Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-16 PRC Agenda PacketRegular Meeting on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 @ 5:30p.m., Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ryan Baker, Susan Olson, Michael Parolini, Ron Regier, Douglas Single, Susan Updegrove and Jeff Whitener Public Comment Period. At this time, you may address the Commission on items that are not on the agenda but are of interest to the public and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission may not discuss or take action on issues that are not on the agenda other than to briefly respond to statements made or questions raised, or to ask staff to follow up on such issues. PRC Meeting Agenda 1.Consideration of Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 3, 2016 2.Pickle Ball Pilot Program Update (Ogden – 60 minutes) 3.Community Focus Input – Youth and Adult Sports (Ogden - 30 minutes) 4.Statement to Council Regarding Parks and Recreation Element (Whitener – 20 minutes) 5.Director’s Report (Stanwyck – 5 minutes) 6.Subcommittee Liaison Reports Committee Liaison Adult and Senior Programming Baker Bicycle Advisory Regier City Facilities (Damon, golf, pool, joint use) Parolini Jack House Committee Updegrove Tree Committee Olson YSA Single 7.Presentation of Appreciation Plaque for Commissioners Regier, Parolini and Baker 8.Communications Adjourn to Regular Meeting of April 6, 2016 APPEALS: Administrative decisions by the Parks and Recreation Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the appeal procedure set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 1 Council Chambers 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Wednesday, February 3, 2016, 5:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener called the meeting to order at 5:30p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Jeff Whitener, Vice-Chair Ron Regier, Commissioners Ryan Baker, Susan Olson , Michael Parolini, Douglas Single, Susan Updegrove ABSENT: None COUNCIL: None STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Rich Ogden, Devin Hyfield, Chris Woods, Matt Nowlen, John Rickenbach (Contract Planner) Public Comment Cheryl McLean, reside on Mission Lane, waiting for 50 years for a neighborhood park. Urged the Commission to support the City’s purchase of the 71 Palomar property as a designated community park. Lydia Mourenza is a SLO resident and neighbor of the Sanford House located at 71 Palomar. She said this parcel is used as a pedestrian by-way. She asked the Commission to support the City Council in considering the purchase of the 71 Palomar property as a designated community park. She added that the historic farm house on the property could be used for events. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre is a teacher and SLO resident. She also supports 71 Palomar as a great location for a new City park and urged the Commission to advocate for a park in this neighborhood. Director Stanwyck responded that many of our community neighborhoods were constructed before park planning was integrated into community designs. Currently, does not have direction to pursue a property acquisition at this location. A typical process to do so could include City Council direction to staff to pursue acquisition and then allocation of funding. Director Stanwyck added that according to the Community Development Department the property at 71 Palomar is currently in review for development by its owner. Nicholas Lester, a SLO recreational advocate, shared with the Commissioners information about Remote Control (RC) car racing. He identified Laguna Lake Park as an ideal location to build an RC Track. Director Stanwyck urged Mr. Lester to meet with City staff to share his proposal. Staff could then return to Commission with an update. 1.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 2016. MOTION: (Regier/Updegrove) Approve the Minutes of January 6, 2016 as amended. Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent Meeting Minutes Parks and Recreation Commission 1-1 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 2 2.COMMUNITY INPUT FOCUS: LAGUNA LAKE GOLF COURSE (Ogden/Hyfield/Woods/Nowlen) Director Stanwyck introduced the Laguna Lake Golf Course team, Devin Hyfield (Recreation Supervisor – Facilities & Maintenance), Rich Ogden (Recreation Supervisor – Sports), Chris Woods (Recreation Coordinator – Golf Operations), and Matt Nowlen (Recreation Coordinator – Golf Maintenance) for an overview of the Laguna Lake Golf Course programs and practices. City staff provided an overview of the Laguna Lake Golf Course which includes a 10-hole golf course, putting practice green, pro-shop with concessionaire and a driving range. The Golf Course is operated and maintained by Parks and Recreation Department. Staff Hyfield discussed the annual operating budget expenses and revenues for the Golf Course in 2014-15 which resulted 57% Cost Recovery. Staff Nowlen summarized the routine maintenance needs and ongoing efforts for water conservation at the course. Staff Woods summarized the operations at the course. He added that the Golf Course’s part-time staff and volunteers are essential to the course operations and are responsible for making the course such a special place to play. He shared updates about minor capital projects and upgrades to the facility, such as the ADA Restroom construction project and design study for the Pro-shop facility. Staff Woods shared with the Commission results of the 2015 Golf Course survey and some of the partnerships (Cal Poly and Laguna Middle School), programs (such as Gobble-Wobble Fun Run on Thanksgiving Day and Night Golf) and Pro-Shop improvements that have been implemented as a result of this feedback. Golf Course has recently implemented social media in effort to increase community outreach with a Facebook page and Instagram account. Commission Comments Vice Chair Regier asked for clarification about the Pro-Shop study. Director Standwyck responded that the City has embarked upon the effort to study aging facilities (examples, Sinshiemer and Golf Course Pro-Shop). Currently there is a capital project approved in 2015-17 Financial Plan to study to determine what improvements could or should be made to the pro-shop facility. Commissioner Single said the Golf Course is not operating at 100% capacity (he calculated 63%) and what is being done to make the golf course sustainable. Director Stanwyck provided some history on the golf course as an Enterprise Fund and that Council-adopted Fiscal Policies direct a capped cost recovery when serving youth and seniors to 0-30% cost recovery. Course fees will be reviewed as part of the City’s Fees Study this year. As always, the course strives for a balance of operations, maintenance, and new opportunities that might capture new golfers; but remaining a place for seniors and youth to golf. Commissioner Parolini asked if there were any ideas for foot golf at Laguna Lake Golf Course. Staff Woods responded that staff was currently researching options for this type of programming at the Course. Commission Olson asked if there was any flooding due to the storms. Staff Woods responded that there was flooding around the Pro-Shop but that the new restroom design should address this issue. Staff Nowlen said that currently the course is able to handle the rain. Public Comment Marshal Ohylski, CEO of the Special Heroes program for disadvantaged youth, said their organization’s annual fund raiser was recently held at the Laguna Lake Golf Course. He thanked the golf course staff for their support and a great event. 3.CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF PARK PROPOSALS FOR THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (Rickenbach) John Rickenbach, contract staff planner, presented on the development of a Specific Plan for the proposed San Luis Ranch project. This project is seeking conceptual input by the Commission as posed by the applicant, 1-2 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 3 Coastal Community Builders. Coastal Community Builders has proposed the San Luis Ranch project which includes several entitlements that will ultimately lead to the development of the infill site. The project could include a mixture of residential and non-residential uses, as well as the preservation of agricultural uses and open space. The project is currently outside the City, but within its “Sphere of Influence” and would require annexation for development. The project as proposed is envisioned to implements the policies as articulated in the recent Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update and be consistent with the development parameters set forth in the LUCE. Applicant has proposed the following questions for Commission discussion and direction: 1)Are there any significant concerns regarding the general site layout, park design and recreation facilities use? a.Commission Feedback: Accepting of conceptual design as presented. 2)Provide feedback regarding how San Luis Ranch Specific Plan meets the city-wide priorities for parks and recreation. a.Commission Feedback: Explore if preferred option is collection of in-lieu fees to augment other park amenities. 3)What types of active recreation would the Commission like to see incorporated on-site? a.Commission Feedback: Explore incorporation of passive recreation (i.e. trails) on-site. 4) Would the Commission like to see community gardens or orchards incorporated to serve city-wide residents? a.Commission Feedback: Supportive of community gardens and dog park at Laguna Lake park. 5)The applicants would like to receive Parks and Recreation Facilities Credit for the integrated community-wide and regional recreational facilities. a.The Specific Plan as proposed is intended to meet the LUCE requirement for 50% of the project site to remain in Open Space/Agriculture, utilizing on and off-site open space. LUCE requires 5.8 acres of parks, integration of recreational facilities within the open space areas. Does the Commission consider these areas as “parks”? Are these public amenities eligible for a credit? Application build money could go farther, but in-lieu fees could be used at Laguna Lake Park. Some amenities could count for something and be given some credit along the way. b.Commission Feedback: Explore if preferred option is collection of in-lieu fees to augment other park amenities. 6) Would the Commission like to see improvements added to Laguna Lake Park as an offset to the on- site parks and recreation requirements? a.Commission Feedback: Explore options of dog park improvements at Laguna Lake park. Explore options of adding more pocket parks. 7) Would the Commission like to see the payment of in-lieu Parks and Recreational fees for use in other areas of the community as an offset to the on-site Parks and Recreation requirements? a.Commission Feedback: Explore if preferred option is collection of in-lieu fees to augment other park amenities. Marshal Ohylski the project representative, provided the Commission with greater details of the proposed project. He reviewed the proposed project’s site constraints as it is completely surrounded on all sides by development and Highway 101 with a drainage channel and adjacent to Prefumo Creek. The applicant stresses core guiding principles in their development designs which include agriculture, outdoor recreation, diverse housing and multimodality. The proposed project would include 500 residential units, commercial space, a 4- story hotel, an agriculture learning center, active recreational opportunities, parking and an extension from the Bob Jones Trail to the Laguna Lake Park. Public Comment Steve Davis, a SLO resident, asked about the calculation for the requirement of acres/per resident. Staff Rickenbach responded that the acre calculation follows the annexation policy for this parcel. 1-3 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 4 Greg Apian, a SLO resident, asked if the agricultural area as presented is a requirement for the project. Staff Rickenbach responded affirmative and added that half the area designated must remain park or open space. Mr. Apian asked if it was possible to have the learning center be located across the street at Laguna Lake Park. Commission Comments Commissioner Updegrove asked for clarification regarding the location of Prefumo Creek to the proposed sight. Commissioner Parolini said that space would be needed for storage of agricultural equipment. He added that Open Space is for passive recreation that is not maintained (i.e., trails). Commissioner Parolini felt that the proposed development is a “park” and not Open Space as it is defined by the City. He added that there could be opportunity for a flat, maintained, open space area for walking groups with less mobility. He asked about the timeline for the development. Mr. Helski said it is dependent upon the approval process and annexation, but the goal is to build the family residences as the first phase. Commissioner Parolini asked if in-lieu fees could be dedicated for use on a specific project. Director Stanwyck said the Commission could ask for City Council approval of specific use for in-lieu funds. Commissioner Single asked if the pocket parks are included in the acreage calculation of 3.88 acres, Staff Rickenbach responded no, pocket parks are currently not a part of the proposal. Commissioner Single said the proposed trails look very narrow; not providing for multi-modal traffic (dogs, pedestrians and bicycles). He would like to see an area provided for dogs. Staff Rickenbach shared that the Bicycle Advisory Committee was supportive of fast and narrow trails for bicycles. Commissioner Single urged the applicant to consider incorporating dedicated Pickleball courts at this project site. Vice-Chair Regier asked about the connectivity from the Bob Jones Trail to the Laguna Lake Park and would there be community access to the neighborhood park for some regional park amenities to address unmet community needs. He encouraged multi-modality over additional parking and supported the idea of a fitness loop for walking groups who look for well-maintained walking paths. Commissioner Olson said fitness loop would be used primarily by the neighborhood families and not by long- range bicyclist. She is in support of dog parks, but there is one located across the street at Laguna Lake Park. Commissioner Olson was not in support of a parking within this development. Commissioner Updegrove was concerned about the street between residential and the agricultural areas and asked that the developers are doing to protect the residential area from these challenges (i.e., spraying, dust and wind) and other potential problems. She supports proposed ideas of community garden or community orchard. She would be in support in-lieu fees to do some infrastructure improvements in Laguna Lake Park. Commissioner Baker supported in-lieu fees for this project redirected back to Laguna Lake Park amenity improvements. He does not envision the park amenities being used regionally because of how the parks are isolated. He is in support of a community garden or orchard as a part of this development. Chair Whitener asked for clarification on the acreage calculation. Staff Rickenbach responded that 50% of the acreage must be dedication to agriculture or open space to meet that requirement. Staff Rickenbach added that parks are not a part of this acreage calculation. Chair Whitener said he was in support of community gardens but not at the expense of a new park. He added that consideration of open space amenities as part of the park requirement would be dependent on its use. 4.SELECTION OF PUBLIC ART MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY WORKSHOP DATE (Mudgett) Melissa Mudgett, Recreation Manager, recapped the Commission’s feedback following the January 6 presentation of the draft Public Art Master Plan. The Commission was asked to select a date for a public 1-4 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 5 workshop to receive input regarding the proposed plan recommendations. The Commission tentatively selected Tuesday, March 8th at 5:30pm as the workshop date. 5.DIRECTOR’S REPORT Director Stanwyck presented a quick overview of Parks and Recreation Department upcoming items which included next month’s Agenda on Pickleball pilot program update, summary of results and enthusiastic advocates. Staff is currently recruiting staff and planning for spring break camps, minimum days and summer. The SLO Swim Center pool ribbon cutting ceremony is on Monday, February 8th at 11:00am. The Sinsheimer playground project is in its final stages with a bid for purchase of playground equipment. Playground construction is anticipated to start in September 2016. The Public art Box Art program has opened call for artists. 6.SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS •Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Baker reported on Adults Sports Softball started registration started February 1st and February 29th starts play. Youth Sports basketball is ongoing. April 23rd registration opens for the SLO Tri which is held on July 23rd. There was no report for the Senior Center. •Bicycle Advisory: Vice Chair Regier said BAC did not provide meeting minutes and he was not i n attendance. No report. •City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Parolini said Field B closed for maintenance and Public Works staff is rotating fields for renovation. The Spring term for AYSO is starting this weekend. •Jack House Committee: Commissioner Updegrove reported that the Jack House is currently closed. The docents helped prepare for the Jack House elevator removal project by safely removing interior collections prior to construction. Elevator restoration project scheduled to start Monday, February 8th. Jack House will host an “Art after Dark” this Friday, February 5th. •Tree Committee: Commissioner Olson said there was a regular tree committee meeting with four removal applications and one new committee member. •Youth Sports: Commissioner Single said YSA did not meet and is rescheduled for February 17th. There was no report. 7.COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Parolini would like urge the Commissioners to agendize discussion a community wide master plan and parks element update. He urged his fellow Commissioners to provide a statement to Council for the need for a Parks Master Plan, funding for which would be in alignment of budget supplement process. The Commission provided consensus to agendize this topic for March. Adjourned at 8:17pm to the March 2, 2016 Regular Meeting in Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 2, 2016. ________________________________________________ Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Department Manager 1-5 City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report March 2, 2016 FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Manager Rich Ogden, Recreation Supervisor - Sports SUBJECT: PILOT PROGRAM ANNUAL UPDATE - PICKLEBALL RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation regarding the Pickleball Pilot Program and provide input to questions for future options. DISCUSSION What is Pickleball? Pickleball is the fastest growing sport in the United States and is increasing in popularity Boomers (50+) and Senior age groups. A combination of racquet sports; Pickleball is a paddle sport played with a whiffle ball on a badminton-sized court and a tennis-style net. This paddle sport provides opportunities for all ages and athletic ability levels. Purpose of a Pilot Program Beginning in the summer of 2014, Pickleball enthusiasts informed the Parks and Recreation Commission about the growing popularity of the sport and their desire to have recreational opportunities within the City limits to play Pickleball. In March 2015, the Parks and Recreation Department recommended to the Commission the initiation of a Pilot Program for the emerging sport of Pickleball. The primary goals of a recreational pilot program is to address the following; 1.Meet a community needs 2.Enhance recreational play by implementing a temporary opportunity 3.Encourage healthy and active lifestyles 4.Implement (temporary opportunities) within existing resources and program budgets Pickleball Pilot Program Having met these goals and conditions as stated above; the Pickleball Pilot Program began in March 2015 (Attachment 1 – PRC Memo). The intent was to provide Pickleball programming for a 12-month period to adequately assess the community need and impacts to existing resources. Existing City court surfaces were identified as having capacity and the potential for this multi-use. The Ludwick Community Center and Meadow Park were two locations identified as being suitable for multi-use with minimal impact to existing users. The Parks and Recreation Department purchased the equipment needed to support the start-up program at these two locations (paddles, balls, nets, tape, storage carts) and play was offered four times per week. 2-1 UPDATE – 2016 PILOT PROGRAM PICKLEBALL Page 2 In September 2015, a 6-month program update was provided to the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the status of the Pickleball Pilot Program (Attachment 2 – PRC Update Memo). At that time, neighbors of the Stoneridge Neighborhood Park advocated for a temporary Pickleball designation at this location. Stoneridge Neighborhood Park was identified as a suitable location and was added to the Pickleball Pilot Program on a “drop-in” basis. City staff provided temporary tape court lining at this location. No other City equipment was purchased for this location. Currently the Pickleball Pilot Program is offered at three public locations and serves approximately 150 players weekly. A summary of the program offerings at each location is identified below; t The Pickleball Pilot Program has allowed for the maximization of existing facilities and resources to full potential. Over the past year, staff estimates that approximately 7,800 players have been accommodated as a result of the pilot program. This past year has seen the development of a local Pickleball club (SLO Pickleball Association) who has been actively seeking partnership opportunities with the City to grow and expand Pickleball. Minimizing Impact on Existing Facilities and Users Staff has received feedback on the pilot program from several other user groups. Those include: roller derby, basketball players and tennis court users. This feedback has been purely unsolicited and has come in person, via email, and letter. The letter attached (Attachment 3), gives a •1 Indoor Court (Gym) •Wednesdays, 12-2pm •Temp Taped Court •City Provided Equipment •Beginner level •Free •20 Participants Weekly Ludwick Community Center (864 Santa Rosa Street) •3 Outdoor courts (on Basketball courts) •Mon – Wed – Fri (11:00am – 1:00pm) •Temp Taped Courts •City Provided Equipment •Free •120 Participants Weekly Meadow Park (2333 Meadow Street) •1 Outdoor court (on Basketball Court) •Drop-In Play •Temp Tape Lines •Free •Community Donation for permanent line painting Stoneridge Neighborhood Park (426 Stoneridge Drive) 2-2 UPDATE – 2016 PILOT PROGRAM PICKLEBALL Page 3 summary of several tennis player’s feedback. As PRC members are aware the City is under served with tennis courts and so any reduction in their availability has ripple effects. Future of Pickleball As the popularity of Pickleball continues to grow, so does the demand on existing resources. The Pickleball Pilot Program as developed has been successful in fulfilling a community need for the Boomer and Senior populations within existing program budgets. Staff is recommending continuing with the pilot program offerings and receiving input from the PRC about possible next steps for expansion. FISCAL IMPACT Currently the Pickleball Pilot Program is offered free of charge for all participants and therefore there are no revenues to help offset program costs. Original pilot program start-up costs have been calculated at $3,000 which was support by one-time program savings. This cost does not include staff time required to monitor the programming. The pilot program costs have been identified as a one-time start-up expenditures which are not expected to continue from year to year. Continuing the Pickleball Program at this pilot level would have a minimal ongoing fiscal impact (such as periodic replacement of whiffle balls) to the Recreational Sports Operating Budget. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONER INPUT Below are proposed questions for PRC discussion and possible direction to staff: 1.Continued Pilot Program? Does the Commission support continuing the Pickleball Pilot Program at its current level? 2.Expansion of Pilot Program? Would the Commission like to see the Pickleball Pilot Program expand locations? If so do you have ideas for where? 3.French Park Tennis Court? If expansion of the Pilot Program is supported by the Commission, it should be noted that French Park tennis court has been identified by staff as a possible location multi-use location for temporary (tape) lines to be added to maximize the use of this court. This location could be ideal for Pickleball players as it provides a fenced area for wayward balls; allowing for more concentrated time of play. Because this would reduce tennis court availability, what type of public engagement and feedback from existing users would the Commission need? 4.Five-Year CIP? Recreational project requests have been submitted as part of the City’s adopted five-year Capital Improvement Program for Sinsheimer Park Tennis Court Lighting and New Park Amenity Initiatives. Does the Commission support staff in continuing with the implementation of these capital projects as submitted into the CIP program? 2-3 UPDATE – 2016 PILOT PROGRAM PICKLEBALL Page 4 a.New Park Amenity Initiatives has identified $60,000 in support of future park amenity improvements. $10,000 has been allocated in 2018-19 for design services and $50,000 (also in 2018-19) for construction of the projects. This project funding could include various types of new park initiatives to address the change in recreational needs, such as Pickleball, Foot Golf or Bicycle Pump tracks. (Attachment 4) b.Sinsheimer Park Tennis Court Lighting has identified $200,000 in support of this improvement. $25,000 has been allocated in 2018-19 for design services and $175,000 in 2019-20 fiscal year for construction. (Attachment 4) 5.Exploring Other Locations? Are there other locations for Pickleball, or expansion of new park amenity initiatives, that the Commission would like staff to explore? 6.Helpful Feedback? What type of public input would the Commission find most helpful in determining new recreational amenities or expansion of programming? ATTACHMENTS 1. February 23, 2015 PRC Memo_ Pickleball Pilot Program 2. September 2, 2015 PRC Memo _ Pickleball 6-month Update 3. Community Correspondence dated February 10, 2016 4. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; New Park Amenity Initiatives and Sinsheimer Park Tennis Court Lighting Budget Requests G:\ADMIN\Parks & Rec Commission\2016\Staff Reports\Pickleball Update\PRC Staff Report_2016 Pickleball Update.docx 2-4 February 23, 2015 MEMORANDUM From: Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks and Recreation Prepared By: Rich Ogden, Recreation Supervisor, Sports Melissa Mudgett, Recreation Manager Subject: Recreational Sports Pilot Program for Pickle Ball Pilot Programs The City’s Recreational Sports program works to enhance the community’s recreational play by implementing temporary opportunities where possible. Pilot programs are designed to address an unmet community need and encourage healthy and active lifestyles. Pilot programs will be implemented within existing program resources. What is Pickleball? Pickleball is the fastest growing sport among boomers (50+) and seniors. Pickleball is a sport in which two- four players use solid paddles made of wood or composite materials to hit a whiffle-type ball over a net. The sport shares features of other racquet sports, the dimensions and layout of a badminton court, and a net and rules similar to that of tennis, with a few modifications. Pickleball Pilot Program Overview To address an unmet community need for Pickleball play, staff is recommending the following pilot program for Pickleball. Duration: 6-12 months Location(s): Ludwick Community Center – LCC (864 Santa Rosa St), Meadow Park (2333 Meadow Street) and French Park (1040 Fuller Road) Court(s): o 1 (one) indoor court at the LCC gymnasium o 3 (three) outdoor courts on the Meadow Park basketball court o 1 (one) outdoor court at the French Park tennis court Courts at LCC and Meadow Park are temporarily lined-out on existing basketball courts. Players would be responsible for temporarily lining-out a court at French Park. Permanent Pickleball court lines will be addressed at the conclusion of the pilot program. Times of Play: o LCC – Wednesdays 12:00pm – 2:00pm o Meadow Park – Mondays, Wednesday, Fridays 1:00-3:00pm o French Park – drop-in play, first come-first served Equipment: o LCC – staffing, net, paddles and balls provided by & set up by City staff o Meadow Park – net, paddles and balls provided by the City. Participants shall obtain a key from staff to access equipment. Participants are responsible for set-up and take-down of equipment. o French Park – Participants are responsible to provide all equipment needed for drop-in play. Parks and Recreation staff will track participation in the Pickleball pilot program and resources utilized to offer this pilot program. Staff will return to the Commission following the conclusion of the pilot program with an update and recommendation. 2-5 Attachment 1 September 2, 2015 MEMORANDUM From: Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks and Recreation Prepared By: Rich Ogden, Recreation Supervisor, Sports Melissa Mudgett, Recreation Manager Subject: Update of Pickle Ball Pilot Program •Demonstration of Unmet Community Need •Began Pilot Program in March 2015 •12-month Pilot Program w/ 6-month Update for PRC Pilot Program •Three existing locations identified for Pickleball shared-use •Ludwick Community Center •1 Indoor Court, Wednesday's, 12-2pm •Meadow Park •3 Outdoor Courts, M-W-F , 9am-11am •French Park •1 Outdoor Court, first come-first served Program Overview •LCC & Meadow Park •Regular/on-going use •Average 40+ players weekly •French Park Discontinued •discontinued due to lack of play •Added Stoneridge Neighborhood Park •Temporarily lined court on existing basketball court •Community donation for permanent line-painting Updates 2-6 Attachment 2 VICINITY MAP: STONERIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (535 Bluerock Dr) BASKETBALL COURT @ STONERIDGE PARK 2-7 2-8 3 2-9 Attachment 4 2-10 2-11 2-12 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17