Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070891 PRC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD A T VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JULY8, 1991 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute Chairperson Kirby ROLL CALL: Brode, Harker, Hillin, Kirby, Nimeshein PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a green "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Parks and Recreation Secretary before the item is addressed by the Commission. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PR/AGENDA/070891 1 07/02/91 COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes - June 10, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: 1. 1 Approve minutes of June 10, 1991 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting as submitted. TCSD Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) DISCUSSION: 2. 1 Discuss status of the TCSD Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 1991 - 92. Initial Citywide Bike Route at Sports Park RECOMMENDATION: 3. 1 Approve an initial citywide bike route for the City of Temecula. Park Land Dedication Fees (Quimbv Fees) DISCUSSION: 4. 1 Presentation by Gary King, Park Development Coordinator, concerning process associated with development fees for residential subdivisions. Sports Park Ball Field Lights RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize the installation of one (1) additional light pole on the upper Rancho Vista field at Sports Park. 5.2 Deny the request to paint the tops of aluminum light poles at Sports Park. PR/AGENDA/070891 2 07/02/91 TCSD Division Renorts DISCUSSION: 6. 1 Division Reports concerning development services, landscape services and recreation services will be presented by Gary King, Tad Garrety, and Herman Parker. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting, August 12, 1991,7:00 p.m., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California, 92390. PR/AGENDA/O70891 3 07/O2/91 ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TESIECULA JUNE 10, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order by Vice Chairperson Harker at Rancho Elementary School, 31530 La Serena Way, Temecula, California, 92390, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Brode, Harker, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Kirby Also present were Community Services Director Shawn Nelson, Recreation Superintendent Herman Parker, and Administrative Secretary Kathleen Cassiere. The pledge of allegiance was led by Vice Chairperson Harker. PUBLIC COMMENT Jeannie Miley, 42106 Via Beso del Sol, Temecula, California, spoke in favor of a proposed teen program with the Boys and Girls Club, and asked for $15,000.00 from the TCSD to help fund the program.. Staff suggested that the program be organized by the TCSD, coordinating with the Boys and Girls Club to initiate the program this summer. Jerry Horan, 30583 Greenway Circle, Temecula, California, requested that the current policy of the TCSD not to reserve the Sports Park ball diamonds on Sunday afternoon be reconsidered. He stated that a Temecula Valley Christian Athletic Association league has been formed, and that the league would like to reserve some of the fields for four hours on Sunday afternoons, from mid-July through mid-September. The Commission, directed staff to grant use of the fields without lights for groups if the fields are available. The Commission confirmed that the league will provide proof of insurance with the City of Temecula named as additionally named insured. PRMIN06/10/91 - 1 - 07/02/91 COMI~IISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 13. 1991 CO~iMISS1ONER BRODE moved to approve the minutes of May 13, 1991, as submitted, seconded by COMMISSIONER NIMESHE1N. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Brode, Harker, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER: Kirby NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None TCSD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) SHAWN NELSON provided a staff report. He stated the Board of Directors approved a Capital Improvement Budget of 6.95 million dollars, He stated that the intent of this meeting was to hear public testimony on the Capital Improvement Plan, and for the Commission to develop a priority list within that Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Nelson submitted a recommendation by COMMISSIONER HILLIN for discussion purposes, concerning the Capital Improvement Plan. Thomas H. Langley, 35020 Calle Campo, Temecula, California, spoke in favor of the Community Recreation Center (CRC), and requested it be the first priority of the City. He stated the need to evaluate through widespread participation of the community and technical expertise. He suggested not rushing into development just for the purpose of building the CRC. James A. Meyler, 29930 Santiago Road, Temecula, California, representing the Temecula Arts Council, spoke in favor of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) as the number one priority, and the Amphitheater as very important project to facilitate performing arts. Keith Wertz, 26895 Fayence Drive, Murrieta, CA 92362, spoke in favor of the Amphitheater. Mr. Wertz is a member of the Temecula Arts Council. Jim Miley, 42106 Via Beso del Sol spoke in opposition of any decisions until an Ad Hoc Committee can put together a proposal to develop the proposed pool/water slide facilities. Jeannie Miley, 42106 Via Beso del Sol provided personal research information on funding of the proposed pool project, and the depth and size of the proposed pool project. Catharine L. Jones, 30910 White Rocks Circle, Temecula, CA, expressed a desire for a community pool for city residents. PRMIN06/10/91 -2- 07/02/91 Michael Medaris, 30601 Moontide Court, Temecula, CA, representing Starlight Ridge South Home Owners Association, expressed his concern that the Sports Park 'layout" be made clearer to the homeowners surrounding the proposed Amphitheater. The Amphitheater is being linked to the Community Recreation Center; and therefore, increased traffic and congestion may transpire on Rancho Vista Way. Mr. Medaris spoke in favor of acquiring new park lands. Anne Greenstone, 31051 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA, expressed a concerns of homeowners around Sports Park, and the proposed development of Sports Park. She spoke in favor of a pool/swim program with an "Olympic Caliber" style of program, and a diving program. Linda VanKirk, 41756 Humber Drive, Temecula, CA provided petitions signed by 84 people stating that these citizens want more money utilized for acquisition of neighborhood/community parks. The Commission directed Staff to wait for input from an Ad Hoc Committee regarding decisions on the amount of monies to be spent on each of the items of the Capital Improvement Plan prioritized at this meeting. The Commission reviewed and discussed the items of priority of the Capital Improvement Plan. COMMISSIONER NIMESHEIN made a motion to approve the plan and to recommend to the Board of Directors that the budget submitted by Commissioner Hillin be adopted, and that the priorities of the Capital Improvement Plan be listed as follows: 1) Acquire new park land; 2) Development of existing parks; 3) Community Recreation Center; 4) Sports Park Parking; and 5) Community Pool, seconded by COMMISSIONER HILLIN. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Brode, Harker, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER: Kirby NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRPERSON HARKER requested consideration of Item #4 before Item #3, due to Commissioner Brode excusing herself from the meeting after this item, and that Commissioner Harker was speaking on Item #4 on behalf of the Temecula Town Association. PRMIN06/10/91 -3- 07/02/91 JULY 4TH CELEBRATION AT SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK COMMISSIONER NIMESHEIN made a recommendation for COMMISSIONER HILLIN to act as Acting Chairperson during Item #4, seconded by COMMISSIONER BRODE. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Brode, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER: Kirby ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONER: Harker NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Evelyn Harker, 31130-85 South General Kearny Road, Temecula, CA, speaking on behalf of the Temecula Town Association, asked the Parks and Recreation Commission for permission to use Sam Hicks Monument Park for the 4th of July Celebration and Country Fair, following the Parade from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER BRODE moved that the Commission approve staff recommendation to approve the July 4th Celebration at Sam Hicks Monument Park, seconded by COMMISSIONER NIMESHEIN. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Brode, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER: Kirby ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONER: Harker NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER BRODE excused herself from the meeting at 8:45 p.m. PRMIN06/10/91 -4- 07/02/91 TEMECULA ARTS COUNCIL - CONCERT ON THE GREEN AND THE TEMECULA ARTS COUNCIL AT SPORTS PARK Mary Jo Helmeke, 30540 Avenue Buena SueHe, representing the Temecula Am Council requested approval of the use of the Sports Park July 27, & 28, 1991, for a fiddling contest, the Children's Art-In-The-Park, and for the Concert on The Green June 30th, 1991 at Sports Park. COMMISSIONER NIMESHEIN made a motion to approve the Concert on the Green and the Temecula Arts Council Special Event at Sports Park, seconded by COMMISSIONER HILLIN. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Harker, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER: Kirby, Brode NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CALVARY CHAPEL OUTREACH EVENT AT SPORTS PARK Jerry Horan, 30583 Greenway Circle, Temecula, CA requested use of the Rancho Vista Field on July 20, 1991, for a Calvary Chapel Outreach Event. COMMISSIONER HILLIN, and COMMISSIONER NIMISHEIN expressed concern about religious events being held at Sports Park. No action was taken due to a lack of a motion. CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS REPORT SHAWN NELSON provided a staff report. Mr. Nelson elaborated on the current capital projects at Sports Park, Sam Hicks Monument Park, and on the development of a bike path route within the City boundaries. SPORTS PARK COMPLAINTS SHAWN NELSON provided a staff report. Mr. Nelson elaborated on complaints made by property owners, in the form of petitions, surrounding Sports Park (primarily in Starlight Ridge tract). Michael Medaris, 30601 Moontide Court, Temecula, CA spoke on behalf of the Starlight Ridge Homeowners Association. He stated that he did not necessarily agree with the basis of the petitions, so he did not sign himself. Mr. Medaris expressed his opinion that a 'kill switch" should be installed which would assist in energy conservation when events are finished. PRMIN06/10/91 -5- 07/02/91 COMMISSIONER NIMESHEIN made a motion to direct staff to obtain price quotes to paint the tops of the light poles at Sports Park to reduce glare; to prepare a letter to the Sports Council stating the Commission's position on using removable advertizing signs at the beginning of the Little League Program beginning next year; and, prepare a response to the letters sent by the fifteen homeowners of Starlight Ridge, seconded by COMI~IISSIONER HILLIN. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Harker, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER: Kirby, Brode NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT o New employees joining the TCSD: Maintenance Workers, Steven Brunk and Miguel Castro. o Recruiting process for Volunteer Coordinator and Recreation Leader in charge o of Recreation Instructor Classes, Recreation Brochures, and coordination of Special Events within the Community. o First Recreation Brochure update. o Developing a feasibility study to establish a Summer Teen Program. o Residential sub-division projects process will be presented to Parks & Recreation Commission for information purposes. o California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and Board Members (CAPRCBM) memberships is completed. o Installation of new sign at Sam Hicks Monument Park will be completed by the July 4th Parade. o TCSD Assessment Notice of Public Hearing. o Council Agenda Items: First reading of Ordinance to create TCSD zones, and to approve the Rates and Charges for FY 1991-92 assessments at June 251h meeting. Amendment of Agreement for landscaping services. An RFP will be prepared for the upcoming fiscal year. PRMIN06/10/91 -6- 07/02/91 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to July 2, 1991 Board of Directors meeting. Acquisition of donated property (approx. 3 acres) in Rainbow Canyon Area (Silverwood) on July 2, 1991 agenda. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORTS COMMISSIONER HARKER stated that the sale of alcohol at community events should be discussed and considered by the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District. She asked that the Commission consider what the City wants to portray. She also stated that if a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission will not be attending a meeting Staff should be notified. She also stated that the TVUSD should be notified that meetings may run late at times, and being signaled by a custodian to cut-off the meeting is not acceptable. COMMISSIONER NIMESHEIN made a motion to restrict sale of alcoholic beverage in all park facilities within the City of Temecula, seconded by COMMISSIONER HILLIN. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Harker, Hillin, Nimeshein ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER: Kirby, Brode NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER HILLIN moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:07 p.m., seconded by COMMISSIONER NIMESHEIN, and carried unanimously. Next scheduled meeting of the Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission will be held on Monday, July 8, 1991, 7:00 p.m., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Chairman, Michael Kirby Commission Secretary, Shawn D. Nelson PRMIN06/10/91 -7- 07/02/91 ITEM NO. 2 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: SHAWN D. NELSON DATE: JULY 8,1991 SUBJEC~ TCSD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) DISCUSSION: On July 2, 1991, the Board of Directors will consider the recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission concerning the CIP for FY 1991-92. The preparation of this report was before the July 2 meeting. Staff will present a detailed presentation at the Commission meeting concerning the outcome of the July 2 meeting. I have enclosed a copy of the report prepared for the Board of Directors for your review. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECUI A AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON JULY 2, 1991 TCSD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR FY 1991-92 PREPARED SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 1991-92 for the TCSD. FISCAL IMPACT: A total of $6,950,000.00 has been approved by the Board of Directors for the CIP. DISCUSSION: At the June 10, 1991 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission listened to public testimony concerning the CIP for FY 1991-92. After considerable discussion, it was decided that not only should the Commission recommend a CIP to the Board of Directors, but also prioritize the projects based on their relative importance to the community. The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved and recommended to the Board of Directors the following CIP and priority list: 1. Acquisition of park land 2. Develop existing parks 3. Community Recreation Center/ Amphitheater 4. Parking - Sports Park 5. Community Pool $1,300,000.00 1,000,000.00 3,500,000.00 400,000.00 750,000.00 Total $6,950,000.00 The Commission requested that staff analyze the most effective method in developing existing parks and constructing a swimming facility with the monies allocated, and report back to the Commission. If the CIP is approved, staff would like to proceed with the hiring of an architect to design the Community Recreation Center and Sports Park Parking; hire a landscape architect to design existing park sites; and coordinate with the Finance Department to develop bond financing for the CIP. Acquisition of land will be coordinated through the City Manager's office. Enclosed is a location map of existing TCSD properties and undeveloped site plans for each TCSD parcel: Kingsway (Rawhide) - 22.6 acres, and Riverton - 5 acres. AUTO ZiP CODE 92390 RANCHOS ' TEMECULA ZIP CODEt 92390 EC' 'L, ATTACHMENT A TEMECULA CO,MMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FINANCING Capital Improvement Plan Projects Estimated Financing Cost Total to be Funded Less Mello Roos Proceeds Amount to be Financed Estimated Annual Debt Service $6,950,000.00 846,549.00 7,796,549.00 (2,000,000.00) 5,796,549.00 505,277.00 C~ rt ITEM NO. 3 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: SHAWN D. NELSON DATE: JULY 8, 1991 SUBJEC T: INITIAL CITY-WIDE BIKE ROUTE RECOMMENDATION: That the Parks and Recreation Commission: Approve an initial city-wide bike route for the City of Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT.' Estimated cost for the bike route project is $30,000.00. It is recommended that this project be funded equally by the City's Public Works Department and the TCSD. The TCSD's share of the project's cost would be ~ 15,000.00. DISCUSSION: The TCSD will be pursing the development of a twenty (20) year Parks and Recreation Master Plan that should be completed within the next six (6) months. This master plan will consider required parks and recreation facilities to address future needs. This planning document will also develop a city-wide trails system including bike paths, jogging trails, and equestrian trails. At the request of members of the Board of Directors, staff has been directed to develop an interim bike route until a city-wide bike path is finalized. Due to the condition and width of some of the roads on the proposed bike route, it is not feasible to paint bike path lines throughout the entire route. Hence, staff is recommended that signs be posted depicting the bike route in roads not wide enough for painted path lines, and paint bike lanes on roads with sufficient width. Staff is also recommending that the TCSD apply for SB 821 funds to assist in developing the bike route. It is estimated that ~496,000.00 will be available for Riverside County for FY 1991-92. Application deadline is July 30, 1991. A higher priority will be given to projects that receive matching funds. The total estimated costs for the bike route which includes painting of bike lanes on specific roads; installing approximately 30 signs along the bike route; and road improvements to Margarita Road is ~30,000.00. It is recommended that the bike route improvement costs be split equally between the City's Public Works Department and the TCSD. The proposed bike route has been reviewed by the Traffic Commission and their comments have been incorporated into the proposed bike route. Enclosed are copies of the proposed bike route, the SB 821 Grant Application for FY 1991-92, and the Public Highways Code concerning bike paths and routes. 15 VE~RANS PARK SPORTS PARK ~rnAr~o ~. ,\ June 2>0, 1991 TO: FROM: ELIGIBLE AGENCIES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Jack Reagan, Executive Director ::'L SUBJECT: FY 1991-92 SB 821 Program - Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Section 99233.3 of the State Public Utilities Code (SB 821) sets aside 2 of the Local Transpol'tation Fund in each County to fund facilities for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists. Eligible expenditures are limited to preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction and reconstruction. Proposals for SB 821 funds may be filed by cities and the County of Riverside. For FY 199t-92, beginning July 1, 1991, it is estimated that $496,000 will be available. The Commission has adopted evaluardon criteria with which to rate project proposals and establish a priority list for the purpose of allocating available funds. The adopted evaluation criteria is attached. An ad hoc committee consisting of three members Qf beth the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees will be responsible for evaluating the project proposals in accordance with the adopted criteria (attached). Local agencies wishing to apply for SB 821 funds must submit their application(s) to the Commission no tater than July 30, 1991. The following items must be submitted with the application(S): O A project description indicating the nature and type of project proposed, design considerations, transportation purposes to be served, and pertinent information indicating the extent'of use by pedestrians and bicycles. o A project information form (attached). o An 8 1/2" x 11" map showing the project location and limits. If your agency submits a project proposal for funding, you will be notified of the time and place the project will be reviewed by the SB 821 Committee. You will be required to provide a bdef presentation of the proposed project to the committee and respond to any questions they may have. ff you have any questions concerning this matter please call Hideo Sugita, of Commission staff at (714) 787-7141. JR:HS Attachments 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 o Rivehide, California 92501 (714) 787-7141 * FAX (714) 787-7920 SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR USE The extent of potential use of a bicycle of pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative. usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project, SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current Safety problems. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile MISSING LINK OR EXTENSION Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions of existing facilities. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding partidpation in the project - not just a application for "free" money, One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. (Maximum points is 10) POPULATION EQUITY The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds, The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credO'. MAXIMUM POINTS 15 10 10 10 FY 1991-92 PROJECT INFORMATION (SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Only) 1. PROJECT NAME: PROJECT BUDGET: REVENUE: TDA ARTICLE 3(SB821) TDA ARTICLE 8 OTHER $ ESTIMATED STARTING DATE (MONTH/YEAR): ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE (MONTH/YEAR): Distribution: Mayors, City Managers, Public Works Director Chairman, Riverside County Board of Supervisors Director, Riverside County Transportation Department Lake EIsinore Recreation & Park District Coachella Valley Association of Governments Western Riverside Council of Governments HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-1 July 1, 1990 CHAPTER 1000 BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN (d) 21210--BIcycle parking. (e) 21960--Use of freeway shoulders by bicy- clists. Topic 1001 - General Information Index I001. I - Definitions "Bikeway" means all facfiities that provide primarily for bicycle travel (1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclu- sive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross- flow minimized. (2) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. (3) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. More detailed definitions are contained in Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code. 1001.2 Streets and Highways Code References (a) Section 157--Severance of a major bicycle mute by freeway construction, (b) Section 157.2--Incorporation of bicycle fa- cfiities in the design of freeways. (c) Chapter 8--California Bikeways Act. {d) Section 2374--Caltrans to establish design criteria for bikeways. {e) Section 2376--Local agencies must comply to the criteria established by Caltrans. (i) Section 2381--Use of abandoned right of way as a bicycle facfiity. 1001.3 Vehicle Code References {a) 21100(H)--Operation of bicycles on side- walks. (b) 21207.5--Prohibition of motorized bicycles on Class I and II bikeways. (c) 21208--Mandatory use of bike lanes by bi- cyclists. Topic 1002 - General Planning Criteria 1002.1 Introduction Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved maintenance and by upgrading existing roads used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated. This effort requires increased attention to the right- hand portion of roadways where bicyclists are expected to ride. On new construction, and major reconstruction projects, adequate width should be provided to permit shared use by motorists and bicyclists. On resurfacing pro- Jects, the entire paved shoulder and traveled way shall be resurfaced. When a(lding lanes or turn pockets, a minimum 4-foot shoulder shall be provided (see Table 302,1), When placing a roadway edge stripe, sufficient room outside the stripe should be provided for bicy- clists. When considering the restriping of roadways for more traffic lanes, the impact on bicycle travel should be assessed. These efforts, to preserve or improve an area for bicyclists to ride, can benefit motorists as well as bicycllsts. 1002.2 The Role of Bikeways Bikeways are one element of an effort to im- prove bicycllng safety and convenience - either to help accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on shared roadways, or to complement the road system to meet needs not adequately met by roads. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors can be effective in providing new recreational opportunities, or in some instances, desirable commuter routes. They can also be used to close gaps where barriers exist to bicycle travel (e.g., river crossing). On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and convenience, espe- cially if other commitments are made in con- Junction with establishment of bikeways, such as: elimination of parking or increasing road- way width, elimination of surface irregularities and roadway obstacles, frequent street sweep- ~IGaWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-3 July 1, 1990 (4) Class HI Bikeway (Bike Route). Bike routes are shared facfiities which serve either to: (a) Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (usually Class II bikeways); or (b) Designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. AS with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these mutes as compared with alternative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Nonally, bike routes are shared with motor vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class HI bikeways is strongly discouraged. It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II and HI should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application. In selecting the proper facffity, an overriding concern is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require bicyclists or mo- torists to operate in a manner that is inconsis- tent with the rules of the road. An lxnportant consideration in selecting the type of facility is continuity. Altertinting seg- ments of Class I and Class II {or Class HI) bike- ways along a route are generally incompatible, as street crossings by blcy~'lt~ts are required when the route changes character. Also. wrong-way bicycle travel will occur on the street beyond the ends of bike paths because of the inconvenience of having to cross the street. Topic 1003 - Design Criteria 1003.1 Class I Bikeways Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bi- cycles and pedestrians". However, experience has shown that ff significant pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians are necessary to minimize conflicts. Sidewalk facilities are not considered Class I facfiities because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bikeways, and do not minimize motorist cross flows. See Index 1003.3 for discussion relative to sidewalk bike- ways. By State law, motorized bicycles {"mopeds') are prohibited on bike paths unless authorized by ordinance or approval of the agency having Jurisdiction over the path. Likewise, all motor vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. These prohibitions can be strengthened by signing. (1) Widths. The minim~m paved width for a two-way bike path shall be 8 feet. The mlnlmslln paved width for a one-way bike path shall be 5 feet. A minim~m 2-foot wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see FiFe 1003.1A). A 3-foot graded area is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the graded area may be reduced accordingly; how- ever, the graded area is a desirable feature re- gardless of the paved width. Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only after cardul consideration due to the problems of enforcing one-way operation and the difficul- ties in maintaining a path of restricted width. Where heavy bicycle volumes are antici- pated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the paved width of a two-way path shotrid be greater than 8 feet, preferably 12 feet or more. Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles is undesirable, and the two should be separated wherever possible. Another important factor to consider in determining the appropriate width is that bicyclists will tend to ride side by side on bike paths, necessitating more width for safe use. F_,xperience has shown that paved paths less than 12 feet wide sometimes break up along the edge as a result of loads from maintenance ve- hicles. Where equestrians are expected, a separate facility should be provided. HIGtiwAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-5 July 1. 1990 (2) Clearance to Obs~'uctions. A min~m~rn 2-foot horizontal clearance to obstructions shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see Figure 1003,1A), A 3-foot clearance is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the mum required, the clearance may be reduced accordingly; however, an adequate clearance is desirable regardless of the paved width. If a wide path is paved contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g., block wall), a 4- inch white edge stripe, 1-foot from the fixed ob- Ject, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist hitting it. The clear width on structures between ~illngs shall be not less than 8 feet. It is desirable that the clear width of structures be equal to the minimum clear width of the path (i.e., 12 feet). The vertical clearance to obstructions across the clear width of the path shah be a ]~inlm~m ors feet. (3) Str/ping and Sign/r~g. A yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate opposirxg direc- t_ions of travel. A centerline stripe is particu- larly beneficial in the following circumstances: (a) Where there is heavy use; {b) On curves with restricted sight distance; and, (c) Where the path is unllghted and nighttime riding is expected. (Refer to Topic 1004 for signing and striping details.) (4) IntersecttDns with Highways. Intersec- tions are a prime consideration in bike path de- sign. If alternate locations for a bike path are avafiable, the one with the most favorable inter- section conditions should be selected. Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of r~ght of way by traffic signals should be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for bicyclists may suffice. When crossing an arterial street, the cross- ing should either occur at the pedestrian crossing, where motorists can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the in- lluence of any intersection to permit adequate opportunity for bicyclists to see turning vehi- cles. When crossing at midblock locations, right of way should be assigned by devices such as yield signs, stop signs, or traffic signals which can be activated by bicyclists. Even when crossing within or adjacent to the pedes- trian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize potential for con- fiict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path signs are visible to approaching auto traf- fic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion. In some cases, Bike Xing signs may be placed in advance of the crossing to alert motorists. Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to pre- serve the utility of the bike path. (5) Separation Between Bike Paths and Highways. A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways (see Figure 1003.1B). Bike paths closer than 5 feet from the edge of the traveled way shall include a physicel barrier to prevent bicy- clists from encroaching onto the highway, Suitable ban*lers could include chain link fences or dense shrubs. Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are not recommended because bicycllsts could fall over them and into oncoming automobfie traffic. In instances where there is danger of motorists encroaching into the bike path, a positive bar- rier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guardrafting) should be provided. See Index 1003.6 for crite- ria relative to bike paths carried over highway bridges. Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for util- ity trips. (6) Bike Paths in the Medfi:~n of Highways. As a general rule, bike paths in the median of highways are not recommended because they require movements contrary to normal rules of the road. Specific problems with such facilities include: (a) Blcyclist right turns from the center of roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and confusing to motorists. (b) Proper bicycliat movements through inter- sections with signals are unclear. (c) Left-tung motorists must cross one di- rection of motor vehicle traffic and two di- HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.1C Curve Radii & Superelevations 1000-7 January, 1987 50 40 30 20 10 V: 15 rn. O.h, V: tOm,p.h. Superelevation Rate - Ft/8 V2 tanG+ f plat of:g--R = ~ tan e: superelevation where:V = velocity, ft./sec. g: acceleration due to gravity, ft./sec.z R = radius of curvature, ft. f = coefficient of friction an dry pavement = 0.4 ( based on maximum 200 lean ) rate, ft./ft. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.1F Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves 1000-9 Januar'/,1987 Sight distance (S) measured along this line Ee x~ ". · O~j ect Line of sight is 2.0 above ~_ inside lane at point of obstruction. S: Sight distance in feet. R: Radius oft,. inside lane in feet. M = Dislance from ¢. inside lone in feet. V: Design speed for Sin MRH Angle is expressed in degrees S= 28.65 as" Formula applies only when S is equal to or less than length of curve. 40 c 30 .o_ / / / / / / / / / ' / / / / // / / / / / / 100 200 Sight Distance-Feet 300 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-11 January, 1987 Figure 1003.2A Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections (On 2-lane or Multilane Highways) Parking StolEs or 0pfionol 4" Solid Stripj~ ~ y 6" Solid While Stripe -----,~'~ , ,5' Mi~,I Motor Vehicle Lanes Parking Bike Lone The oplionol solid white stripe may be advisable where stalls ore unnecessary (because parking is light ) hut there is concern thol molarisis may miscontrue Ibe hire lone to be o traffic lone, Bike Parking Lone (1) STRIPED PARKING //.,,--Vertical Curb /6" Solid White Stripe '12' Min. Molar Vehicle Lanes IS'is recommended where there is subslanriol parking or turnover Of parked cars is high (e.g. commercial areas). (2) PARKING PERMITrED WITHOUT PARKING STRIPE OR STALL Rolled Curb--~ *(l' MEn. *' ~ so,id Wh.e S,ripe ~"~4' Min L Motor Vehicle Lanes~.l 4' MEn. J'--- Bike Bike Lane Lane (3) PARKING PROHIBITED Lone . 6" Solid White Stripe---.~ 4E~ke Lane (4) TYPICAL ROADWAY IN OUTLYING AREAS PARKING RESTRICTED HIGawAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-13 Ju~y 1. Bike lane stripes should be placed a con- stant distance from the outside motor vehicle lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted (11 ft to 13 ft between the bike lane line and the curb) should not be directed toward the curb at inter- sections or localized areas where parking is prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists from following a straight course. Where transi- tions from one type of bike lane to another are necessary, smooth tapers should be provided. (3) Intersection Destga Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections. For this rea- son, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will permit both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the road. Figure 1003.2B illustrates a typical inter- section of multilane streets, with bike lanes on all approaches. Some common movements of motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A prevalent type of accident involves straight- through bicycle traffic and right-turning mo- torists. Left-turning bicyclists also have prob- lems, as the bike lane is on the right side of the street, and bicyclists have to cross the path of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicy- clists are proficient enough to merge across one or more lanes of Irdttic, to use the inside lane or left-turn lane provided for motor vehicles. How- ever, there are many who dO not feel corol'ort- able making this maneuver. They have the op- tion of rnakirg a two-legged left turn by riding along a course ~trnllar to that followed by pedestrians, as shown in the diagram. Young ch~dren will oftevttrnes prefer to dismount and change directions by walking their bike in the c~lk At intersections where there is a bike lane and traffic-actuated signal, installation of bicy- cle-sensitive detectors within the bike lane is desirable. Push bution detectors are not as satisfactox~r as those located in the pavement because the cyclist must stop to actuate the push button. It is also desirable that detectors in left-turn lanes be sensitive enough to detect bicycles (see Chapter 9 of the Trat~.c Manual and Standard Plans for bicycle-sensitive detec- tor designs). At intersections (without bike lanes) with significant bicycle use and a traffic-actuated signal, it is desirable to install detectors that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles. Figure 1003.2C illustrates recommended striping patterns for bike lanes crossing a mo- torist right-turn-only lane. When confronted with such intersections, bicyclists will have to merge with right-turning motorists, Since bi- cyclists are typically traveling at speeds less than motorists, they should signal and merge where there is sufficient gap in right-turning traffic, rather than at any predetermined lo- cation. For this reason, it is recommended that either all delineation be dropped at the ap- proach of the right-turn lane (or off-ramp), or that a single, dashed bike-lane line be extended at a fiat angle across the right-turn lane. A pair of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane cross- ingl to channel the bike merge is not recom- mended, as bicyclists will be encouraged to cross at a predetermined location, rather than when there is a safe gap in right-turning traffic. Also, some bicyclists are apt to assume they have the right of way, and may not check for right-tag motor vehicle traffic. A dashed line across the right-turn-only lane is not recommended on extremely long lanes, or where there are double right-turn-only lanes. For these types of intersections, all striping should be dropped to permit Judgment by the bicyclists to prevail. A Bike Xing sign may be used to warn motorists of the potential for bicycltsts crossing their path. 1003.3 Class n-r BLkewalm Class HI bikeways {bike mutes) are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike mutes are established along through routes not served by Class I or H bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeway (normally bike lanes). Class HI facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class HI facffities are established by placing Bike Route signs along roadways. Milntrnum widths for Class III bikeways are not presented, as the acceptable width is de- pendent on many factors, including the volume and character of vehicular traffic on the road, typical speeds, vertical and horizontal align- ment, sight distance, and parking conditions. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-15 JanuarT~ 1987 Figure 1003.2C Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist Right-turn-only ranes ~* If space is available. BIKE L ,/ '~f space is 4' N~(. available ~ Typical path \ of through % bicyclist. ~ r I I J Other..ise all de,..,~.IJ ;hould be dropped at LANE I- I t this point. t I t BIKE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE PARKING AREA BECOMES RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE Ped. Crossina f Typical path of \~"""""' through bicyclist. I I . Ped. Crossing LANE _.~,,jBIKE L TypiCal path of through bicyclist. J4'M~ , If space is \ available. Drop bike lone stripe where right turn only designated. OPTIONAL DOUBLE RIGHT LANE BECOMES RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE HIGztwAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-17 July 1. 1990 1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways In some instances, bicyclists are permitted on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be signed or striped as a bikeway, but it can be opened for use ff it meets certain criteria, Essentially, the criteria involve assessing the safety and conve- nience of the freeway as compared with avail- able alternate mutes. If a reasonable alternate route exists, it would normally be unnecessary to open the freeway. However, ff the alternate route Is inconvenient (e.g., it involves substan- tial out of direction travel) and/or is considered unsuitable for bicycle travel (e.g., high-speed traffic, no paved shoulders, poor sight distance, etc.), the freeway may be a better alternative for blcyclists. However, a freeway should not be opened to bicycle use ff it Is determined to be incompatible (e.g., narrow lanes, no shoulders, freeway-to-freeway interchanges, etc.). Nor- really, freeways in urban areas will have characteristics that make it lnfeasible to permit bicycle use. Where no reasonable alternative exists within a freeway corridor, development of a separate bike path should be considered ff dictated by demand. When blcycllsts are permitted on segraents of freeway, it will be necessary to modify and supplement freeway regulato~r signs, particu- larly those at freeway ramp entrances (see Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual). 1003.5 MulUpu~os~ RecreaUonal Trali8 In some instances, it may be appropriate for recreational agencies to develop multipurpose recreational trails - for hikers, Joggers, equestri- ans, bicyclIsts, etc. Many of these trails will not be paved and will not meet the standards for Class I bikeways. As such, these facfiities should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they should be designated as recreational trails (or similar designation), along with regulatory signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropri- ate. If recreational trails are to serve primarily bicycle travel, they should be developed in ac- cordance with standards for Class I bikeways. 1003.6 Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria The following are miscellaneous bikeway criteria which should be followed to the extent pertinent to Class I, II and III bikeways, Some, by their very nature, will not apply to all classes of bikeway. Many of the criteria are important to consider on any highway where bicycle travel is expected, without regard to whether or not bikeways are establIshed. (I) Bridges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coordinated with approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For example, bicycle traffic bound in opposite directions is best accommodated by bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such cases, a two-way bike path on one side of a bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one direction of bicycle traffic would be required to cross the highway at grade twice to get to and from the bridge bike path. Because of the in- convenience, many bicycllsts will be encouraged to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond the bridge termlni. The following criteria apply to a two-way bike path on one side of a highway bridge: (a) The bikeway approach to the bridge should be by way of a separate two-way facility for the reason explained above. (b) A physical separation, such as a chain link fence or railing, shall be provided to offset the adverse effects of having bicy- cles traveling agsiniJt motor vehicle traf- fic. The physical separation should be de- signed to miv~rntze fixed end hazards to motor vehicles and if the bridge Is an terehange structure, to minimize sight dIs- tance restrictions at ramp intersections. It is recommended that bikeway bridge r~tltngs or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at least 4.5 feet high to min- imize the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the railings. Standard bridge l~il/ngS which are lower than 4.5 feet can be retrofitted with lightweight upper rntllngS or chain link fence suitable to restrain bicyclists. ~eparate highway overcrossing structures for bikeway traffic shall conform to Calms' standard pedestrian overcrossing design lading of 85 pounds per square foot. The minimxsm clear width 8hall be the paved width of the approach bikeway. If pedestrians are to use the structure, additional width is recommended. (2) Surface Qualit~j. The surface to be used by bicyclIsts should be smooth, free of potholes, HIGuwAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-19 July 1, 1990 in Figure 1003.6B. Signs, reflectors, diagonal black and yellow makings, or other treatments will be appropriate in other instances to alert blcyclists to potential hazards. (6) Lighting. Bikeway lighting should be considered along routes where nighttime riding is expected. This is particularly important for bike paths serving as commuter routes, such as paths leading to colleges. Adequate lighting Is also important at bike path crossings of streets and for underpasses. Non'nally, on-street bike- ways will be adequately lighted if street lights exist. Top. ic 1004- Uniform Signs, Markings and Traffic Control Devices 1004.1 Introduction Per Section 2376 of the Streets and ~i,~h- ~V~}'I Cod. e, unlfom signs, mmPktn~l, and trsmc control devices shall be used. As such this section is m~ndatory, except where per- missive language is used. See the Traffic Man- ual for detailed specifications. 1004.2 Bike Path (Class I) An optional 4-inch yellow stripe may be placed to separate opposing directions of travel. A 3-foot stripe with a 9-foot space is the rec- ommended striping pattern, but may be revised, depending on the situation. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used on highways may be used on bike paths, as appropriate {and may be sealed down in size). Special regulatory, warning, and guide signs may also be used to meet specific needs. White painted word (or symbol) warning markings on the pavement may be used as an effective means of alerting bicyclists to ap- proaching hazards, such as sharp curves, bar- rier posts, etc. 1004.3 Bike Lanes (Class I~ Bike lanes require standard signing and pavement markings as shown on Figure 1004.3. The R81 bike lane sign shall be placed at the beginning of all bike lanes, on the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction. and at maxi- mum half-mfie intervals. Bike lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection, and may be placed at other locations as de- sired. Raised pavement markers or other raised barriers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes, Also, thermopiastic paint shall not be used for pavement marking, as the paint sur- face is extremely slippery when wet. The G93 Bike Route sign may also be used along bike lanes, but its primary purpose should be to provide directional signing and destination signing where necessary. A prollf- eration of Bike Route signs along signed and striped bike lanes serves no useful purpose. Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists in bike lanes. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used specifically in conjunction with bike lanes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. 1004.4 Bike Routes (Class Bike routes are shared routes and do not require pavement markings. In soroe instances, a 4-inch white edge stripe separating the traffic lanes from the shoulder can be helpful in pro- vidlng for safer shared use. This practice is particularly applicable on rural highways, and on major arterials in urban areas where there is no vehicle parking. Bike routes are established through place- ment of the G93 Bike Route sign. Bike route signs are to be placed periodically along the route. At changes in action, the bike route signs are supplemented by G33 direcUonal rows. Typical bike route signing is shown on Figure 1004.4. The figure shows how des- tLnation signing, through application of a spe- cial plate, can make the Bike Route sign more functional for the bicyclist. This type of signing is recommended when a bike route leads to a high deroand destination (e.g., downtown. col- lege, etc.). Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists. Standard warning and guide signs used specifically in conjunction with bike routes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.6B Hazard Markings 1000-21 January, 1987 .../Hazardous pier, abutment, etc. I-,-W-*.t - 4'L6" Sofid._----~ White Stripe Oireclion of _._.__,,,._.._,_~A Bike Travel L LEGEND L= VW where: L: Length of approach marking (Ft.) V = Average speed of bicyclists (MPH) W = Width of obstruction (Ft..) t LANE BIKE HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1004.4 Bike Route Signing 1000-23 G33 G93 Special Optional Destination Signing ,m. i G93 Special Optional Destination Signing NOTE: The G93 Bike Route signs shall be placed at all points where the route changes direction and periodically as necessary. ITEM NO. 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJEC T: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SHAWN D. NELSON JULY 8, 1991 PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES (QUIMBY FEES) DISCUSSION: Gary King, Park Development Coordinator, will make a presentation concerning the City's Parkland Dedication requirements. ITEM NO. 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: SHAWN D. NELSON DATE: JULY 8, 1991 SUBJECT.- SPORTS PARK BALLFIELD LIGHTS RECOMMENDATION: That the Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Authorize the installation of one (1) additional light pole on the upper Rancho Vista field at Sports Park. 2. Deny request to paint tops of ballfield lights at Sports Park. FISCAL IMPACT.' Cost to install one (1) additional light pole is 816,000.00. DISCUSSION: The installation of the one (1) additional light pole on the upper Rancho Vista field will allow youth and adults the ability to play night soccer games. Unencumbered funds exist within the account to Phase I of the Sports Park Lighting Project. 8225,000.00 was budgeted for this project and the bid was awarded at 8182,000.00. The estimated cost to paint the tops of the ballfield light poles could easily exceed 830,000.00. According to Ron Reed, the City's contracted electrical engineer, and Assured Electrical, electrical contractor for Phase I, the light pole will oxidize by the sun light with eight (8) months and no light will reflect from the poles. Staff has visited the high slope areas on Starlight Ridge during the noon hour and see no visual affects of the light poles. I have enclosed a copy of the Sports Park site plan depicting the location of the proposed light pole for your review. ITEM NO. 6 TEMECUI. A COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' DISCUSSION: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SHAWN D. NELSON JULY 8, 1991 TCSD DIVISION REPORTS Division reports concerning Development Services, Landscape Services, and Recreation Services will be presented by Gary King, Tad Garrety, and Herman Parker.