding the use of Town parks, staff is preparing background information on the parks and the need/demand for other uses. The report will include' information on the
size and current uses ofTown parks. ' CONCLUSION: Over the:past decade, the Town has engaged in efforts to identify locations for sports facilities; including.soccer and skate parks.
The locations explored have includedTownparks. In some cases; additional sites have been identified successfully and in others this has not occurred. The discussion' at the January 20th
Council meeting is intended to receive public input on the need'for additional, sports facilities/fields and on the use ofTown parks for this purpos'e. The will discuss
this' matter at the Council retreat on January 24th. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Is not a project defined under CEQA, and'no further action is required. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct
fiscal impact from receiving public input on park usage for sports facilities. Any subsequent decision for the Town to build or partner to build a sports facility in Town would have
a fiscal impact, which would be analyzed at that time. Attachments: 1. Playfield, Advisory Committee Report, May 17, 1993 Council meeting
DATE: TO: .COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER i4, 2001 MEETING DATE: 9/17/01 ITEM NO. J(0 FROM: SUBJECT: TOWN
TEPARK RECOMMENDATION: 1. It is recommended that the Town Council approve the Final Feasibility Study findings, recommendations, and next steps. 2. Detennine the Town's
commitment to continue to plan a skatepark for the Town. 3. Pur.sue the Option B site in Vasona Park and begin the process ofseeking County approval of a skatepark in Vasona Park. Also
discuss with the County the possibility ofexchanging Town and County owned lands in Vasona Park. 4. Consider a flexible type wood ramp facility. 5. Eannark (subject to review in October)
50% of the least cost option or approximately $180,000 from Town financial resources to a skatepark. BACKGROUND: The purpose ofthis report is to: (1) Provide the Town Council with the
Final Feasibility Study from the Town's consultant, Indigo Architects; (2) Seek direction from the Council to continue the effort to build a skatepark; (3) Begin the process of obtaining
County approval to use a site (Option B) in . . Vasona Park and to explore with the County the possibility oftransferring Town and County lands in Vasona Park; (4) Consider a flexible
option for the type of skatepark which minimizes the potential cost to the Town; and, (5) Consider tentatively earmarking a level of funding from Town resources to contribute towards
the maintenance and construction of a skatepark. At the Town Council meeting of June 4, 2001, the CO.uncil received-a status report regarding the feasibility study and Skateboard Park
in Vasona Park. As a result ofthat report the Council requested that the final report be completed and that less costly alternatives be explored. PREPARED BY: LES WHIT . Interim Direc
Reviewed by: __Clerk :.it:, Finance__Community Development Revised: 9/14/01 11:10 AM Reformatted: 5/30/0 I N:\B&E\Les\Final Feasb Study--Skateboard Park.wpd ATTACHMENT
2
PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TQWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A SKATEPARK SEPTEMBER 14, 2001 MAJOR FINDINGS IN THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY (1) The least costly alternative from
the standpoint of Total Initial Costs (direct and indirect costs) is a temporary skatepark but, because of the site improvement and indirect costs, it still is estimated to cost $360,880.
(2). When viewed from a life cycle cost standpoint, i.e., the number of times the wood ramps would have to be replaced and the cost ofthat replacement compared to the initial cost of
a concrete facility and its much longer useful life, wood ramps may very well end up being more expensive than the most expensive scenario-a concrete facility. (3) The reason for the
much higher cost for a flexible "temporary" facility in Los Gatos than in Santa Cruz relates to the fact that in Santa Cruz the site for the skatepark was already paved whereas the site
in Vasona Park, would require over $100,000 of site improvements and another 30% for indirect costs. costs. So, the Town Council needs to consider these cost and life cycle factors in
determining which option to proceed with if any. Ofcourse that decision may be dependent on whether an arrangement can be made with the County for the Vasona Park site. The Final Feasibility
Report identifiesJour scenarios for the Council to consider. Staffbelieves that given unlimited resources Scenario two, a "Hybrid" skatepark, offers the advantages of a quality structure
with flexibility through the use ofsome wood ramping. But, it also has a Total Initial Cost of $650,260. That is why the staffwould suggest that an equally attractive scenario is, in
fact, the Flexible Temporary Skatepark. This offers a "flexible" wood ramp system built on asphalt concrete and would allow construction in a reasonably short period of time (possibly
less than a year), assuming no significant County processing time or environmental review process issues. It also allows,.in effect, a pilot effort to see how a skatepark is accepted
in the community. Of course a downside to this approach is the need for further investment several years from now in a new, improved and permanent skatepark. It will be important whatever
type ofskatepark is selected that it be properly screened and landscaped so it is compatible with Vasona Park. The Town could commit to a minimum of, say, $50% from grant (Prop 12 and
Zberg funds in the amount of about $360,000 have still not been allocated)· and/or Town' funds to do one-time site improvements($125,000) and recurring operating costs ($55,000) with
an effort to raise the balance offunds in the community. Also, the Town should consider the appropriateness ofthe level ofthis funding when it reviews other capital priorities (for example,
more funds for a fountain in.Town Plaza) and available resources during a proposed review of the capital improvements program in late October.
PAGE 4 SUBJECT:' FINAL STUDY FOR A SKATEPARK SEPTEMBER 14,2001 COUNTY ISSUES AND PROCESS In the previous report to the Town
Council, staff included a report entitled Skatepark Analysis that was prepared by the County. In recent correspondence from the County Director of Parks, Mr. Romero provided a more select
list ofCounty issues that need to be addressed and those are set forth below: 1. The Countywould like to discuss the cost for relocating the picnic shelter(s) impacted by the ToWn's
proposed use ofthe Vasona site. Town staffwould,want
to explore site utilization that might incorporate one ofthe shelters into the skatepark. Town staffis aware ofCounty concerns regarding impact on use and revenues from the shelters
located generally in the area ofthe skatepark. 2. The County Parks and Recreation Commission is tentatively scheduled to hear any Town proposal for a skateboard park in December followed
by a review and action by the Board of Supervisors. The County staff did not specify when the Board would hear the matter. That would probably depend on the issues identified by the
Commission and whether the Town's response to those issues were deemed satisfactory. The Town will work to coordinate the County review process through Supervisor Gage's and Mr. Romero's
offices. 3. Mr. Romero mentioned that several other "management" items need to be considered: How the Town would address any "spill over"activities into other areas ofVasona Park as
a result ofthis use and any resultant physical repairs to County facilities. . 4. . The County also asked about infonnation pertaining to other sites that were considered. During discussions
that led up to the Council consideration ofBlossom Hill Park and the Winchester Lark site, and subsequently Vasona Park, eight sites were discussed by the Skateboard Park subcommittee
ofthe Parks Commission. 5. The County expressed a concern about the need for the Final Feasibility Report to acknowledge the environmental review review process and the consultant has
done so in the Project Review section ofhis report. The consultant discusses some ofthe potential environmental impacts that may need to be considered in any environmental review process.
Clearly, if the Town Council directs that we continue to pursue a skateboard park in Vasona Park . various County issues and concerns will need to be addressed and the Town understands
that point. COUNTY LEASE AND POTENTIAL OF PROPERTY EXCHANGE In 1960, the ToWn leased approximately ten acres ofland to the County for use as part of Vasona Park. This property is adjacent
to the ten plus acres that the Town is interested in for a skatepark (actually the desirable site (Option B) would be less than one-half the site. See Appendices Band C which show the
Proj ect Area for the two possible skate park sites and the adjacent Town property.
PAGES SUBJECT: STUDY FORA SKATEPARK SEPTEMBER 14,2001 COUNTY LEASE AND POTENTIAL OF PROPERTY EXCHANGE During the course
of discussions with the County regarding the skatepark use, Town staffwill also explore swapping ownership of this property should the Town Council so direct. Doing this could offer
certain advantages to both the County and Town in terms of control over uses, management ofliability issues, etc. Process and legal requirements would have to be evaluated. FINANCING
ALTERNATIVES The cost ofa skatepark has been ofmajor concern to the Town Council and staff. These costs have been looked at in detail and staff have attempted to speak to virtually all
direct and indirect costs except those that may be unknown such as environmental mitigation measures. Total Initial Costs (direct and indirect costs) range from $360,000 to $750,000
on the propo.s. ed site. Operating cost.s range from $38,000 to $55,000 annually. Given these high costs, staff proposes committing to funding only a portion ofthese costs, $125,000
for capital costs and $55,000 for operating costs or about 50% ofthe least cost scenario. The balance could be in-kind or cash contributions from gifts and donations. Also, the Town
Council, when it considers other capital priorities and various funds available for capital projects, could either increase or decrease this amount. However, this would appear to be
a reasonable Town contribution to use for current planning purposes. As mentioned above, the Town does have the ability to use about $360,000 o£Prop 12 and Z'Berg funds available to
the Town this year that have not been allocated. Also, the Town has preliminarily explored leasing arrangements although the relatively small capital cost involved in this projectwould
tend to mitigate against this fmancing approach. CONCLUSION: The Town Council needs to determine if building a skatepark is a priority matter to consider. If it is the Council should,
at least tentatively, make some dollar commitment and give direction to staff to pursue a site in the County. Staffbelieves it has fashioned recommendations that would allow the Town
Council to proceed with planning and constructing a skatepark. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A skatepark feaSIbility study is a project as defined under CEQA but is statutorily exempt under
Section 15262 of the State Environmental Guidelines, as adopted by the Town. A notice of exemption will be filed. However, it should be noted that a final decision to construct a skatepark
would be a proj ect as defined under CEQA and will require separate environmental review. FISCAL IMPACT: (See Financing Alternatives)
PAGE 6 SUBJECT: FINAL STUDy FOR A SKATEPARK SEPTEMBER 14,2001 Attachments: Feasibility Report Distribution: Skateboard
Park Working Group Paul Romero,. Director ofCounty Parks
__ ..:_..__ L .. jl,j"_"" 1l._:--..I!_-0'.. --------Feasibility Study-FINAL·REPORT Skatepark for the Town of Los Gatos, California . Vasona Lake Park
September 12, 2001 Bruce Playle, Skatepark Architect INDIGO Architects 231 G Street, Suite 2 Davis, California 95616 USA
Appendices INTERIM REPORT A Project Workplan for Feasibility Study B Parcel Map, Scale: 1"=200' C Site Plan, Scale: 1"=200' o Site Plan, Scale: 1"=100' E Skatepark Option 'A', Scale:
1"=50' F Skatepark Option 'B', Scale: 1"=50' G Skatepark Option \C', Scale: 1"=50' H Oal< Meadow Parking Lot Improvements, Scale: 1"",,50' I PreUminal"Y'Projeet Schedule ] Site Photos
FINAL REPORT K Santa Cruz Skatepark photos L Cost #1-Concrete Skatepark M Cost Estimate, .Sce.nario #2-"Hybrid" Skatepark ' N Cost Estimate,' Scenario
#3-Wood ramp Skatepar.k o Cost Estlmate,.Temporal"Y Skatepark P Operation and Maintenance BUdget estimates for. Skatepark Scenarios Q Costs .tJ
Table of Contents Interim Report Page no. Goals'and Workplan : 1 Criteria for the Los Gatos Skatepark Project purpose••,••" •••••••••,.,••" ••••.,lt.:.., •••• 1
Design and use ; ·.; : 1 Location and responsibility: 1 Size and budget ", ; 1 Operation and safety ' ; 1 FJexibility:, tl." ••••••• " ••••••• \••,.:.,,., •• , ••••••••••••••••••
,.\ .• , 2 Fenclng-, ••••,•••,•••••••••••••••.•. ,••••.•.•.••• ••••••.'" ••••••••• I ••••••• , ••• -•••• _2 CQ.nstr\.Jetion type •••••••,•••••,••" , " ••• " ••••••••••, ,.•••••••
2 Hours. of .•.•••••.••, ..•,..,.,',••,.•.•......1'1""" 2 Access and parking 2 Restroom and water facilities : 2 "Good neighbor' policy : 2 Site Options . Existing
' 2 Option ••,..•.•"••,"',.,.,." ," ,. , "" .•;" , ,,.. 2 Option B"'1""""""""11"""""""""'1"""""" ••••• , ••• , ••••• , ••• ,.3, Option"C
.•.•"••..•••,••,.'••.••,"'.'. ".".,., ,.,., •. ,.... ,... I ••• ,., ••• ", I. 3 Parking and access Improvements 3 Siting recommendations , 3 Cost & Schedule Schedule , , 3 Cost range
of skateparks .: 4 Final Report Town Council Input Concerns : 6 SIting of the skatepark 6 Ukely·users 6 Access & parking 6 Operation 7 Project review 7 case study: Santa Cruz Skatepark
7 7 Skatepark Scenarios . Scenario # 1-Concrete skatepark ; 8 Scenario #2-"Hybrid" skatepark 8 Scenario #3-Wood ramp skatepark 8 Temporary skatepark 8 Steel vs. wood ramps 9 Cost and
funding issues InitJal costs' 1""""""""""""""".-"""" ' •• "11""1 ••• , ., •••••• ,•••••• 9 Operation and maintenance costs ; 10 Replacement costs 10 Cost summary 10 leasing options 10
Recommendations Feasibility finding .. 11 Recommender! et..
INTERIM REPORT Goals and Workplan The four main goals of this study are to determine the feasibility of a new skatepark for the Town of Los Gatos which would: • Initiate a process which
will provide youth a sanctioned place to skate, prpmote positive social interaction, and which will fit well into the community. ' • Determine the suitability for building a skatepark
in Vasona Lake Park which addresses the concerns of and Is acceptable to the County of Santa Clara. • Establish criteria including design process, cost and schedule parameters related
to the design and use,of a skatepark. • Identify general scope and nature of the project and as well as next steps to initiate project development. In order to achieve the goals,
Project Workplan for Feasibility Study has,been developed and is found attached as Appendix A. A Working Group has been established including key stakeholders and has been intimately
involved with the Feasibility Study. ' Criteria for thetas Gatos Skatepark , ,J ' In order to test feasibility, criteria have been developed which would gUide the siting and development
of the skatepark. The Criteria' presented in this Interim Report are a starting point and are guiding parameters/concepts for planning purposes 'and evaluation only. They are not specifications
for the design and use of the skatepark. The criteria have been,tentatively identified as follows: Project purpose Presently, skaters the Los Gatos area have few sanctioned places
to ' skate. In recognition of the popularity of skating and the need to provide positive interaction places for youth, the Town of los Gatos is evaluating the feasibility of opening
a skatepark 'that will attract the' interest and use of local skaters. Design and use Areas will be prOVided which accommodate varying skill levels. The 'facility will be open to the
publlcand designed for use by skateboarders and In-line skaters. Scooters may be permitted, although establishing separate operational hours may be indicated. The design should result
in a fun place to skate which is challenging enough to maintain skater Interest, yet safe enough for operation byttie Town of Los Gatos. The design should Include artistic expression
in order to enhance the sculptural nature of skateparksand to reflect the cultural phenomenon of skating. Skatepark as "cultural art"! ' . Location and responsibility The skatepark may
be proposed to De located in Vasona Lake Park in an area adjacent to Oak Meadow Park, refer to Appendices B, C, and D. Should the facility be located here, It is anticipated that there
will be a lease and operating agreement between the Town Of Los Gatos and the County of Santa Clara regarding use of the site for this purpose. The skatepark will be operated by and
will be the responsibility of the Town of Los Gatos. Any loss of existing use of the site may, need to be replaced elsewhere In Vasona Lake Park. , Size and budget , . For planning purposes;
the initial skatepark size is 12,000 sf with room for future expanslon....a fleXible design which which easily accommodates phasing, and can address financial! budgetary concerns is
desired. A skatepark of this size would have a maximum occupancy of between 4060 skaters. The bUdget for the skatepark has yet to be determined. (Note that 12,000 sf Is
the minimum recommended size for a skatepark today which allows for a basic set of features as well as the room needed for proper session flow around and between them.) Operation and
safety Operation of the Skatepark is not to rely on County staff for any form of supervision or maintenance. Initial supervision of the park may be considered in order to minimize and
address start-up problems, and ease the transition to operation as a skate-at-your-own-risk facility with , appropriate signage prOVided. Use of safety gear will be required. Town
open and close the facility each day. Maintenance of the facility IS an Important consideration. No graffiti will be permitted. A phone will be provided. Page 1
Flexibility The design of the skatepark should be flexible and facilitate any changes in operation or use which may become desirable or necessary in the future. Examples of
may include conversion to.tull or no supervision as well as use by other patrons, for example possible BMX use in separate time slots. The design should be easily expandable in the event
of future growth. . Fencing . . . , . The facility will be separated from adjacent areas with. an 8 high fence with gates whlch can be Jocked during non:-operatlng The fencing·
is not intended to keep skaters out during. operating hours, only to permit after-hours closure of the skatepark. Construction type . .. . This civic-quality skatepark is of permanent
concrete or style construction and is designed, for use by and In-Ime skaters. It is not intended for BMXuse or motorized devices, unless
permitted duril1g separate, dedieatedhours for . purpose. (Note thaf skateparks: of three types are conSidered In this Interim Report. These are reinforced
concrete, "hybrid"-ramp, and ramp construction and ared/scussedfurtherln the "cost range of skateparks" section ofthis report.) Hours of operation . ' Hours of operation will
8 am to sunset, consistent with Vasona Lake Park, however limitations on use during. school hours have been discussed. (Note: assumed: hours of .operation have since been further defined,
please refer to "Operation" portion of "Town Council sect/on found IIi the Final Report.) . . Access and parking . An approximately 10' wide park trail provides access to
skatepar.k, primarily from tl:Je Oak MeadoW Park (south) direction and secondarily from the Vasona Lake Park (northeast) direction. Emergency and service vehicle access wiWbe
pr,ovided from the Oak Meadow Park access. The parking lot in bak Meadow may be improved by re-striping to provide additional parking spaces as well as a drop-off loading loading zone
for use by patrons of skatepark as well as eXisting users of Oak Meadow Park. The design of the skatepark will discourage access from adjoining private property. .Restroom andwater
facilities Adrinking fountain will. be provided at the skatepark and access to .toilet faciiities .In Oak Meadow Park will be "Good neighbor"policy
Design of the facility should permit visual access from outside the park for safety and security. The skateparkshould be a good neighbor and be visually attractive through the use of
landscaping, etc. Area(s) for . spectators should be planned for at the pei'lphery of skatepark. Site Options EXisting conditions .. _ The ,site study area for the skatepark is
an approximate 2.3 acre area located oricountY of Santa Clara lands InNasona Lake Park, just from the north property line of theTownof Los Gatos-owned Oak Meadow Park, as
shown in Appendices B, C, afld D. The project area is . bounded on the southeast by a creek, on the northwest by office/commercial uses on a bluff overlooking the site. The site is relatively
level and includes two'picnic she!ters and turfed areas. A signifiCant existing landscape buffer exists bet:r'een.the site and the. adjacent office/commercial uses and
and the remainder of Vasona lake Park. Three .site options, A, B, and C have been Il;lentified, photos of. the existing sites are found in Appendix J. OptionA . As shown in AppendixE,
Option A would locate the skatepark at the end of the site study area, directly adjacent to Oak Meadow Park. A 12,000. sf initial phaSe layoutwith room for 4,000 sf
of future expansion Is In.dlcated. In this option, removal'and/·or relocation of the west-most picnic shelter is required In order to permita fully-functional skatepark layout possible;
replacement of the picnic area function elsewhere in VasonaLqke Park would likely be reqUired; An entry area for the skatepark can be provided just off the existing trail, immediately
upon Meadow. Thishasthe advantag12 0f being the mqst immediately Visible from Oak Meadow and require$th,eJeastencroachmentinto
Vasona."Total area required for designation .of,skatepark designation is approximately +6,000 sf plus an .allowance for observation area, landscaping, etc.
Option B . As shown in Appendix F, Option Bwould locate the skatepark in the middle of the site study area, just to the northeast of the aforementioned picnic shelter. A 12,000 sf Initial
phase layout with room for 4,000 sf of future expansion is Indicated. In this option, the west-most picnic shelter may be reused and incorporated as a partially covered entry area for
the The mature trees adjacent to this picnic shelter are preserved in this option and the area between the picnic shelter and Oak Meadow park can be a transitional
skater warm-up area and can relieve any tendency for congestion off of the trail. Since the skatepark Is still reasonably proximate to Oak Meadow Park, it enjoys a similar advantage
as that for Option A. It would be closer to the second picnic shelter to the northeast, however, and may . detract somewhat from that facility for its intended use, depending on user
preferences. This option would likely require the replacement of the picnic area function elsewhere in Vasona ,Lake Park. Total area required for designation of skatepark designation
is approXimately 16,000 sf plus an allowance for observation area, landscaping, etc. Option C As shown in Appendix G, Option Cwould locate the skatepark at the east-most end of the site
study area, just beyond the east-most picnic shelter. A 1:2,000 sf initial phase layout with room for 4,000 sf of future expansion is indicated. In this option, the east-most picnic
shelter may be reused and incqrporated as a partially covered entry area for the skatepark and the creation of a transitional skater warm-up area and can relieve any tendency for congestion
off of the trail is possible. Unfortunately, the skatepark is most distant from Oak Meadow Park, worsening its ability to be easily monitored and serviced by the Town of. Los Gatos.
Moreover, this option WOUld. present the deepest encroachment into Vasona Park and would usurp the most meadow-like green space in the study area for use as the skatepark. This option
would likely require the replacement of the pi<;:nic area function elsewhere in Vasona Lake Park. Total area required for designation of skatepark designation is approximately 16,000
sf plus an allowance for observation area, landscaping, etc. . Parking and access improvements While most skater access to the skatepark is likely to be on-foot via the park trail adjoining
the site (see prior section on Access and Parking), some minor increase in parking demand, an estimated six parking spaces, is expected In the Oak Meadow parking lot. Re-striping of
the parking lot, as shown In Appendix H, can easily accommodate this increase. Presently there are 58 spaces and with the re-striping and relocation of approximately four small trees,
68 spaces can be generated, an increase In 10. Note that due to the 'use of this lot by generally large SUV's and vans, use of standard, large spaces and plenty of room
for aisle circulation Is proposed. A passenger dropoff loading zone for up to three vehicles Is also prOVided, all all of which will benefit users of Oak Meadow Park, as well as users
of skatepark. Siting recommendation Based on a review of the Criteria as relates to the available sites, it is the recommendation of INDIGO that Option A, Option B, or a hybrid
of the two be considered for inclusion as candidate sites in the final feasibility study. Cost & Schedule Schedule A preliminary project schedule has been developed and is found attached
as Appendix 1. Note that the project has bElen divided Into a Phase 1.Conceptual Plan and Environmental Approvals and Phase 2-Final Design Bidding, and Construction. An approximate two-year
process has been ' Identified leading to the possible opening of a skatepark in Vasona Lake Park at the designated location. Key schedule elements of Phase 1 include a two-month Master
Plan preparation, a two-week approval period by Town and County governing bodies to proceed with the Initial Study for the project, followed by another three-month period of Initial
Study. Next would be the Conceptual Plan phase which would involve two public workshops whereby.the skating community, adjoining neighbors, park users' and community members at-large
would be directly involved in the design of the .. The Conceptual Plan would be reviewed again by the governing bodies and approved approximately nine-months after
project commencement. Key schedule elements of Phase 2 include an approximate four-month Final Design and approval period by Town and County governing bodies a two-month bidding period,
and an approximate three-to-four month ' construction period.
Cost range of skateparks Preparation of a project development cost estimate for this project is currently under development and not available at the time of Issuance of this Interim
Report. Major site-specific cost factors have yet to be characterized and included in the estimate•.. Based on the discussion in this section, however, the necessary site Improvements
and skatepark construction cost necessary to Install a civic-quality reinforced concrete skatepark for the Town of Los Gatos skatepark could range between $300,000 and $500,000, consistent
with INDIGO's recent data for sud) recently constructed comparable facilities. Additional to this amount would be any site-specific costs such as relocation expense, extensive landscaping
requirements, and the Indirect Costs to develop the project such as engineering, inspection, for example. Further review is required to establish a project budget suited to tnis. site
based on resolution to these matters as well as to the type of skatepark to be built (Concrete, Concrete, Hybr.id, or Ramp-see discussion below), the appropriate site development costs
such as grading, utilities, landscaping, etc., and to reflect cost escalation which accommodates an adopted project schedule. Once these and any other applicable factors have been adequately
discussed,. a total project development cost should be prepared and a project budget established. . Costs of skateparks vary Widely in accordance with their quality of design, construction
type, size, and special operational features such as sport lighting, equipment, Other important constrl.lctlon components are items such as grading, drainage, utilities, fencing,
etc. which-are specific to each. individual site. In the case of the Town of Los Gatos Skatepark, for example, a "raw" site must be developed to , make It ready for a skatepark Including
some g,radJng as well as electrical and other utility service preparation, and extensive landscaping in order to make this use compatible with the adjacent park lands and to be a a good
nelg.hbor.· . It should be noted that factors such as bid climate as well as geographic location can also have significant effects on cost. The use of comparative "unit-costing" on a"square
often does not properly account for these costs variables and can be very misleading since persons offering such quotations do not always Include all costs. Nonetheless,
an overview of such costs for various types of skateparks is offered below for general bUdgeting purposes and for use In assessinr -1sibility for this project. • Reinforced concrete.
civic-Quality skatepark: With construction cost varying' between $20 and $30/sf, these skateparks are constructed entirely of reinforced high-strength concrete with embedded stainless
steel "copings" and "grind rails"; Generally recommended where a completely custom design ancflow maintenance costs' are desired. These skatepark? are of the most durable construction
and the least maintenance and operational cost .They can be.completely custom designed to the users' satisfaction, however onCi:e built, are difficult to modify as may
be needed to accommodate future changes in skating style and equipment. This type of skatepark, if not built to the ' appropriate standard, can be subject to excessive cracking and.
other types of failures whICh can make these parks eventually less and safe to use. A local example of such a skateparkexperlencing excessive cracking of concrete
is that built a few years ago for the City of Santa Rosa. Also, the Modesto skatepark has developed cracks which are leaking underground water there; • "Hybrid" concrete and cystom-composite
ramp With . construction cost varying between $15'and $25/sf. Some three reinforced concrete features would be still included in a"hybrid
concrete-and-ramp skatepark, but with much more flat area on whlcl1 to place custom-composite ramp features. These composite rar.npsvarlously consist of durable galvanized steel, polyethylene,and
fiberglass components most often covered with. a or "Rampskin" skating surface. Galvanized or stainless steel grind rails and coping are available. These skateparks
combine the 'bestfeatures of a concrete civicquality skatepark with the·f1exibillty of ramp construction. They require some,additlonalmatntenance and operational expense due to the presence
of .ramp construction.
• Pre-manufactured wood ramp skatepark: With construction cost varying between $10 and $15/sf, these skateparks are constructed of, wood ramps on a flat concrete or even asphalt base
surface. The wood ramp components are most often covered with, a "Skatellte" or "Rampskin" skating surface and plain steel grind rails and coping are generally used. Due to the relatively
high-maintenance and operational costs of these types of skateparks, they are generally not INDIGO recommended for civic use. ' -. .':.: .-'--:" , In summary, skatepark cost
is highly variable on the factors outlined above. Care should be taken In setting the budget for the Town of Los Gatos Skatl;;lpark to ensure that It can "deliver" on the Town's expectations.
If an expectation is that the skatepark be of a civic quality level and be carefully Integrated,lnto the existing parklands, then it is incumbent on the project team to make sure that
enough funding is available to provide a skatepark which has the design features which will attract"and hold skaters attention. Input from the skater workshops to be held should be sought
prior to making final decisions on construction type as there are many skating preferences. . FleXibility to address cost issues will be Integrated into the public workshops and discussed
with the skate'rs for the Town of Los Gatos The skaters can be effectively involved In the effort to prepare a "redu<:ipJe" plan for cost control purposes, If necessary.
Once the budget has been established, adjusted cost estimate sheets will be prepared to continually evaluate the cost of the project as the' design is evolving.
FINAL REPORT Town Council Inputreceived Concerns The Interim Report together with County comments and a Town staff report were reviewed by the Town Council at a regular public meeting
held on June 4, 2001 as an information .item. D.iscussionincluded site location, who the likely users of the skatepark would be (gender and age), supervision, parking, access, capital
costs, operation and maintenance costs. In summary, initial price was a significant concern as well as the' impact of recurring costs. Different types of skateparks were discussed, including
temporary skateparks, for example as just built by the City of Santa Cruz for its community. City 'staff and this consultant committed to responding to the concerns ofthe Town Council
In this Final Report. Siting the skatepark Location Option 'B' (see AppendiX F) appears to be the most beneficial. skatepark location among those proposed for location in Vasona Lake
Park and is recommended. There are several reasons why: • ,It is relatively close-Cit-hand to Oak Meadow Park for ·supervision and service access purposes. • It requires less en£.roachment
into Vasona Lake Park when compared to Option C. • The existing east most picnic 'shelter can be preserved and incorporated thus avoiding the need for demolition and providing Interesting
and unique opportunities
for entry shade and shelter, possibly a point of supervision. • The area on the pfima,yapproachside to the skatepark, between the picnic shelter and the entry point to Oak Meadow park
can serve as a warm-up area or as an open space . available to relieve any possible congestion, which might otherwise occur at this area of narrowing of the trail near the skatepark
entry. . . • Allows for the possibility of future expansion. Likely users Users of skateparks vary considerably in terms of gender, age, and skill level. r'Jroportion of the skater
population that is female has been Increasing.over the years and at any typicai california skatepark at any given time, it Is likely that one or more skaters Is female. The Los Gatos
Skatepark should be designed to be a good venue for beginner and experienced skater ali.ke and it is Indeed possible to design for this multiuse. Younger skaters (6-12 yrs. old) will
participate and use features such as flat areas, manual pads, fun boxes, low grind rails, and curbs, for example. Older youth (12·18 yrs. old) are likely to be more
by ramps, halfplpes, quarterplpes, etc. Adult skaters (18 yrs. and up) will use these same features and can be expected to be the most frequent users of bowls, halfpipes
and ramp ensembles. It is important to note that while areas will be prOVided which accommodate varying skill levels, a successful skatepark design should not overly differentiate these
areas, rather It should support good "session flow" and should not exclude skaters of various ages or skill levels anyone part of the skatepark. So it is that this multiuse skatepark
is expected to attract skaters of all ages and skill levels from the Los Gatos Gatos community. All skaters will have access to and will be found using most of the various features of
the skatepark at one level or another, and as·suits their skating needs and interests. Ac:cess &. parking The Interim Report addressed this subject and'identified tt-le need to design
the skatepc!.rk to discourage access from adjoining private property. Also, County of Santa Clara staff has expressed concern about any possible "spillover" 'effect of skaters and their
actiVities into the surrounding park. Recommendation of site location Option '8' for the skatepark Is Intended to help resolve these issues, and is in part is due to its proximity to
the primary access point, Oak Meadow Park. Several suggestions follow: • Utilize site location Option '8' due to its proximity to the primary access side, Oak Meadow park. • Locate the
entry point in the fencing at or near the existing picnic shelter, closest to Oak Meadow Park, do not create gates on the other sides of the skatepark which might encourage access access
from the private property sides. • Develop the trail and Its sidings leading to Oak Meadow Park with widest reasonable Widths and to minimize any possible congestion at Its narrowing
point Into the Oak Meadow Park. • Evaluate offsite private properties to maintain the integrity of any existing fencing or landscape barriers to reduce likelihood of
access to the skatepark from those areas, use signage if required. • Re-stripe the existing parking lot in Oak Meadow Park to generate additional parking spaces so as to reduce any tendency
for unauthorized parking at adjoining private property. Operation Although not within the scope of this Feasibility Study to prepare a complete operating plim for the skatepark, it is
envisioned that the skatepark will be a fully super.vlsed facility with posted rules, regulations, and hours of operation. This Is due, in large part, to the location of the skatepark
in the Vasona Lake Park run by the County of Santa Clara whose staff have expressed concern about any possible "spillover" effect of skaters and their activities as well as any possible
liabilities of County staff forced to respond to any problems which might otherwise arise In an unsupervised skatepark. In order to maintain this supervision and control access Into
the skatepark, a perimeter fence with entry gates is proposed. For the purposes of cost caLculations, operational hours have been assumed to be summer (3 months) hours llam-Spm Monday-Sunday,
and school session(9 months) hours 3pm-6pm Monday-Friday, llam-8pm Saturday and Sunday. It is important to note that all aspects of the operation of the skatepark are subject to further
review and definition as part of the development and design process. For example ongoing review of the cost of supervision, surrounding land ownership, and current trends
in the supervision of skateparks may mean that an . unsupervised skatepark is still a possibility and therefore has not been ruled out at this time. Project Review Public review of this
project should include initial policy review by the County of Santa Clara and the Town of Los Gatos, followed by project definition and an Initial Study meeting the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The County and Town review can be conducted utilizing this Feasibility Study together with staff reports. Then, a "project definition" phase
would be entered wherein more information Is prepared about the use of the site as a skatepark, but stopping well short of its design. The Initial Study is then prepared including an
"environmental sensitivity analysis" to look at potential impact and develop appropriate mitigation measures. Examples of the impacts that should be evaluated include: -Increase in impervious
surface area which will increase storm water runoff. -Water quality of storm water runoff. -Loss of _turf area. .. .. • Any trees that will be impacted. -Parking• .-Neighborhood Impacts
(i.e. noise, parking, traffic). -Glare from lights (if illuminated). -• Noise and other impacts on park users. Implementation of the Initial Study process is necessary to determine any
impacts resulting from the above and if any mitigation measures will be needed for the project.· Experience has shown, however, that skateparks of similar circumstance to this one in
Vasona Lake Park have been able to practically and reasonably mitigate any such impacts. Case Santa Cruz skatepark _ The Santa Cruz "Fun Spot" skatepark opened in June of
this year and is a temporary skatepark built to provide a skating venue until use of a permanent site location is approved and a permanent skatepark can be built there. The temporary
skatepark is apprOXimately 14,000 sf in size and consists of an asphaltic concrete skating surface with aboveground skatelite-covered \'Ramptech" wood ramps, a perimeter 6' fence, adjacent
parking for apprOXimately 8-10 cars, spectator bleachers, and sufficient existing ambient light to serve after hour security lighting purpose,s (see AppendiX K for photographs). Public
restrooms and a pay. telephone are nearby at the wharf area. The park is . unsupelVised, posted with rules and regulations, and Is generally open from 8 am to sunset
dally. City wharf staff conducts periodic visual inspections of the skatepark as part of their rounds. Chains are placed across the ramps at night to prevent skating. The site already
was paved as a parking lot and although asphaltic concrete does not make for the best skating sUrface, it was decided that due to the temporary nature of the site as well as severe cost
constraints, that it would be slurry-coated and used as the basis upon which to build the skatepark: This surface, unlike concrete, requires periodic repair and recoating. The City of
Santa Cruz reports that their initial construction cost for the skatepark was $92,500. Since the-City used its own staff to develop, manage, and in some cases construct the skatepark,
the true total costs are somewhat higher and have not been calculated. Also, as pointed out
Skatepark above, the existing site was already pave9, had sufficient lighting, and was drained. The $93,000 reported cost consists of approximately the following:
$75,500 ramps, $5,000 slurry-coat eXisting paving, $7,500 install fencing, and $5,000 misc./tools/signs/etc.· Scenario 2-"Hybrid" skatepark Build a permanent ''hybrid'' ciVic-quality
skatepark on site location Option 'B' in Vasona Lake Park, a minimum of 12,000 sf iii size. Included are some features which are molded in concrete, some which are abo""'qround skatelite-covered
wood ramps. Use a properly Scenario 1-Concrete skatepark Build a permanent civic-quality concrete skatepark on siteJoc;:ation Option '8' in Vasona Lake Park, a minimum ofl2,OOO sUn size.
Use a properly designed reinforced concrete slab as the. skating surface. Provide an 8' fence arouridtheperimeter withaccess gates at the Oak Meadow primary approach"'side. Provide spectator
sElatlng, drinking fowntain, parktraH improvement5,.complete landscaping. and other enhancements for proper;lit'into' the parkland•. Re-stripe the existing Oak Meadow parking. lot: ..'
Disadvantages • Aestheticsof,.amps • Least durable e High maintenance cost • Early replacement cost Disadvantages e Relative high Initial cost e Aesthetics oframps Advantages • . Low
initial cost e Some custom design. • : Much flexibility to change Advantages e Best of both "worlds" e Much custom design • Quite durable e.' Combo. skating surfaces ·• Some flexibility
to change • . Average maintenance cost Temporary skatepark Build a'temporary wood ramp skatepark on site location Option 'B' in · Vasona. Lake Park, minimum of 12,000 sf in size.
Use a temporary asphaltiC concrete slab as the skating .surface. with aboveground skatelite-covered wood ramps. Provide an 8' fence around the perimeter with access gates at the. Oak
Mea<;:low primary approach-side. Provide spectator seating, drinking fountain, park trail realignment, and minimal landscaping. No re-striping of the existing Oak Meadow parking lot
Is proposed. It Is likely that a temporary skatepark can be built more quickly than the t/meframe a permanent skatepark indicated in Apnendix 1-Preliminary Project Schedule, although
CEQA compliance shou Il be designed reinforced concrete features slab as the skating surface. ·Provide an 8' fence around the. perimeter with access gates at the Oak Meadow primary approach-side.
Provide spectator seating, drinking fou.ntain, park trail improvements, complete landscaping and other enhancements for proper fit into the parkland. Re"stripe the existing Oak Meadow
parking lot. . Scenario 3-WO.od ramp skatepark . Build a wood ramp skateparkonslte location Option '8' in Vasona Lake park, a minimum of 12-,000 sf in size. Use a properly designed reinforced
concrete slab as the skating surface with abovegroundskatelite-covered wood ramps. Provldean.8' fence around the perimeter with access gates at the Oak Meadow primary approach-side.
Provide spectator seating, drinking fountain, park trail improvements, complete landscaping and other enhancements for proper fit into the parkland. the existing Oak
Meadow parking lot. . Disadvantages •. Relative highest initial cost e Less' flexibility to change Advantages • Complete custom design • Most durable . • Bestskating surface • Least
maintenance cost • Least replacement cost • Best aesthetics, landscape berms It is import;ant to note that temporary and wood ramp skateparks have significant on-going operational and
maintenance costs and durabilitY limitations that should be taken into consideration when comparing costs with permanent skatepark types.'. Also, the Santa Cruz cost results are not
replicable at the Vasona Lake Park due to its undevelopeq nature. and due to the additional work needed for it to be acceptably Incorporated into the county park system. These site development
costs are significant grading, slab, drainage, landscaping, irrigation, security lighting) and are covered ·In more detail in the folloWing section entitled· "Cost and funding
Issues". '
Advantages • Lowest initial cost • Some custom design .' Most flexibility to change sought for a temporary facility. Due to this, an approximate total timeframe of 9 to
a year should be anticipated even for a temporary facility. , Disadvantages' • Aesthetics of ramps • Least durable • Most maintenance cost • Early replacement cost • AC paving not recommended
It is important to note that many temporary skateparks demonstrate a positive first six-to-twelve months of existence (e.g. Santa Cruz temporary skatepark), the vast majority
do not go on to ' have lasting positive effect for communities that build them (e.g. San Mateo, Novato, etc.). In fact most temporary skateparks experience are prematurely closed and/or
removec;l due to problems such as poor site choice, poor quality ramps becom'e dangerous, lack of adequate site-specific accommodations to ease transition to adjacent neighbors, and
generally demonstrate a lack of adequate Investment to properly execute the project. Unfortunately, the same features that make these parks "temporary" and "removable" also make the
statement to the community that a serious effort at incorporating the facility to the community cannot be made. Steel vs. Wood Given the compleXity ot the various decisions
to be made regarding this proj<;ct, this Feasibility Study purposely simplifies the discussion of "ramps" by referring primarily to "wood ramps". Wood ramps are highly practical, very
available, and lowest In cost. In fact, there is a broad range of ramp types and designs made by U.S. manufacturers today including all steel framing systems C!nd those which use composite
sub-deck and skating surfaces intended to enhance skateability, increase durability, and extend life span of the ramp assemblies. These systems also range considerably in cost, the best
systems costing 2 to as much as 3 times as much as a basic "wood ramp" system. The additional cost for a complete "steel" ramp vs. "wood" ramp system can run anywhere between $50,000
to $100,000. Where the will to invest in skatepark ramps is present and durability is a concern, a "steel" ramp system is the one of choice. Further discussion of which to use is most
appropriate after basic decisions and' policies have been made and during the actual design process with skaters where they will have the opportunity to express skating preferences.
Cost and Funding Issues Initial costs .The Interim Report dealt with typical cost ranges of skateparks. Budgetlevel cost estimates have been prepared based on a review of three likely
scenarios (see Appendices L, M, al;ld N) and for a Temporary Skatepark (see Appendix 0). The cost figures shown are Total Initial Costs, which include direct construction cost and indirect
cost of the' skatepark project. Direct construction cost Is the actual construction cost for the skatepark and its related site Improvements'such as fenclng, landscaping, security lighting,
etc. These figures have been escalated to ' 'a presumed midpoint of construction and Include contingency (see '. Appendices L, M, and N). With the exception of the proposed Oak, Meadow
parking improvements, specialized mitigation measures (see section on Review Process), are not Included since they are not yet proven and may be subject to negotiation. Asummary of direct
, construction costs follows: • 1· Concrete skatepark: approXimately $577,400. • Scenario 2-"Hybrid" skatepark: apprOXimately $500,200. • Scenario 3-Wood ramp skatepark:
apprOXimately $451,600. • Temporary skatepark: apprOXimately $277,600. ,Indirect costs include project management, design and engineering, utility and review agency fees, environmental
or other mitigation costs, etc. and have been estimated at 30% of the direct costs. (See Appendix Q). Once the focus of the project has been narrowed and more Investigation Is complete,
these indirect costs may be more accurately estimated. The combined total of all direct and indirect cost Is known as the Total Initial Cost and reflects the total cost to develop the
project. A summary of the Total Initial Costs follow: ' • Scenario 1-Concrete skatepark: apprOXimately $750,620. • Scenario 2· "Hybrid" skatepark: apprOXimately $650,260. • Scenario
3-Wood ramp skatepark: apprOXimately $587,080. • Temporary approximately $360,880.
Operation &maintenance costs Operation and maintenance costs have' based on the proposed' supervised skateparkas located in Vasona Lake Park (see Appendix
P). Operation costs primarily consist of supervisory staff time, utility expense, and insurance costs (note that no Insurance cost has been included in these figures as the TOwn is'part
of the ABAG insurance pool for which no increase in premium for covering the skatepark is anticipated). protective gea'r for the skaters, if any/has
not been inclUded.' Maintenance costs indupe the cost to clean, repair, and repJace skatepark components on a scheduled basis. This has been figured atdailYi weekly, arid
intervals. A summary of the estimated operation and maintenance 'costs follow: ' • Scenario 1-Concrete skatepark:' apprOXimately $38,520/yr. • Scenario 2-"Hybrid" skatepark: apprOXimately
$43,200/yr. • Scenario 3-Wood ramp skatepark: approXimately $49,920/yr. • Temporary Skatepark: apprOXimately $54,7?01. yr; Operation costs are the larger of the two component costs and
are directly related to the proposed operating hours, of the facility. The figures above are based on operational hours which have been assumed tobe summer (3 mpnths) hours
and schooLsession (9 months) hours 3pm-6pm Monday-Friday, 11am8pm Saturday and Sunday. These figures would belowerwitb an operating plan consisting of fewer hours.
For please refer to AppendiX P and foregoing discussion in the Operation section. . , Replacement costs Replacement cost is the cost to
replace the skatePflrkJacility due to the deleterious effects of time/use/weather and the diminishing rate of . return on repairs or improvements to an existing facility when compared
to starting new. A summary of the estimated replacement costs (in 2001 dollars) follow: • Scenario 1-Concrete skatepark: apprOXimately $222,500 every , 35-years. • Scenario 2-"Hybrid"
skatepark: apprOXimately $40,000 every 5-8 years on ramps, $135,700 every 35 years on concrete. • Scenario 3-Wood ramp skatepark: approximately $80,000 every 5·8 years on ramps, $72,000
every 35 years on the ("'1crete slab. ' Cost summary A comparison matrix has been prepared which compares the total life cycle cost of each scenario (see Appendix Q-Comparative Life
Cycle Costs).' Total Ufecycle cost is the sum of initial cost, operat/onscost, , maintenance cost, and replacement cost and has been cornpared on a 35-year.basis measured In.2001 dolli;lrs.Oneresulto
fthe life cycle cost comparison is the average yearly co§tJorbuil,dlng,operating, maintaining, and replacing the skateparkand itscompone,nts as follows: • Scenario 1-Concrete skatepark:
approx.$89,OOOI yr. • Scenario 2-"Hybrid" skatepark: approx. $94,7001 yr. • Scenar:io 3-Wood ramp skatepark:approx.$lQ4,6001 yr. Additionally, it has been found thatthe payback period
of the higher initial cost Scenario 1 Is apprOXimately 8-years With respect to to Scenario 2, and 9-years with respect to Scenario 3. Leasing options Leasing is uncommon for skatepark
projects but is Jionetheless available as an alternative to cash outlay or the use of other financing tools such . as bond measure or certificates ofpartlclpatiorr (COP). Leasing terms'
presently available, from one reputable company are as follows:, ,. Term·lsfor a maximumofSOO/o.ofthe useful.life of the facility, , 7-year lei;lse terms are typical. II :Leases are
written mainly on basis of credit of owner, collateral requirements Cireminlmal, often limited to the value of the built facilIty· • In order to write a lease, it must be cancelable
each year in the event of non-appropriation of funds. • Current Interest rate for 7-year term is 5.8%. • Monthly cost for $300,000 principal would be $4,350 based on 7-yearJease at 5.8%
rate. '. Monthly cost for $600,000 principal would be $8,700 based on 7-year lease at 5.8% rate. • Lease can be written as a joint venture lease (Town-County), but if written for Town
only can be "double tax-exempt".
( Recommendations Feasibility finding Based on the various meetings and discussions conducted and on the inform(jtion contained in this Feasibility Study, a skatepark for the Town of
Los Gatos located in Vasona Lake Park Is deemed feasible as follows: • A process has been identifleq which will provide youth a sanctioned place to skate, promote positive sodal interaction,
and which will fit well Into the cO(Tlmunity.. • A site has been identified for building Cl skatepark In Vasona Lake .Park which, pending their formal policy review ·process, may be
found to address the concerns of and be acceptable to the County of Santa Clara. . . • Criteria have been established a design process, cost and schedule parameters related to the design
and use of a skatepark for the Town of Los Gatos. Criteria similar to these have led to the successful completion of other civic skateparks. • The general scope and nature of the project
and as well as next steps to initiate project development have been defined. Conditions of this feasibility are as follows: •. Review and approvals: That negotiations with the County
of Santa Clara can be completed and that the land use policy approval of the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Board of Supervisors can be
Subsequent to that further project , definition and an Initial·Study meeting CEQA requirements must be successfully completed. • That site 'Option B' be used for the new skateparki
of the sites studied in Vasona Lake Park, the site most likely to meet joint Town and County approval is site 'Option B'. • Qlli: That the project can be sufficiently financed in order
to prOVide funds sufficiently to construct the project. Total Initial Cost varies between $360,880 and $750,620, depending between (see also 'Type of skatepark' below). • Type of skatepark:
That an appropriate skatepark type be chosen as a function of budget availability together with a more detailed assessment of skater preference to be obtained In skatepark design workshops.
These workshops would be·held subsequent to this . Feasibility Study and Project Definitions, but could be concurrent with the Initial Study. . • Access and parking: That th.e described
Improvements in this Feasibility Study are found acceptable for implementation on this project. The Improvements Involve active measures to discourage vehicular access to the skatepark
from any other area than the Oak ·Meadow parking lot which would be improved to include additional parking and a new drop-off area. . • Operating plan: That an appropriate operating
plan be chosen as a function of budget availability together· with a more detailed assessment of Town as well as skater preference to be obtained In skatepark design workshops. Operations
may also be a function of ongoing negotiation between the Town of Los Gatos and the County of Santa Clara. Recommended next steps . The following are recommended next steps for the project.
For more detail, please refer to the Interim Report section of this Feasibility Study entitled "Schedule" as well as Appendix I-Preliminary Project Schedule: • Secure the approval of
and/or comments this Feasibility Study and staff reports from the Parks & Recreation Commission ·County Board Supervisors, and the Town Council of the Town 'of
Los Gatos. Establish site, budget, tlmeline, and criteria for project. Approve preparation of a Master Plan for the skatepark. • Project Definition and begin Initial Study
meeting CEQA .requirements. . • .Initiate Conceptual Design Phase workplan including: • hands-on skater pUblic design workshops. • first workshop skaters use sand & clay mOdellng, sketching.
• INDIGO synthesizes input received with our experience. • second workshop INDGIO reviews design with skaters. • Final adjustment to design to fine tune all skate features. • Design
to meet budget, schedUle, & criteria requirements. • Prepare final Conceptual Design for Town approval. • After the Initial StUdy and the skater workshops have been ·completed,
Town approval and proceed to professionally prepare construction documents, complete bidding and construction all as a serious civic works project. '
Meeting -#2·. Preoare PrelimlwryFensibi/ity Study, presgnt to Working (one meeting with Working Group to include Town Staff, Skatepark SUb-Committee, and
ofthe County olSanta Clara) 1. Review draft Criteria for the design and use ofthe skatepark. ' 2; Prepare site layout diagrams for each of ma?<. two sites In Vasona County Park.
Summarize availability and/or cost of prOViding any necessary: .; Date: May (2 weeks to nextiask/ Meetlag #1-Project klck-offmeetiag and tQue Qfcandidate
sjte!!i with Workjog Group..Time & Location: TBA. Projectckick-off meeting and tour of candidate sites(one meeting with Working Group to indude Town Staff, Skatepark Sub-Committee, andrepresentatives
ofthe.CountyofSantii Clara, same daytour of " sites) 1. Discuss design parameters and concerns of participating party. 2. 'Discuss Town liability any
limiting conditions affecting the design, and " risk-aVOidance for the County of Santa Clara. 3. Discuss probable operating policies for the skatepark. " 4.. Discuss any fiscal,saf-ety,
physical, or other limitations on" the design. . 5. Discuss environmental approval process for site locations with Town and County planning staff.· 6. Discuss available parking, toilet
facilities, and other necessary amenities at the various sites, proximity to residential neighbors, etc. 7. Conduct visit of candidate sites (maximum Preliminary oroject meetings, site
visitations, atrdprQ,ieCtsetl/,fTo Time & Location: Various meetings and 9iscusSions, review of Co,unty considerations for use of Vasona Park, site reconnaissance and photography, project
definition, team organization. Completed. .../Date: May (3 weekS to next Task/Milestone) .../Date:· Various, Completed. . . Appendix A-Project WorkplanfQr Feasibility Study Skatepark
for the Towil of Los Gatos, Vasona ·Lake Bruce Playle, Skatepark Architect, INDIGO ArchitecuWSeptember 12,2001 Phase I: Site Selection and Feasibility Study Is the focus of
this scope of work and is a precursor to Phase II: Design, Construction Documents, Bidding, and Construction. Phase II includes a skater-workshop process to determine the actual design
of the II is. not includedih this current of twO) within the Vasona County Park. 8. Assemble·recorddrawlngs, photos, etc. for
each of max. two sites (provided by Town staff). 9. Review relevant reports and[ or studies for .each of two sites (provided by Town staff). 10. Review topographic and utility maps of
existing conditions (provided by Town staff) and assess any impacts on adjacent land uses foreachtifmax. two sites. 11. Review legal descriptions/exhibit maP for for each of max. two
sites (provided by . Town staff): . 12. Evaluate utility availability and coordination issues, if any, based on review of utility maps, for each of max. two sites (provided by Town staff).
. __ .. __.. _. __ ._._, !_I c-----.l__ a) Toilet facilities, investigate ·possible use of those In adjacent Oak Meadow Park. b) Parking, Investigate possible restriping
of the adja'cent Oak Meadow Park , parking lot. c) Evaluate proposed bandstand location as relates to skatepark. d) Access control, and fencing (based on planned operation policy) e)
Establish space relationships requirements. f) Preliminary utilities plan. g) Preliminary review of factors regarding of the Skatepark into the neighborhood. h) Identify
probable mitigation measures at each site. i) Conduct pedestrian circulation assessment around and plan for spectator area. . j) Prepare area and occupancy calculations. k)
Preliminary Criteria for the design ; and use of skatepark. 3. Summarize the general advantages/disadvantages of each site and make recommendations regarding preferred site (actu.al
preferred site to be selected by Working Group). In making recommendations, indicate the degree to which the concerns raised in kick-off
meeting , can be mitigated., 4. Prepare Budget-Level Estimate of Probable Cost and Preliminary Project Schedule based on information available. Indicate variances between candidate sites,
max. of two. Indicate type/quality/scope, options which affect cost. .; Date: June "4th (11 weeks to next Task/Milestone) , , ' August 22nd 5. Discuss possible funding
6. Identify likely enVironmental reView and approval process based on input from Town and County plannl,ng staff. MeetIng #3-PrePare INTEBIM BEPORTand revIew with Town Couaelli (one
meeting with Town Council) , , 1. Consolidate all Input received to-date and prepare Interim' Report. 2. Review with Town Council the Interim Report findings for each of max. two sites
In Vasona County Park. input. 3. Determine with Town Council need, if any, to investigate any other sites for possible use as a skatepark. Meeting #4-PrePare FInal FeilSiblllty
Studv and Present to Working Group; (one meeting with Working Group to include Town Staff; Skatepark Sub-Committee, and representatives ofthe County of -Santa Clara) . , 1. Conduct minor
adJustments in report , materials In accordance with Input received at meetings. 2. Adjust site layout diagrams. 3. Adjusted proposed mitigation measures. 4. Adjusted Preliminary Design
Estimate of Probable Cost and Preliminary Projec;t Schedule. S. Refine description of the environmental approval process to follow prelim. work. 6. Present Final Feasibility Study material
to Working Group.
Approximate elapsed time approx. weeks Date: [I6A} CQ, P& R commission mtg. 7th Meetings as required' with County earks Commissign, BoardofSUJlerviSQrs, (es addedservice:;,
1. Assist in public agency review meetings, as reqUired. (Includes Town Council, ' County Parks &Recreation Cqmmlssion, Board of Supervisors, etc.) 2. Assist in securing 'approval of
Town Parks Commission and/or Town Council to proceed to Phase II: Design, Construction'Documents, and Construction. ,I Summary ofFeasibilitY Study
, '1. Comparative analysis ofthe' up to two candidate sites within the Vasona Community Park, including summary oflikely mitigation measures and environmentalprocess description. 2.
Preliminary Criteria forthe design iloduse oftheskatepark. 3. INTERIM REPORTandtlien FINAL FEASIBlmYSTUDYfor a skatepark at each ofup to two candidate sites within the Vasona Community
Park as listed below: a) Site Plan/FacilitYPlan for each site. b) Skatepark FacilityPlan to indicate general nature ofa typical skateparki/esign. Actual design is pending
skater input to follow via workshopprocess in design phase. ' c) Budget-Level Estimate ofProbable Cost; inclusive ofcost oflikely mitigation measures. Indicate type! quality! , scope
optionSwhich affect cost. d) ldentificationofpossible funding sources., e) Indication ofphasing, IfreqUired, to meetproject budgetary requirements. /) Prelimini!ryProjeet Schedule. Excluded
from the Wockplaa bUt aVaila/;/e as'additional services arfJ the follOWing: , 1. Design, Bidding, andConstruction Phase services. 2. Meetings beyond t/1oseshown. ' 3. Specialized renderings
orcthree<limensionalmodels. 4. Use ofsubconsulfdntssuchas soils engineering, ,surveying, ciVil englnet!ring, eleCtrlcalenglneerlng, landscape architecture, environmenta!/planning consultants,
etc.
C"'\ °o" c ,"0oI . --5 ANT A C L A R A 1.0oS . ,;" ". o F COUNT.:Y 'Ii. S. S E'S S.O R S. _. _6_ __/I 6 R. .,.. to'l· . ::e -< ...-di II? .;:, .:::->-!
...JI .1.J III' a l;-l . I '\',(d l t\ II
",., ..,.' ....r"; ;' l:'"':".j",..;,..> l'"' .\ . :' ."'. >, .. ", ",
Appendix Preliminary Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona Lake Park INDIGO Architecls, September 12, 2001 -Phase Year 1 "Ce: «Ie: «I 0 ii:Ci. -co
.... -c.«I Q) .... () C cQ) oo Ec · e Q» III C «IW .l:: a. Public Workshop ttl. Including Skiilepark Committe" Prepare and review preliminary design: ·Publlc Workshop �
� Committee Prepare Conceptual Plan documenta. Incl\ldlng, coal and achedulll, al based on Maliler Plan Final Approval, Skalepark Commllte., Final Approva', Par(it
Commission. Counly and City governlog bo<:lles. approval 10 procead with Final Design! Consll:uetlon Documents FINAL,DESIGN! CONSTRUCTION DOCUMeNTS FINAL AGeNCY ReviEW AND APPROVAL BlpOING
CONTRACT NeGOTIATIONS, BONOS. AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION General Notes: " . . 1) Schedule shown assumes standardlimelines for design, client/agency review, bidding and construcUon. Methods
lorschedule acceleralionsuch as ·last tracking" are available, 2) Schedule is preliminary and subject to change. .
Appendix J-Site Photos, p.1· Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona Park 'f:' it·, :., .i$ Approach on trail In Oak Mead6w Park ,: ':,.'
...::.'!'", ..:;., ... ," Oak Meadow toilets building Approach on trail in Oak Meadow
Park . . . View along trail toward study area Oak Meadow facilities .;,. " Trail view from site study area looking back
toward Oak Meadow Park
Appendix J-Site Photos, p.2 Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona Park Trail at creek .-.... ..: Site a'poon Aarea with picnic shelter
.' : ..''.;- ',' • ;', . ,'-.. • .: ;;. " '. ':1) .', :: Site Option A area looking toward heavily landscaped
bluff View toward site study area from within the existing landscaped area View from site study area toward Twin Parks office buUdlng
Appendix J-Site p.3 Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona Park Tran view along Site Option C. area . View into Site Option Carea Storm drain outlet into creek
Appendix J-Site p.4 Los 'Skatepark, Va"sonaPa"rk Twin Pa"rks'office building promenade overlooking bluff at site Study area' View into,site study area from
Twin Parks office building View into site Study area from Twin Parks . .. office building View into site study area from Twin Parks office building . View into lower level parking area
from Twin Parks office building View over fence at lower parking lot, through landscaped area into site study area
L_ . Appendix K-Santa Cruz Skatepark photos, p.l Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona Lake Park: Urban site next to tracks means few:adjacent residential neighbors Temporary
Site was already paved as a parking lot Half Funbox with grindrail Split ramps with tranny bottoms Halfpipe Appendix K-Santa Cruz Skateoark
Appendix K-Santa Cruz Skatepark ph.otas, p..2 Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona lake Park Launch ramp . . Temporary Skatepark Overview at Halfpipe Wood ramp, side view, surface is Skatelite.
Typical braced wood frame construction Spectator bleachers
__ L Appendix Cost Estimate, Scenario #1-Concrete Skatepark ,., .. .•. :r.:.! •.", y. '. '... Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona Park ,I Storm are. dfJln, 3 te. 0450 '.35
dowanct 6" "orm dr.lnnlnlnD 240 II 28 .6,72 a1lowlRC. General NOlaa: 1) lIudglila prollmlnary only and aubjoc;llo chango. Pricing liaumea all civlc'quaiily WQr\<. public bid, previlling
wag•. 110m Quanllly' Unll Coal Coal . (unl'-) ($) Commonla . ($funll) I Tr"1 25 ... 500 12.50( allowln(i. I SQllamondm.nl 20,000 ,I 0.15 J, eJlQwanco SUllllrvlllon and TQII., DUlldinri
SUPlrvlslon Ind TolIl' BUlldlna 0 •1 235 ""umos non. reo·d. Mlacoliineou, silo Imo,o••m.nll Cone,,'e .ntrv. vl.wlnn. end Wlrmun .r,al 4,000 .1 6 24.00 allowance Ble.cher., oorllbl. 45
sui 65 2,92 Bllowance Chlln Link Fenco "hlot>-vlrwl CQII.d, black II 24 22.5 allowance 'Oa'" .'wld. 4 ... 800 3.2 allowance Monvmanl.I';". .110 IdonU'" , ... 2.500 2.5 ellowance
8Ig",g.. ml.e. 1 ... 800 8 allowance SUBTO AL GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS 258,585 B. SKATE PARK RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Find melll coplna 380' It 45 17,1 allowance 'IDe r.lI, ICce..Orl••
60 It 90 5,( sHowance Concr.I.lllilWork "vllar... 6,500 ,I 10 65, allowanc. Concr.-t. f••lv..., modl'r.11 ,t 22 792 allowance I Concrolo ,..lures comol.. 1,900 .1 2( (5.6
allowance Concrolo benchll 70 II 60 (.2 allowanca CUrbl 400 If 15 6,0 allowance WQod ramol 0 II 10 &Uun'WIa non, 'en'd. SUBTOTAL FULL PLAN SKATEPARK IMPR. 12,000 II
18.S( 222,500 TOTAL OF ALL WORK ABOVE 0' III work ebolll (5'1,085 CQslllcalalion IQ ..sumed mldDolnl 4%/\1r. 1.3 vr..An';""•. 5.5% 26460 Prolocl
20% (10% dI,lgn + 10% coo"",cllon) I 56,217 bolO bid conllNcUon IneludlnQ conltno.ncy (rounded) 577,40oIndude, 20·1. conlino. Common'. IIlumel non. 'Io'd. unknown .,1hI. u.n.
Ulumel non. rea'd. unknown ., tNa lime 45 aIIow.nce 2,5 a1lowanc. 2,5 oIIowenco 3,OOC allowene. 1. allowance 5.00c allowenc. 15,00( liloweneo 18,OC llIow.nc. 10,5 aIIoworico 15 2.50oo
300 8.00 5.50 4500 5.500 2,500 2500 3000 3500 5000 3.600 ie.ooo Unll Coal Co., ($) . ·($Iunll) I 'B. 1 ••. 1 ea. 1 ••• 1 .e o .a. o ea o .. , ... 6 e•. 1 .a. 3 ea. 200 ea. 500 sl 2.500
II 2.000 ea. auanlily . (unUa) gervlc. connlct 4-concrete .Idew.l kl Sireel !IOhlO CItY el.nd.rd rel;;)hon...,...,Ie. Public TeleDhone. Dodoelll !villi I liZ" loleohone condull dl,lr1bulion
Asohlillc concrol. Dlvln. Pka. 101llDhllno. oot.lncl. lumln. condull conn.cllon f... New .'.c,rlul'lrvlc,,-"anel Includlna moler 0·x10· conere'l curb. ConnocllD CounlV T,.II
Juncllon & Dull bo••• Securllv onl. Incl. lumlnalre cQndulls S;""" IInhllno.nolelncl.lumln. conduit podoslrlln novlnn Ehu:;trlc,,' ullllll.i on..,tte A. GENERAL
SITE IMPROVEMeNTS Demolilion. Silo Clea,lno, Gr'dlnQ and Elrlhwo,k utili"•• ott..,Ue 110m Romovo misc. I,"a, romovo ,'umoa 3 ea 500 I. ollowanc'e
I-_,:...000::::.::;-_C\"'t__�
� ollowanc. +__,;':",-:o:':.:j-_';(:.:,;::5OO::::f__';;:('
aIIowanc. Site nlvlno. Dl'klno IQI mQdlflcallQn. Sollimporilinclud.d In amounl b.low 600 c 25 '5, aIIowanco Site clearlno. orvbblnQ. ,I,loolna '5.000 ,I 0.20 3. allQwanco
__:::1---:-:;;:;::r,;--:-:--_-:'_--j '" wal.r Incl.
lrench 60 H 2& 1,68 ••owanc. I
I rlQ and conn.cllo ..Isllno WIItt lIne 1 ... 1.000 1.()()( .llowanc.
�
�
I Cllch b..lnl 3... 700 2.1 oJIowance �
�o.av:.;l:;nll.-"__.....__':....-.:.::."I.__�
�__-:-=t<.:;r.:::Now:,::.:IRC::..:::;":--1 .. Conn.clio ..Isllno mlnhol. 8D CD I e.. \ 200 1.2 1_11IO1 I!'rlo.llon Wiler Villi"., Connect '0 nal.bl. waler main wi v.lv. 1 '1. 1000
1 ,a. 3200 3,2CX IrJkJIlIon Wit., l.t In U.I L;Jmdsci1D. IrrlnaUo" dl.trlbullon 15,000 I' '5.000 ,f 5.000 II '.'5 uo \.50 2.2.50< aIlawence 1.50<
oIIow.nc.
Appendix M-Cost Estimate, Scenario #2.. "Hybrid" Skatepark Los Gatos St<atepark, Vasona Park nlm QUanllty , UnllCoII CIIII($) (unlll) ($tunll) Comm.nl. . I Y'NI 25 . tI. 500 12.5OC allowBnCe
Soli Imendm.nl 20.000 I ., 0.15 J,OOl allow,"ce 9UO'Mllon Ind TolI.1 Bulld"'O SUOlrvlllon Ind ToUII Bulldlno 0 .1 235 ISsumn nonl ,eq'd. MllcllI.neoul '1111 Impro'"menll . Concroll enlIV.
'vlewlna. and wlnnup aroll 4.000 sl 6 24,00 allowance BIOIc:hoi•• oortabl. 45 'Qal 65 2,92 allowanc. Chlln Link F.nel .' high-Vlnill cOllld black 940 II 24 22,S allowance 001•••'wldl
4 eo, eoo 3,2 aMowen<::t Monumenillil... IIII !dIRtilY , eo. 2500 2. aKowanee Slilnla.. mllc. 1 II, eoo e .UOWlnc. SUBTOTAL GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS 241,085 " B. SKATE PARK RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS Fixed m.tal coDlno 200 II 45 90 allowanca PI.. rlui IC:ClIIIOrf.1 30 II 90 2.70 allowance Concrt'.""atwDlk Ilve.aflal 10,000 " 8 SO,DC allowance Conelll.IOIlun.. moderall
2.000 il 22 44,DC allowance Conerll. 1001u..I eomm•• 0 S, 24 auulnea nonll r,q'd. Conu.tlbonchel 0 U 60 assumes none ,eq'd. Curb. ,0 II 15 assumeo non. IOq'd, W_IImPIII" commlnl II 11"1
",mal 4,000 aa 10 40,01: allowance....add addltlon'l $25k'$SOk II ,lael ramD' usad SUBTOTAL FULL PLAN SKATEPARK IMPR. 12.000 .1 ' 14.64 ' 175,700 TOTAL 01' ALL WORK ABOVe Sub-lotalol
.11 work above 116,18 COIIOIcelilion 10 Illumed mldoolnt 14%/Yr • 1.3 yr...oorol. 5.5% 22,S23 ProJecI contingency. 20% 110% dollgn + 10% conllNellon) I 83,357 Total b... bld conatrucllon
Includlng ConUnglncy (roundod) I 500.200 Include. 20°" conting. 4,4OC aIIow""'l 8,CO 'S,OOC oIlowencl ,"I 5.50 800 2 SOlI 110m Conolruellon .llklna , II 3500 3, otlowencl . SlDrm Onoln.o.
ullllll.. Corinec::l (0 Cou-ntv Tr.U EleclrlQI uUUlI•• o,,",sl'. Pedo,lrlln Dlvlna
_t-;;_;;:=-_::+-_:;r;;I_..._'_;r;;;:*_:;;::==------I I Asahaille eonclltl Davina 2.000 II. 2.50 5;OOC alIowenel New eleclrlcel ••rvlc:rvlc:e
alnol Includlna m.ier I .a: 18,000 18.00 oJiOWanca· Securfty lIohlln.,. 001. Incl. lumlnalro condull. 3 II, 3 500 10,50 alIoW""'1 TaD and conll4lCllO 1.llting waler lInt 1 a., , 000
I,()O( oIlow""'l I __....
•. ...-----I! l" Srfplna , II 3000 3,OOCIllowenei ' Soll'lmDar1 Includld'in ImOURI bllow) 300 q 25 7. aIIoWancl 9111 oridlna. 111I and eomalellon
500 C'j II I, oIlowencl Remavi mlsc.lr", .removl4!ump, 3 II 500 I. llIowenel Sill clearlna. arubblna••trlaolno 15.000 sf 0.20 3. Illowenel
�
� : ...�
�...
olIowenc. �
� -...,...-_+-_...:-'_..:I::'=:j' _---_l I
+-__:-l.....:.::.::j.
--";"-_l I ....-:-+-__:-l_..:I::a::j'
___l I _f_-..;..I'-":'::'::j'f-__
..;°T _l I �
�-_l S.,."lcl conn.cl I ••. 0 '( unknown
Illhla'llml I __
.=.u::.:m:::'::I:.:nono':::::::':':fO::l.:Q·'d::"__-l i
' I--!"_:'Pl!.llio
-J__ _l ! Orlnklno 'ountaln. o.d.ltal tyPI I e.. 2.S00 2,501 oIlowencl
i Quanllty UtilI COil COil ($) Commenla (unltl) ($tunll) i •�
� f-__-.."'+---+----1-':"'""-..,.,.----11 Oomollllon, SIII'Cllarlna. Gndlnglnd Ear1hwork 8' siorm dnoln DIDlno 200 30 olIowencl 6" slorm drain Dlolno Storm are. drain, Catch bulno
CUI ond DOlch ••I.lIna .Idowllk•• ""vlno, Conn.CIIO e.I.Unll monhol. SO CD on-.II••Iorm drain eh.nn.llmprovlm.ntl 240I. o .a, .'.L..., ". 28 450 700 900 1200o , 8;72 1,35 2.191 \,2 allOWance
.llowencl oIlawenc.,' .llowonel wumll nonl fla'd. General Notes: 11 Budgat il prallminary only and SUbjecllO chlllge. Pricing assume. all clvic·qUalify work. public bid,
waga. Irrlnatlon WI't' utlllilel Connlct to potable wal.r m.1lln wi '111'11 Irrigation blCkflow ofl'Yln'.' ••••mbtv .ea.,, 1000 J 200 :;1.20 IrrtnaUon wII.r I, In u•• Itrigatlon distribution
15,000 .1 1.15 Land:SC3Pe-p!a,nttr af,,, buN", and berml '5000 ,I 1,50 22.5OC otlowonc. L;mdsC4P'" luri 5,000 .1 1,50 ,,SOC dowlnea
., Appendix 0-Cost Estimate, Temporary Skatepark Los Gatos Skatepark,.Vasona Park , Quallllty UIlII.Coal I lIam (unlla) .($Iunll) Coal (5) Comrnellll I A. GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS Demolition,
SIl, Clearlno, GradlnQ and Earthwork 511. cloarlng, grubblna.•I,lpplno 15,000 .1 0.20 3,()l; allowance Remove ml.e. lree., ramove .Iump. 3 eo 500 1,5 ellowance 5011 Imparl Includ.d In
amaunl b.low) 50 e 25 1,25 aKewanee 511. gredlng, 11I1, and comoleU.n 75 c 18 I,J: allowance Con.trueUon .Iaklno I el 4500 4,lK allow_e Slle pavlno, parkln.v 101 modUlcaUon. A,phoilic
cancro'. pavlno 0 e•. 2.50 anum.. none I&o'd. 6"x18" concr.'. eurbl 0 el. 15 esiumol nonl roo·d. Sri Ina 0 .. 3000 ISlume. non. flci'd. p'do,lrlon plVlnl) 4" coner,11 sldewllks 2500
•1 8.00 15,OOC a1lowanc• Connoct 10 Councv Trail SOO .1 UO . 4.40< a»owlnol Eleclrlca' utllill•• on·,II, TID axllUnu e'lelfle,I.,rvlel D.ln,t • ... 3500 3.5 aUowancI Security 1I0hUno-001.
Incl. luminaIre, conduli. I ,.. 3500 3.5 allowancl Sporlll.hllnl), pal_'ncl.lumln. candull 0 •0 5,000 Ulume. non. reo·d. Pka. lollightino. Dol. Incl. lumln. condull 0 •• 3,500 Ulumol
nonl ..dd. Junellon & pull bOIlI. 3 ... 300 lil: • lowancl I 112· t,I'phollI condull dlllrlbulion 0 ... 2500 none u.. moblll Unlil Public T.I.phollI. nld..111 tv.. 0 '". 2500 nonl. uso
moblle Unlil r,lephone "Nlce 0 ... 4500 nonl. uso moblll unlls Ulility connooll.n r... 0 ... 0 blume. nonl lIo·d. utlllll,. oN..,II. S,rvlc, connecl t ,.. 0 unknown
111hl. Um. 51"",IIIOhl. CIIV Illndord 0 ea. 5.500 U.umll nonl reo'd. Pot_bl, WII., uUIIU., I" walor piping, Incl. ""nch 60 II 28 1.68 Illowanc. Drinking lounloln. p.d....1type I ...
2500 2.5QC allowlnell Tap connlet 10 ,.I,lIng wll" line 1 ... 1,000 ',Wl aIlow.nee Slorm Or,'nog, ullllll.. I S· slorm dnlln plolna 200 II 30 6,01: IUOWI!n<::' , O' >!orm d",ln
plolno 240 II 2S 6,72 -'Iow.nce , Slorm ire. d,..fns 3 ... 450 U Cilch basin. 3 ... 700 2.1 eJlowlnel , CUi ond pilch ..I.tlno .Id.wllk. & Dlvlnv 1 ... iIOO allOwlncl CO""ICI
to ..I.I.llno manholl 80 CB' • ... t,200 1.2 _nco OH·,II. 'form dreln ch.nn.llmDrOVlmlnt, 0 ... 0 I"um" non. ,.dd, Irnol,IQn uIIIIU,. II Connlcllo p...ble w.llr mlln wi v.lvl
• ... 1000 1.00( ,"ume. no "Kfalm,cr I IrrlgoUon blckllow prev.nlor ....mbly 1 ... 3200 3.201 Itrl allon wlllr II In USt i ilnd InlaaUon dl,'rlbutlon ! I"'oolion dl.lrlbutlon
e.ooo .1 1.18 S.201: uaume. no "l(;lalm,d" undJQP9'" plan'.r .t••,buffer, 8000 •• t.80 12. aJlowlncl Llndlc.pe-o turf 0 sl t.80 UlUfne' non. req'd. lIem Quanllly Unh C••I
Co.1 (5) Commanl. (unU.) ($Iunll) Tr... 0 ,.. 500 C IlIow.nc. I Sollamendmlnl 8,000 ., 0.15 '.2OC eJlow.nce Suo'",I.I.n.nd ToIIII Bulldlno 5upa....I••on and Toll., Bulldlna 0 sf 235
auumes none 'ia'd. MI.e.llontout .II.lmpr.vlmenl. C._.lIen'rY, vlowlllg, Ind we""up Irl" 0 ., 6 ...ume. non. reQ·d. BIIIC",II, IlOnable 45 ..., 65 2.92 allowance CNlri Link Fenct 8'
hlo,," vlnvl coal.d b'"ck 940 II 16 15.04 allowance G.lli 4' wlda 2 ... 800 1,6 anowance Monum.nl .IVI>-1111 Id.nlllV 0 ... 2,500 assumes none roo'd. SlgNg.. ml.c: I ... 800 III allow.nc.
SUBT TAL GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENT 109,315 B. SKATE PARK RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Fixed mltalcOPlna 0 If 45 aMUffitS non, rlilq'd. Pipe roll........." .. 0 II 90 as,syme" nonil 'eq'd. Alphaili.
eOnc:re,"lIalW.ri< lov.la.... 12,000 .1 3.50 42.0 ••pilalt n.1 re<:ommendad Conettt., t••tUf91 modefall 0 .1 22 lSIurn.. non. flQ'd. Concrttll.r..tUfN comDI•• 0 ., 24 ISlumes non. 'DQ'd.
Conc:rwll benchea 0 If 60 ....1m.. n.nl IIQ·d. eul1la 0 II 15 as.3umel non. flQ'd, (... c.mmanlll IIHI •• 8000 III 10 80,OOV!allowanca....add addillon'l $SOk·$100k
il .Ioel IBmp. uud SUBTOTAL FULL PLAN SKATEPARK IMPR. 12,000 .f 10.17 122.000 TOTAL OF ALL WORK ABOVe Sull-lo"'.111I wO(k .b."" 231,315 C••I.talollon 10 a.,um.d mld.oIn' 4%1yr,'.3 yr....o"'•••
'.5% 12,722 Prollc' conllnganey, 20% (10% dllign + 10%con.trucllon) I 46,263 T.I.I ba.e bid c.nllrucllon Includlno c.nUngeney (r.unded) 2n,6oo Includea 20·;' conling. Genar.' NOlo.:
'Illudgelia prelimlnfl}' only and aubjecllo chillllO. Pricing u.um.. III clvie·quallty woil<. PUblic bid. provilling wago.
Appendix N-Cost Estimate, Scenario #3-''Wood Ramp Skatepark . , ..",'" ....... ;,-.' -'r' Los Gatos Skatepark, VasonaPark Item A•• GENERAl. SITE IMPROVEMENTS . Oemolllion 511. Clearlna.
G,adlna and Earthwa,k SII.ete.,lno. orubblno. strlpplna Remove",lac.I,..,.•• rlmo';'. ,lumD' Sol..""oon Includ.d In·ama.unl b.law Sile arldlnn fill .nd comalcllon Canstrucllon llaklna
SlIinavlnn. Dlrklna 101 modlllc.lIan. ",Dhailic canc...t. Dlvlnp 8-x1a-coner••• curb. SrlDlnD PedOl"lln DavIna 4Il concret•.sldewalk, Conn.cllo Cpunrv Trail el.Clrlcll uIllIlIOlan-.II.
N.w .'.ct,lc.lllrvl.. D.n.' Includlna m.'., socuillv flnhllnn-nol.lncl. luminal.... conduit. nol. Incl. luniln. candul' Pkn;lolllahlinn. 001. Incl. lumln.
conduit JuncUon.",DUU box•• Iln"I.I.phon. conduit dlllr1bullan Public TeleDhono. oodo.tallva. .T,t.-ohonl'lrvICI Ulilliv connecllan I... Electrical ulllltl•• ott...I'. Servlc. cannec'
SI,"'lIahll, Chv.lando,d •.w;ll't,uUIIU'1 111 w;IlI., ulalno, lncl. Ir.nch OrInkino lounllin. aed<l.tallvoe .nd conn,cllo IxllUna w.'" lin. SIDrm Oralnlo, ulllill••
;! Qu.ntlty Unl(Cotl C'oll($) Commentl (unlll) ($Iunll) Ii 15000 a' 0.20 3,DC aUOWancl 3 .1 500 \,5 Illowlnc.· SO C\ 25 1,2 Illowonc. 75 " 18 1,35 oAowenc. 1 II 600 tiC -..... 2,000
... 2.50 5.00 allowance 200 ... IS 3,00 aIIowenc. I •• '3,000 3,00 -..... 2,500 II 8;00 15,OOC .aowanc. 800 II 5.50 4,40( aUoWancl II , ea. 18000 le.DC alloWance ;I 3 ee. 3500 10,5 aUowonce
0 .0 5.000 aqumel non. redd. I 0 •• 3500 Ulume,-norf. ! 6 .e, 300 I. aJtowanc-. I 'I; 2,500 2, oIloWonc. I •.. '2500 2; .lIOWanCe ! 1 .. 4,500 "4; oIlowenc. I ..: . ' 0 unknowlUllhI.
Ume , ... O' unknown.1 tim. 0 .1. 5,500 _uIMa nan. ,on·d. , 60, II i8 1.68C _Inca 01. 2.500 2,50( a1loWenc. I I ... 1000 1.00 aHowancl I 111m Quanlily Unll Call COil ($) Camman'l
(unlll) ($Iunll) T,.,. 25 ... 500 12,50< allowance : Soli Imoridm.nl 20,000 .1 0.15 3.00c anowanc. I Suaorvtllon .nd Toll., 8ulldl;;;;-Suoervl.lon and ToU.1 Build/no:-0 II 235 assumes
none ,.n'd, MIIC<lII.nooul lit. Imp,ovem.ntl Conc,.l••nllV. vl.wlna:lnd WlrmUD Ir••' 4,000 II 6 24. allowance Bltache,.. DIlI\Ible 45 i,•. 65 2,92 allowance Chlln Link'..... I' Ii,"".
VkiVi·COII.d; bllck 940 II 24 22,5 Illowanc:. Q.t••••' wid. 4 .0. 800 3.2 allowanCI Monumenl 110'" lit. Id.niii--, ea. 2.500 2.5 allowanc. SIDnaD" mile:. I ,.. 800 8 tUowancl SUBTO AL
GENERAL SITE IMPR VEMENTS 224,285 B. SKATe PARK RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Flx.d m.'" coalna , 0 If 45 &SlUmeSnonl "dd. PIa. rah .c..uorte. 0 If 90 IUlJm••'nanl 'en'd. Conc,a'.,I.lWarkhv.llr...
12,000 sf 5 12M allowance Cone'll. f••tuN. mode,••• 0 ., 22 "'Iumel none r.n'd. Concr.'",••'u....comol•• 0 0' 24 suum.. non'flo'd. Concr.l. benche. 0 II 60 UlumtS none r.a'd. .Curb.
0 If IS ....umelnon. 'Io'd. WaadnmDII... ,ammont Iflt"lramDII 8.000 . n 10 80,00 .Jlowlll1Ce.....dd addiJlon1 ..... $50k-$IOOk il stilol ramo. used SUBTOTAL FULL PLANSKATEPARK IMPR.
12.000 .1 12.67 152,000 TOTAL OF ALL WORK ABOVE ..rol IIIwOflrlbove 376,285 Co.I ......IIUan 'a aa.umod midnolnll4%1Vt • 1.3 v-,•.aDP,ox. 5.5% 20,696 Pro/ocl conUnooncy, 20%110%
de.lgn .. 10% con.lnlcUon) 75,257 Tolal baa. bid conllNcllon Includlna conUnaenov (,ounded) 451,500 inclUde. 20% conlino. a"·.torm dralnalalno 200 II' 30 a,DC allawanc. 6" slorm d,aln
alolno Slorm area dt,alnl Catch basin. Cut and. oelch .xl.llnrioldowelko & aavlild Conn.cllo';'icl.Unnmlnhoi. SDCB 240 " 3 .1. 3 .... I ••. 1 .iI; ., 700 9001·.·.· 1200 1,35 ollowenc.
2,1 oIlowanc. 1.2 .Yow...., Gene,.1 Nalas: 1) Budget II prlUmlnal)' only end .ubjtICllO chang•. Priclng aaaUlll4l••11 ,ivlc-qu.llly wall<, publiC bid, p'evaillng wage. ON-III••to,m drain
channallmo,avam.nl. o eo. o a..umu none ,iiO'd. Irrloatlon watt' utIlIU•• Connect to Dotable wale' main 'WI v_lve Irrlaallon backflow Drlv.nt., ils••mbly 1 ID. I 'L 1,000 3200 l,OOC
."umil no ·reclaJm,d" 3.2lX krlo."on w.I.... In UI. undscano and Irricatlon dlltrlbullon _
_:-__c:-__..�
� .•�
�__ ;' L.nd.C<lp-IU'.:rf
_ ..5:;:0(I.:oI:::':::OW::1nt::.:::=." ...J
Appendix p. Operation and Maintenance Budget Estimates for Skatepark Scenarios Los Gatos Skatepark, Vasona Lake Park .;, INDIGO Architects, Bruce Playle, Skatepark Architect, Septemoer
12, 2001 Scenario 1· Concrete Skatepark Scenario 2· "Hybrid" Skatepark Scenario a· Wood Ramp Skatepark Subtotal Tolal . Subtotal . Total Subtotal Total Monthly
Estimated Monthly Basis Estimated Estimated Monthly Basis Estimated Estimated Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) Operations
$2.930 $2.930 $2,930 Supervisory staff time (1) 176 hr. x 1.5 statt
x $10 $2,640 176 hr. X1.5 staff x $10 $2,640 176 hr. x 1.5 statt x $10 $2,640 Materials and supplies (2) est. $150 $150 est. $150 $150 est. $150 $150 Electrical-security Itg., power
est. $50 $50 est. $50 $50 est. $50 $50 Electrical· sports lighting nonei no sports Itg. $0 none, no sports Itg. $0 none, no sports Itg. $0 Telephone est. $80 $80 est. $80 $80 est. $80
$80 Insurance cost, it any none, through ABAG $0 none, through ABAG $0 none, through ABAG $0 Water utilities '. est. $10 $10 est. $10 $10 est. $10 $10 Maintenance. $280 $670 $1.230 Daily
maintenance (3) 28 hr. x 1 staff x $10 $280 28 hr. x 1 staft x $10 $280 28 hr. x 1.staft x $10 $280 Weekly maintenance (4) ohr. x 1 staff x$10 $0 1.6 hr. x l'staffx $10 $160 26 hr. xl
statf x $10 $260 Monthly maintenance (5) ohr. x 2 staff x $15 $0 4 hr, x 2 staff x$15. $80 8 hr. x 2 81aff x $15 .$240 Slurry seal a.c. paving (6) . none $0 none $0 see note (6) $0 Misc.
parts, supplies (7) est. $0 $0' .. est. $150 $150 est. $450 $450 Total monthly cost ..'J $3,210 $3.600 see note (6) . $4.160 Total yearly cost $38,520 $43,200 see note (6) $49,920 Estimated
tacility valuation, 2001 rliarS (8) $2,22,500 $175,500 $152.000 Est. facility replacement interval as .year S·8 yeara on ramps 5·8 years on ramps 35 year on concrete 35 year on concrete
slab Notes: (1) Operational hours shown are based on presumed summer hours of 3 mo. @11am-8pm M-Sun., and school sassion hours ot 9 mo. @3pm-6pm M·F, 11 am-8pm Sal.&Sun. This is an approx.
total of 2106 operational hours for the year or an average ot 176 hrs. per month. (2) Excludes purchase of protective gear such as pads and helmets, it applicable with operating plan.
(3) Daily maintenance includes' sweep cleaning, debris removal, remove graffiti, ramp stickers, etc. (4) Weekly maintenance on wood ramps includes inspection of all.ramps, tighten I.oose
screwslbolls, sweep skating surface with moist rags. etc. (5) Monthly maintenance on wood ramps incluqes inspection of all paint and protective coatings, repaint as necessary, wire brush
all steel surfaces to remove corrosion. (6) Assumes concrete skating surface. If an asphaltic concrete skating surface is used with a Temporary Skatepark, prorate $5,000 expense yearly
($400/mo.) slurry coat expense over 12 mo. This brings O&M total monthly cost to $4,560 or $54,720 yearly. (7) Wood ramp parts and supplies include replacement Skatelite surface panels,
galvanized screws and bolts, painting supplies, sanding discs, etc. (8) Skatepark facility-related improvements only. excluding all sitework. See Subtotal 8 on Appendices L, M, and N.
Appendix Q.. Comparative L;ife Cycle Costs Los Gatos Skatepark, VasonaLake Park INDIGO Architects, Bruce Playle, Architect. September 12, 2001 Scenario 1-Concrete
Scenario 2-"Hybrid" Scenario 3· Wood Ramp Temporary Skatepark Skatepark Skatepark Skatepark Cost 1$) Cost /$) Gost"$) -Costl$)' INITIAL COST Direct Construction Cost (1) SS77,400 $500,200
$451,600 $277,600 Indirect Cost (est. @30%) (2) $173,220 $150,060 $135,480 $83.280 Total Initial Cost.(rounded) $750,620 $650,260 $587,080 $360,880 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COST
, Operational cost yearly (3) $35,160 $35,160 $35,160 $35,160 Maintenance cost yearly (4) (5) (6) $3,360 $8,040 $14,760, $19,560 Total yearly 0 & M Cost (rounded) $38,520 $43,200 $49,920
$54,720 REPLACEMENT COST Estimated facility valualJon (rounded 2001 dollars) (7) $222,500 $175,500 $122,000 Est. facility replacement interval 35 8 years on ramps
8 years on ramps nla 35 years on concrete 35 years on concrete slab 35-YEAR LIFE CYCLE COST $750,620 . Initial cost (rounded 2001 dollars) $650,260 $587,080 nla Total Operation Cost
(rounded 2001 dollars) (8) $1,757,900 $1,757,900 $1,757,900 nla Total Maintenance Cosf,(rounded 2001 dollars), (8) $16a.oOO $402,000 $737,918 nla Total Replacement Cost, ramps (rounded
2001 dollars) (9) $0 $236,100 $435.400 nla T9tal Replacement Cost, concrete (rounded 2001,dollars) (9) $436,300 $266;100 $141,200 nla Total3S-year Life Cycle S9st (rounded 20Ql dollars)
$3,112,900 $3,312,400 $3,659,500 nla Average total cosVyr. (rounded 2001 dollars) $89,000 $94,700 $104,600 nla Approximate payback period of ScenarioJ . 8-9 years nla nla nla wilhrespect
to Scenarlos2& 3 '. Notes: (1) Refer to Appendices L, M, N, and a for budget-level estimations of Initial Cost (2) Indirect cost estimation InclUdes project design
and engineering, utilityand review agency fees, enVironmental or other mitigation costs, elc. (3) Operational hours shown are bas'edon presumed summer hours 01 3 mo. @11am-8pm M-Sun.,
and school session hours ot 9 mo. @3pm-6pm M·F, 11am-8pm Sat.&Sun. This is an approx. total of 2106 operational hours for the year or an average of 176 hrs. per month. AppendiX
P for detail. /3) Dailymaintenance sweep debris removal, Appendix P for
detail. (4) Weekly maintenance on wood ramps Includes jnspection of aU ramps, tighten loose s9rey,osl bolts, sweep skating 8urface with moist rags, etc. (5) Monthly maintenance on wood
ramps includes Inspection ofallpalnl-andprotective coatings, repaint as necessary, wire brush all steel surfaces to remove corrosion. (6) Wood ramp parts and supplies Include replacement
Skatellte surface ,screws and bolls, palnllng, liupplles,aandlng discs, 'etc, (7) Skateparkfacility-related Improvements only, excludlng'altsltework.
See Subtotal B on Appendices L. M, N, and O. (8) TotalO&M cosls are calculated based'on yearly costs from above, escalated at average 2% per annum. . (9) Total replacement costs calculated
for ramps at8-year replacement Interval and concrete at 35'year replacemllnt Interval, using InlUal conlitruclion cost, escalaled at average 2% per annum.
Final Recommendations Bruce Playle, Skatepark Architect INDIGO / & Playle Architects,LLP November 27, 2001 TOWNOF LOS GATOS VASONAPARK SKArEPARK PROPOSAL PROJECT OVERVIEW
& HISTORY lbis consultant began a process intended to determine the feasibility ofa skatepark in Vasona Park on May 8th ofthIs year. Goals ofthe study included: ./•••• Initiate a process
which will provide youth a sancticlned place to skate, promote positive social interaction, and fit well into,the community. . Determine the suitability for building a skatepaik in Vasona
Park, which addresses the concerns of and is acceptable to the County ofSanta Clara. ... Establish criteria for evaluating a skatepark including design process, cost and schedule parameters
related to the design and use ofa ' . Identify general scope and nature. of the project and as well as next steps towards project .development. This effort followed
an extensive effort by the Town of Los Gatos to find sites for a skatepark at other locations in the community. Alternative sites to the Vasona Park location were found to be unsuitable
either due to size, traffic, or conflict with adjacent land uses. Advantages of a Vasona Park setting include relatively central location, reasonable separation from conflicting land
uses, and consistency with the general recreational intent ofparklands. It is also 'a regional facility situated in the Town of Los Gatos and thus could serve residents throughout the
County. Meetings to .. explore feasibility in Vasona Park have to-date includedrepresentatives of the County of Santa Clara. They defined issues such as the relationship betWeen the
new use of a skatepark relative to existing uses prevalent in the park. Criteria were then developed which would address these issues. An Interim Report was prepared and reviewed with
the Town Council ofthe Town ofLos Gatos on . June 4th ofthis year. Based on all input received from members oftheTown Council, the skatepark proposal was modified to properly address
concerns and was again brought back to committee meetings and then to the Town Council on September 17th• The revised proposal which included a finding that a skatepark in VaSona Park
is feasible (please refer to Town ofLos Gatos staffmemo and "Feasibility Study,;. FINAL REPORT", dated September 12, 2001 for detailed information leading to the feasibility fmding).
Page I of 4
PROPOSED SKATEPARK PROJECT The skatepark is proposed to be located in the area designated "Option B" (see Appendix F in tht. report). This area is bounded by the park trail along the
Los Gatos Creek and offers convenient access from the trail entrance from Oak Meadow Park which is Towri owned and operated, and is sitUated im,medi<;ttely adjacent to Vasona Park. 1besite
isjust to the northeast ofone oftwo existing picnic shelters in the area. A 12,000 sf initial phase skatepark layout with room for 4,000 sf of future expansiollisproposed. The closest
picnic shelter is to be reused and incorporated as a partially covered entry area for the skatepark. The mature trees adjacent to this picnic shelter would be preserved and the area
between the picnic shelter is proposed as a transitional skater warm-up area and would mitigate any tendency for peopie to congregate on the trail. Total area
required for designation of skatepark is approximately 16,000 sf plus an idlowance for observationztrea, landscaping, etc.' .... The skatepark type is a "Flexible Temporary Skatepark"
above ground from framedramp construction as opposed to below ground concrete construction. The ramps variously consist of wood framing with polyethylene and .fiberglass
components, most often covered with a "Skatelite" or "Rampskiil" skating surface. Galvanized or stainless grind 'rails and coping available. The actual design of the
skatepark. ramps is dependent oil hands-on public design workshops" which would folloW as part ofthe consultative design process proposed. Skateparks of this type often include halfpipes,
spine ramps, steps and rails, to few typical features. Benefits of this type of skatepark include: • Flexibility in that it is easy to make future to �
� the continuallyevolv41g sport 6fskating. . .,. . • Adjustment ofthe facility, based on ofthe first-year ofopetation and also be readilfilchieved..
• This type ofdesign facilitates restoration of the it is easier to remove, if required in the future. The. proposed facility is recommended to be fenced and supervised.
Hours of operation are envisioned to be consistent with or less than those of and there will ·be no sports lighting. Actual hours ofoperation will be established
with final Management and Operations Plait Trail improvements as well as'improvements to the existing parking lot inOakMeadow Park are proposed. These include additional parking
spaces, a new drop-offarea and landscaping. Please refer to the Final :Report for detrols. . COUNTY CONCERNS ADDRESSED County ofSanta Clara parks staffhave identified concerns for Jo.cating
a skatepark in Vasona Park. •. "> This Feasibility Study has found that these concerns can be reasonably addressed and/or mitigated. A summary ofeach concern and the recommended solutions
are indicated below. More information is contained in the Final Report. . N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Misc\Skatepark.wpd Page 2 of 4
• Concern #1: Conflicts with Existing Use ofParklands andPolicies. The skatepark will provide youth a sanctioned place to skate, promote positive social interaction, and will fit well
into the commUnity. As a recreational facility, it is essentially consistent with the recreational use of parklands. Conflict with existing park usage patterns appears to be limited
to the existing use of the picnic shelter and the adjacent open area. See Concern #6 below. • , Concern #2: Aesthetic Considerations. The skatepark design wiU be considerate of the park
setting and will include extensive new landscaping around its periphery. Views into the area are primarily from the trail at its approach on each'end and from the mostly office! commercial
uses along Twin 'Parks business Even these views, as shown in .the Final Report (see , Appendix.]) are obscured by the considerable existing tree canopies. •
Concern #3: Increased Use ofInfrastructure Facilities Such as Restrooms, Parking and Other Park Facilities. Existing restroom facilities in Oak Meadow Park are both close enough and
adequate to handle the additional use posed by the skatepark. Parking and other access improvements' are propOsed in Oak Meadow Park, which would serve as the primary entrance to the
skatepark, and 'where emergency and service 'vehicle access will also ,be provided. The, parking lot in Oak Meadowwill be improved by to provide additional parking
spaces as as a drop-off loading zone for use by patrons ofthe skatepark as well as existing users ,>, ofOak MeadowPark. The design oftJ:1e skatepark will discourage access from
adjoining private property. • Concern #4:' Maintenance Requirements for Skatepark Facilities and Any Increased, Maintenance to Surrounding Park Facilities. The Town ofLos Gatos is committed
to take full responsibility for the use, operation and supervisionofthe skatepark. This commitment extends to ensuring that adjacent park areas do not become overused or abused by patrons
of the skatepark. Maintenance issues will be monitored, especially during the first year ofoperation, and appropriate mitigation be pre-planned and included into the operating agreement
for the skatepark. -• Concern #5: Operational and Security Issues Relating to Users, Hours of Operation and Staffing. The TownofLos Gatos has made significant financial and policy commitments
to both, build and operate a skatepark in Vasona J>ark. The proposed facility will be fenced; have access gates that wi}! be locked during non-use, and will maintain operating hours
consistent with or less than those bfVasona Park (as determined in the fmal Management and Operations Plan). • Concern #6: Conflicts Associated with Large Special Events in the Park.
The skatepark will occupy an area' of the park currently used for picnics and other special events. There is, however, an adjacent and generally matching picnic area with shelter. A
suggestion would be to permit the construction and operation of the skateparkJor a period of one year conditional upon an assessment on aetual impact on these existing tIses. The trail
will be widened and upgraded in the vicinity ofthe skatepark to County requirements, which should provide proper access to all areas served. N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Misc\Skatepark.wpd
Page 3 of '4
• Concern #7: Legal or Risk Management Issues. The Town of Gatos will indemnitY the • County and i·s committed to a consultative process that will continue toaddress legal and
saferissues as they may arise.. It isalso committed to take responsibility for the use and operatic ofthe skatepark. Risk exposure to the County ofSanta Clara is thus minimized
to the maximum degree. RECOMMENDATIONS The skatepark proposed for location in Vasona Park. is a civic-quality· facility to be created to providey()uth in the Town ofLos Gatos and COtlIlty
ofSanta Clara a positive place for recreational skating and is consistent with the general mission ofparklMds. Substantial commitments by the Town of Los Gatos including both initial
and operational expenses have been secured. This includes a requirement by the Town COUIICil that the community paJticipflte th[ough fund raising efforts to match the Town's funding
commitment. A process with aHaffected parties has identified certain concerns, fotexample, such as access to the facility and potential conflict with other
users ofVasona Park. These concerns have been evaluatedMd reasonably addressed and are mitigateddri the proposal. As such,. it is recommended that the project 9.e approved to
proceed to the nextsteps '(see Final· Report) which include a continuation ofan (jesign process both informaily and formally, as through the necessary consultation
in the CEQA process. N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Misc\Skatepark.wpd Page 4 of 4
MILES AVENUE TOWN PROPERTY LEGEND A PG&E B HOUSING C CORP YARD D CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER E ENG. & BALL FIELD PARKING F BALZER BASEBALL FIELD G PARKING SOUTH OF BALZER FIELD H SOUTH YARD
I CALTRANS AREA (S.F.) 74,300 19,900 100,000 17,900 9,700 48,600 17,300 13,600
c(
PARKING LOT USAGE COUNTS 3/16 TO 3/24 Time of Miles Ave Total Spaces Percentage Day of week day Lot Available Spaces Used Monday 7-8AM 2 34 6% Noon-1PM 4 34 12% 4PM-5PM 4 34 12% Tuesday
7-8AM 2.5 34 7% Noon-1PM 3 34 9% 4PM-5PM 9 34 26% Wednesday 7-8AM 0 34 0% Noon-1 PM 10 34 29% 4PM-5PM 14 34 41% Thursday 7-8AM 2 34 6% Noon-1PM 5 34 15% 4PM-5PM 12 34 35% Friday 7-8AM
3 34 9% Noon-1PM 16 34 47% 4PM-5PM 14 34 41% Saturday 7-8AM 4 34 12% Noon-1PM 8 34 24% 4PM-5PM 5 34 15% Sunday 7-8AM 5 34 15% Noon-1PM 9 34 26% 4PM-5PM 7 34 21% Time of Engineering Total
Spaces Percentage Day of week day Lot Available Spaces Used Monday 7-8AM 11 29 38% Noon-1PM 11 29 38% 4PM-5PM 6 29 21% Tuesday 7-8AM 10 29 34% Noon-1PM 13 29 45% 4PM-5PM 7 29 24% Wednesday
7-8AM 10 29 34% Noon-1PM 15 29 52% 4PM-5PM 12 29 41% Thursday 7-8AM 10 29 34% Noon-1PM 15 29 52% 4PM-5PM 13 29 45% Friday 7-8AM 8 29 28% Noon-1PM 9 29 31% 4PM-5PM 10 29 34% Saturday
7-8AM 3 29 10% Noon-1PM 7 29 24% 4PM-5PM 7 29 24% Sunday 7-8AM 5 29 17% Noon-1PM 6 29 21% 4PM-5PM 5 29 17% ATTACHMENT 4
PARKING USAGE COUNTS FOR MILES AVE. 3/16 TO 3/24 IlmeoT South to White Total Spaces Percentage Spaces Day of week day House Available Used Monday 7-8AM 4 37 11% Noon-1PM 4 37 11% 4PM-5PM
2 37 5% Tuesday 7-8AM 3 37 8% Noon-1PM 3 37 8% 4PM-5PM 2 37 5% Wednesday 7-8AM 2 37 5% Noon-1PM 2 37 5% 4PM-5PM 2 37 5% Thursday 7-8AM 2 37 5% Noon-1PM 3 37 8% 4PM-5PM 2 37 5% Friday
7-8AM 2 37 5% Noon-1PM 2 37 5% 4PM-5PM 2 37 5% Saturday 7-8AM 0 37 0% Noon-1PM 0 37 0% 4PM-5PM 0 37 0% Sunday 7-8AM 0 37 0% Noon-1PM 0 37 0% 4PM-5PM 0 37 0% Time of North of White Total
Spaces Percentage Spaces Day of week day House Available Used Monday 7-8AM 15 19 79% Noon-1PM 15 19 79% 4PM-5PM 15 19 79% Tuesday 7-8AM 14 19 74% Noon-1PM 14 19 74% 4PM-5PM 14 19 74%
Wednesday 7-8AM 14 19 74% Noon-1 PM 14 19 74% 4PM-5PM 14 19 74% Thursday 13 19 68% . Noon-1PM 13 19 68% 4PM-5PM 13 19 68% Friday 7-8AM 3 19 16% Noon-1 PM 3 19 16% 4PM-5PM
2 19 11% Saturday 7-8AM 0 19 0% Noon-1 PM 0 19 0% ·4PM-5PM 0 19 0% Sunday 7-8AM 0 19 0% Noon-1 PM 0 19 0% 4PM-5PM 0 19 0% ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6