City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council: (1) discuss Design Concept “A” and the related
budget for the rehabilitation of the playground for children ages 2 – 5 at Syd
Kronenthal Park (SK Park) and (2) consider directing the City Manager to include in
the City Council Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 a budget adjustment of
$75,523.80 from the General Fund to augment the remaining $62,051.20 in
Proposition A Cities Excess Grant Funds to fund the project in the aggregate amount
of $137,575.00, subject to receipt of final grant funding approval by the County of
Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District (RPOSD).
BACKGROUND:
On June 2, 2015, concurrent meetings were held by the City Council and the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services (PRCS) Commission at the Recreation Building
at Syd Kronenthal Park. The purpose of the meetings was to (1) discuss the Syd
Meeting Date: 06/22/15 Item Number: A-3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: (1) Discussion of Design Concept “A” and the
Related Budget for the Rehabilitation of the Playground for Children Ages 2 – 5 at
Syd Kronenthal Park; and (2) Consideration of Directing the City Manager to
Include in the City Council Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 a Budget
Adjustment of $75,523.80 from the General Fund to Augment the Remaining
$62,051.20 in Proposition A Cities Excess Grant Funds to Fund the Project in the
Aggregate Amount of $137,575.00 Subject to Receipt of Final Grant Funding
Approval by the County of Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Martin R. Cole, Assistant City Manager
Dan Hernandez, PRCS Director
Phone Number:
310-253-6000
310-253-6655
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: (Email) Meetings and Agendas – City Council (06/18/15); (Email)
Meetings and Agendas – PRCS Commission (06/18/15); (Email) Parks, Recreation &
Community Service Department Updates (06/18/15); (Email) Syd Kronenthal Park/Culver
City East Neighborhood (06/11/15 and 06/16/15); (Email) PRCS Commission (06/18/15).
Department Approval:
Dan Hernandez (06/11/15)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (06/16/15)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (06/16/15)
City Manager Approval:
John M. Nachbar (06/16/15)
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project and (2) solicit comments from the
Syd Kronenthal Park/Culver City East Neighborhood related to the Project and the
other playground site in Syd Kronenthal Park. The staff report and attachments for
this Agenda Item are provided as Attachment 1. At the concurrent meetings, staff
provided meeting participants with five alternative 2 – 5 age playground conceptual
designs to review (Attachment 2). These designs were rated by the public on yellow
comment cards distributed at the meeting as to their first and second design
preference. After the meeting, the results and related public comments from these
yellow comment cards were summarized, and along with photocopies of the cards,
are provided as Attachment 3. In addition, the webcast of the meeting was reviewed
by staff and the comments made by the public speakers at the meeting were
compiled and are provided as Attachment 4 (Please note: This is not an official
record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.).
At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council adopted the following motion:
A [design] concept [for the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground for Children Ages
2 – 5] will come back and will have in it a budget for a concept that will
include the County’s portion [of the funding] and [the Project] will only move
forward if the County’s portion gets approved at a later date (phrases in
brackets were added by the City Clerk to lend clarity to the motion).
(Moved by Mayor O’Leary; second by Council Member Sahli-Wells; the motion
passed, 3 ayes, no one in opposition; 2 absent.)
Based upon the above direction, this item appears on tonight’s agenda for the City
Council’s consideration.
DISCUSSION:
At the June 2 concurrent meetings, members of the Syd Kronenthal Park
neighborhood stated that they would hold a community meeting to gather more
public input on the preferred design option for the 2 – 5 age playground
rehabilitation. This meeting was held at Echo Horizon School on Tuesday, June 9,
2015. Additional information as provided by the community (Attachment 5) indicates
that Design Concept “A,” with the option of one bucket swing and one traditional
(flat) swing is the neighborhood’s preferred design choice. In order for the two
different types of swings to be incorporated into the design, the configuration of the
equipment must comply with the playground safety requirements outlined in
California State Health and Safety Code Section 115725-115735.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Given the desire of the City Council to consider this issue prior to adoption of the
City Council Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, staff obtained an estimate
from a construction firm that the City has contracted with for similar playground
rehabilitation projects. The detailed estimate of the project budget indicates that the
total cost for the project may be $137,575.00 (Attachment 6). Please note, should
the City Council direct staff to move forward with this project, the actual costs for this
project would be determined by any applicable competitive bidding process. Such
actual costs could be higher or lower than the estimate provided.
Status of the RPOSD (County) Proposition A Grant
In the May 11, 2015 staff report requesting that the City Council accept the work
performed by R. E. Shultz Construction and authorize the filing of the Notice of
Completion for the 5 – 12 age playground, staff informed the City Council that there
was an unexpended grant amount of approximately $60,000 which staff hoped to
use toward additional eligible playground/park-related amenities at the Syd
Kronenthal Park Playground, pending receipt of approval from the RPOSD. It was
around this time that, staff, the PRCS Commission, and the City Council first
became aware that there was some neighborhood concern regarding the installation
of the new 5 – 12 playground equipment.
Step 1 – Extension of the Grant Performance Period
Irrespective of the use of the unexpended grant funds, the City needs to file an
extension of the grant’s performance period, which period is currently scheduled to
end on June 30, 2015. The request for an extension of the performance period to
December 30, 2016 was submitted to the RPOSD on Monday, June 8, 2015. Staff
expects the RPOSD to contact the City regarding the request for performance period
extension by the end of June. Performance period extensions are common
requests, and staff anticipates a favorable response from RPOSD.
Step 2 – Approval of Modified Project Description by RPOSD
The Proposition A grant was approved for “The Syd Kronenthal Park Playground
Rehabilitation Project.” The Project Description on the grant application is:
A development project consisting of the refurbishment of an existing
playground within a community park. The City of Culver City proposes to: (a)
replace the outdated playground equipment with sculptural elements that are
both physically and mentally challenging; (b) replace the sand surfacing using
100% engineered wood fibar; (c) incorporate needed features such as an
accessible ramp; and (d) provide a path of travel to and from the parking area City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
to the playground area that will bring the entire playground into 100% Federal
ADA compliance.
In the application packet, the Grant Boundary Map indicates that the Project is
located at the Playground for Children Ages 5 – 12. The Project Site Plan is a
schematic of the playground equipment that was subsequently installed at the 5 – 12
Playground.
Per the Proposition A Procedural Guide (page 23):
III.D.2. Modifications of the Project Description
The Grantee must request, in writing, any proposed modification of the
Project Description and provide justification for the request. The District will
review the proposal to determine if Board approval is required for the
modification.
If Board approval is not required for the modification, the District will initiate
an amendment into the Project Agreement.
If Board approval is required, the governing body of the Grantee must adopt
a Resolution authorizing the modification and submit the Resolution to the
District. The District will then submit the modification to the Board of
Supervisors for approval.
Staff contacted the RPOSD Program Manager who administers the grant for the
County and was informed that in order to use the unexpended grant funds for any
purpose that is not specifically listed in the original Project Description, the following
documents must first be submitted and approved by the County:
? An Amendment Request Form for a “Project Scope Change”
? A new Site Plan
? A new Cost Estimate
? A new Timeline
? A new “Anticipated Funding Needs Form”
Depending upon the direction provided this evening by the City Council, staff is
prepared to submit a Project Scope Change and the related required documents to
the RPOSD. As noted in the May 11, 2015 staff report: “[After releasing all of the
eligible costs for the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project, PZ831],
this leaves an unexpended grant amount of approximately $60,000 which staff
intends to use for additional eligible playground/park-related amenities at the Syd City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Kronenthal Park Playground, pending approval from the Los Angeles County
Regional Park and Open Space District.”
Staff had initially intended to use the unexpended Proposition A grant funds for a
shade structure, new barbeques and trash receptacles at the 5 – 12 Playground.
However, rehabilitation of the 2 – 5 Playground (as supplemented by additional
funding), or any other eligible improvements at the Syd Kronenthal Playground(s)
that the City Council desires are all potentially eligible uses of the remaining grant
funds (subject to approval by the RPOSD). Early indications are that the Scope
Change can be approved administratively and will not require approval by the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors (nor would a City Council Resolution be
necessary), but the final determination will be made by the County once the request
is submitted. If Board approval is not necessary, it should take approximately two to
three weeks to get a response from the County after all of the required
documentation has been submitted.
Update on the 5 – 12 Playground Project Expenditures
R.E. Shultz Construction $173,240.00
California Conservation Corps $3,566.30
Project Management $9,912.50
Playground Inspection $1,230.00
$187,948.80
Prop A Grant Amount $250,000.00
5 - 12 Playground Expenditures -$187,948.80
Unexpended Grant Funds $62,051.20
Step 3 – Creation of Plans/Specifications and Compliance with RPOSD Formal
Bidding Process Requirements
The RPOSD requires a formal bidding process in order to use Proposition A grant
funds for capital improvement projects. Such formal bidding process would, at a
minimum, require: (1) preparation of the plans and specifications, (2) approval of the
plans and specifications by the City Council, (3) solicitation of bids with a reasonable
bidding time period, (4) review of the bids and presentation of the recommended
contract to the City Council for award, and (5) construction of the project. This
formal bidding process is estimated to take from 4 to 6 months.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
PRCS Commission Members’ Comments
Attachment 7 is the unofficial transcript of the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Commission Members’ final comments at the June 2, 2015 Concurrent
Meetings. To summarize briefly (paraphrasing):
? Four Commissioners felt that the manner in which the Proposition A grant
money was spent at the Park conformed with the scope of the Project, as
originally proposed.
? Two Commissioners recommended the community members consider
organizing a neighborhood group project to raise some of the funding for the
Project, in light of the many other pressing financial needs that the City must
address.
? Two Commissioners commented on the inadequacy of the public notification
process and the need to improve the methods and timing of obtaining
community input for future projects.
? One Commissioner said that even though the grant money was spent at SK
Park, it should have been spent in a way that benefited all age groups.
? One Commissioner recommended that no action should be taken by the City
Council until a definitive budget amount for the Project had been provided by
staff.
? One Commissioner stated that she preferred not to comment on whether
General Funds should be budgeted for the Project.
? One Commissioner felt that the 5 – 12 playground does not need a shade
structure but that the unexpended grant funds should be carried over for
whatever the City wants to do next at SK Park.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
If the City Council wishes to approve Design Concept “A” (as requested by the
neighborhood residents) and the related budget and timeline for the rehabilitation of
the playground for children ages 2 – 5 at Syd Kronenthal Park, a budget adjustment
of $75,523.80 from the General Fund is needed to augment the remaining
$62,051.20 in Proposition A Cities Excess Funds to fund the project for total amount
of $137,575.00, subject to the final approval from the RPOSD. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
The City account number for the Proposition A grant funds is
42380000.730100.PZ831 (Grants Capital Projects / Improvements Other Than
Buildings / Syd Kronenthal Playground Project).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. June 2, 2015 City Council/PRCS Commission Agenda Item J-1 with Attachment.
2. Conceptual Designs “A – E” for the Playground for Children Ages 2 – 5 at Syd
Kronenthal Park.
3. Yellow comment cards collected at the June 2, 2015 Concurrent Meetings:
results, related public comments, and photocopies of the cards.
4. Compilation of comments made by public speakers at the June 2, 2015
Concurrent Meetings.
5. Additional Information regarding the Syd Kronenthal Park playground(s) as
provided by the Community.
6. Design Concept “A” Budget.
7. Unofficial Transcript of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Commission Members’ final comments at the June 2, 2015 Concurrent Meetings.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
(1) Discuss Design Concept “A” and the related cost estimate for the rehabilitation of
the playground for children ages 2 – 5 at Syd Kronenthal Park (SK Park); and,
(2) Consider directing the City Manager to include in the City Council Adopted
Budget for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 a budget adjustment of $75,523.80 from the
General Fund to augment the remaining $62,051.20 in Proposition A Cities
Excess Funds to fund the estimated project costs of $137,575.00, subject to
approval of the County of Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space District
(RPOSD); and,
(3) (If the City Council determines to move forward with the neighborhood’s
recommended action) Authorize the City Manager to take all actions necessary
to submit the proposed project to the RPOSD for approval.
MEETING DATE: June 22, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: (1) Discussion of Design Concept “A” and the Related
Budget for the Rehabilitation of the Playground for
Children Ages 2 – 5 at Syd Kronenthal Park and (2)
Consideration of a Budget Adjustment of $75,523.80 to
Augment the Remaining $62,051.20 in Proposition A
Cities Excess Funds to Fund the Project for Total Amount
of $137,575.00, Should Such Use of the Proposition A
Funding be Approved by the County of Los Angeles
Regional Park and Open Space District.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. June 2, 2015 City Council/PRCS Commission Agenda
Item J-1 with Attachment.
1 - 13
2. Conceptual Designs “A – E” for the Playground for
Children Ages 2 – 5 at Syd Kronenthal Park.
14 - 30
3. Yellow comment cards collected at the June 2, 2015
Concurrent Meetings: results, related public comments,
and photocopies of the cards.
31 - 42
4. Compilation of comments made by public speakers at the
June 2, 2015 Concurrent Meetings.
43 - 48
5. Additional Information regarding the Syd Kronenthal Park
playground(s) as provided by the Community.
49 - 72
6. Design Concept “A” Budget. 73
7. Unofficial Transcript of the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Commission Members’ final
comments at the June 2, 2015 Concurrent Meetings.
74 - 76
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council: (1) discuss the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground
Rehabilitation Project (Project) and (2) solicit comments from the Syd Kronenthal
Park/Culver City East Neighborhood (Neighborhood) related to the Project and the
other playground site in Syd Kronenthal Park (SK Park).
BACKGROUND:
On April 30, 2015, a Grand Opening Ceremony was held at the newly renovated
playground for children ages 5 through 12 at Syd Kronenthal Park, 3459 McManus
Avenue, Culver City, CA 90232. Vice Mayor Weissman, Council Member Sahli-Wells,
PRCS Commissioner Heineman, staff and members of the community were in
attendance. At the Ceremony, and subsequently at the May 5, 2015 PRCS
Commission meeting and the May 11 and May 18, 2015 City Council meetings, some
Syd Kronenthal Park neighborhood residents expressed concerns regarding the
recently installed playground equipment. Specifically, parents/caregivers reported
that children younger than the age of 5 had been enjoying the previous playground
equipment, including the traditional-style slide and swings, and had now been
Meeting Date: 06/02/15 Item Number: J-1
CITY COUNCIL/PRCS COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: (1) Discussion of The Syd
Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project and (2) Solicitation of Comments
from the Syd Kronenthal Park/Culver City East Neighborhood Related to the Project
and the Other Playground Site in Syd Kronenthal Park.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Martin R. Cole, Assistant City Manager
Dan Hernandez, PRCS Director
Phone Number: 310-253-6000
310-253-6655
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: Meetings and Agendas – City Council (05/28/15); Meetings and
Agendas – PRCS Commission (05/28/15); (Email) Parks, Recreation & Community Service
Department Updates (5/28/15); (Email) Syd Kronenthal Park/Culver City East
Neighborhood (05/14/15 and 05/28/15); (Posting of Notices) Syd Kronenthal Park
(05/15/15); (Postcard Mailing) Culver City “Occupants” Within a 500 Foot Buffer of Syd
Kronenthal Park (05/20/15).
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (05/27/15)
Dan Hernandez (5/27/15)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (05/27/15)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (05/27/15)
City Manager Approval:
Martin R. Cole (05/27/15)
ATTACHMENT 1
1 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
displaced since the new equipment was no longer suitable for that age group.
Additionally, some members of the public felt that the existing playground for children
ages 2 – 5, which lies to the east of the 5 – 12 playground, does not offer adequate
recreational activities for their children due to the small size and limited amount of
playground equipment at that site.
At the May 5th PRCS Commission meeting, in response to the public comment, a
consensus was reached to agendize a discussion regarding the SK Park playground
equipment at a future Commission meeting. At the May 11 City Council meeting, a
consensus was reached to hold a concurrent meeting with the PRCS Commission at
SK Park to hear public comment and discuss the recently installed playground
equipment and future plans for the playgrounds at the Park.
Some of the questions raised by the members of the public, the City Council, and the
PRCS Commission regarding the playgrounds at SK Park, included, but were not
limited to:
? Was adequate public notification given regarding the development and
implementation of the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project?
? Why were the traditional-style slide and swings eliminated from the playground?
? Is the new playground safe?
? Why must there be separate equipment and play areas for the 2 – 5 and 5 – 12 age
groups?
? What will the City do at SK Park to ensure that there are adequate recreational
opportunities for children younger than 5?
? How will the City use the approximately $61,000 in Proposition A grant funds that
were unexpended during the construction of the playground for children ages 5 –
12?
This report attempts to respond to those questions and provides the City Council, the
PRCS Commission, and the community with some background information about the
process used (including the opportunities for public input) which culminated in the
Project. This meeting also provides an opportunity for members of the Neighborhood
to provide comments to the City Council and PRCS Commission related to the Project
and other playground site in SK Park.
2 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
DISCUSSION:
Some Neighborhood residents expressed concern about the perceived lack of public
input in the Project. Additionally, a number of Neighborhood residents also mentioned
that they are relatively new arrivals in Culver City (three years or fewer). The following
paragraphs will provide some background on the significant process that resulted in
the Project.
What was the Process Used which Resulted in the Project?
The process which resulted in the project began “at the 30,000 foot level” in October
2007 when the City undertook a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. In 2008, the City
was made aware of $250,000 in grant funds available from the County of Los Angeles.
In, September 2008 the PRCS Commission considered almost 100 public comments
and recommended to the City Council a “Park Projects Wish List” which included the
Project in SK Park. Later that month, the City Council approved the “Wish List.”
Unfortunately, the City did not receive sufficient funding to construct the Project as
part of the 2008 $250,000 grant. However, in 2012, another grant opportunity
presented itself. In October 2012, the PRCS Commission and City Council publically
considered authorizing an application for the 2012 grant. The PRCS Commission
recommended and the City Council approved the 2012 grant application for the Syd
Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project.
In March 2013, the City was notified that the 2012 grant was approved specifically for
the Project. The City received the fully executed grant agreement in July 2013. After
preparing the plans and specifications, in October 2014, the City Council publically
approved the plans and specifications and authorized the publication of a Notice
Inviting Bids. The plans and specifications were made available on the City’s website
for review. In January 2015, the City Council awarded the construction contract.
Construction began at the beginning of April 2015, and the grand opening ceremony
was held in late April. A more detailed timeline is attached to this report.
Traditional Nature of Public Comments
The public comment opportunities outlined in the Attachment were focused on asking
the community to provide new park project ideas and comment on existing
recreational facilities and activities. This public process informed staff’s, the PRCS
Commission’s and the City Council’s decisions regarding the prioritization of park
improvement projects. Additionally, the public is always invited to express views at
noticed public meetings on projects that are brought forward for consideration for grant
funding opportunities.
3 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
As stated at the May 18th City Council meeting, it is not currently standard practice to
involve the community in the detailed design of a park improvement project. The
playground, including the placement and type of elements that are to be included in
the playground area, is designed during a collaborative process between qualified,
experienced City staff and playground design/construction professionals. One
exception to this standard practice is the 5 -12 playground at Veterans Memorial Park
(VMP) which was funded by a KaBOOM! grant and completed in 2009. Members of
the community, including children, met to review and select playground equipment
from a limited menu of options as part of the KaBOOM! process. Unfortunately, even
though the public was involved in the selection of playground equipment for this
project, the City did receive several complaints at the conclusion of the VMP 5 – 12
Playground Project due to the elimination of some favored pieces of equipment at the
playground.
Staff Considerations as Part of the SK Park Project
Staff considers a number of important issues when performing rehabilitation projects
in the City’s parks. First and foremost amongst these is the safety of the children who
will use the equipment.
In California, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) guidelines for
playground safety have been adopted for all public playgrounds. Title 22 "Safety
Regulations for Playgrounds" of the California Code of Regulation provides detailed
specifications for the design, installation and maintenance of public playgrounds,
referencing compliance with CPSC and American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) guidelines as mandatory. Public play areas are also subject to the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines.
As an example of the CPSC guidelines, Attachment 2 is an excerpt from their “Public
Playground Safety Handbook” that illustrates the “use zones” that must be built-in to
the design of a playground. Use zone requirements are the primary reason that pieces
of play equipment cannot be removed or added to a playground design once the
playground has been constructed. Interested parties may access the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission Public Playground Safety Handbook at
http://www.cpsc.gov/pagefiles/122149/325.pdf.
To ensure playgrounds remain a safe place for children to play, per the CPSC
guidelines, operators of public playgrounds are required to have an initial inspection
of their playgrounds by a Certified Playground Safety Inspector. The Syd Kronenthal
Park 5 – 12 Playground was audited by Playground Safety Analysts on April 29, 2015,
and the final consultation and compliance review/certification was performed on May
4, 2014. Therefore, the City has complied with all applicable State and Federal
guidelines related to playground safety. It remains important to note that in practice,
4 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
playground safety is also related to both the proper use of the playground by the
specified age group and appropriate adult supervision.
Age-Appropriate Equipment and Separate Play Areas
The primary reason that age-appropriate equipment and separate play areas are
required is to reduce the likelihood that injuries will occur at playgrounds. The
California State Safety Guidelines for Playgrounds recommend separate play areas
(not combined) for 2 to 5 Age and 5 to 12 Age children. Playgrounds must be designed
to take the different developmental stages of childhood into account. For example,
from page 3 of the Public Playground Safety Handbook:
“Toddlers, preschool- and school-age children differ dramatically, not only
in physical size and ability, but also in their intellectual and social skills.
Therefore, age-appropriate playground designs should accommodate these
differences with regard to the type, scale, and the layout of equipment.”
“Toddlers” refers to children ages 6 months through 2 years of age, “preschool-age”
refers to children 2 through 5 years, and “school-age” refers to children 5 through 12
years. The guidelines state that playground designers should recognize that there
may be some overlap between these groups, especially for children at or near the cut-
off ages of 2 and 5 years, and take measures to incorporate an appropriate margin of
safety into their designs.
The PRCS Department also strives to install the latest state-of-the-art playground
equipment that provides children with physically and mentally challenging recreational
opportunities fully accessible to those with differing levels of ability (within the specified
age-range). For example, the rehabilitated playgrounds at Veterans Memorial Park
(2 – 5 and 5 – 12), Culver City Park (2 – 5 and 5 – 12), and Fox Hills Park (2 – 5 and
5 – 12) contain KOMPAN Playground Equipment. The playground at El Marino Park
(5 – 12) is by Landscape Structures; their playground equipment is designed on the
same principal of mentally and physically challenging play as KOMPAN’s.
The KOMPAN Play Institute is an international network that collaborates with
researchers and scientists who monitor trends and conduct studies within the health,
learning, and social inclusion fields of children’s development and play. The research
team consults with child development psychologists who provide design input as well.
These experts assert that children’s ‘risk factor’ is a key part of their development,
physically and mentally, and that children need to test their limits, but at the same
time, do so without incurring serious injury when those limits are exceeded.
A key component of the composite structure that was installed at the SK Park 5 – 12
Playground is the linked play element that allows a child to traverse the equipment in
5 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
imaginative ways without ever touching the ground. The inherent value of this
equipment lies in the fact that it is not repetitive play that children become quickly
bored with, rather it can and does get approached from many different angles to
provide challenging while at the same time, different play experiences.
Since the day of the Grand Opening Ceremony, staff has periodically monitored
playground activity and consistently observed that the new equipment it is very
popular with children ages 5 – 12. This demonstrates that the Playground meets the
community need for challenging play that the Project was designed to fulfill. Staff has
received numerous positive comments regarding the new play equipment, including
this comment made by an Echo Horizons kindergarten teacher who stated that, “This
equipment is great for my kindergarten children (ages 5 to 6) because it teaches them
to ‘critically think.’”
KOMPAN does offer slides and swings that resemble the classic playground
elements. However, the slides are recommended for the 2 – 5 age group and the
swings are recommended for the 2 – 12 age group. All of the new equipment installed
at the playground is specifically designed for the 5 – 12 age group. Staff is of the
opinion that these types of traditional-style slides and swings are more appropriately
located in the 2 – 5 playground.
Neighborhood Residents’ Concerns
While staff hopes the above information will help the neighborhood residents
understand that the Project was not designed without opportunities for public input
and with safety considerations first and foremost amongst the factors used while staff
prepared the plans and specifications for the Project, we acknowledge the concerns
voiced to the PRCS Commissioners and the City Council Members. This meeting is
an opportunity for the Neighborhood to provide additional input.
Staff will provide meeting participants with alternative 2 – 5 Age playground
conceptual designs to review. They will be asked to rate the designs as to their first
and second preference. Staff, the PRCS Commission, and the City Council will then
use the tabulated results, along will all public comment related to this topic, to inform
their decisions regarding the playgrounds at SK Park.
As noted at the May 18th City Council meeting, the City is eligible to submit a request
to the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District to use the
approximately $61,000 in unexpended Proposition A grant funds from the 5 – 12
Playground Rehabilitation Project to further develop the playgrounds at SK Park. Staff
will submit the necessary documents to the County as soon as the final decisions have
been made by the PRCS Commission and the City Council regarding the preferred
use of these funds.
6 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the discussion of this Agenda Item.
Information regarding the estimated cost to construct the 2 – 5 age group playgrounds
illustrated by the conceptual designs that are to be presented at the meeting was not
available at the time of the publication of this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Background Information Related to the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground
Rehabilitation Project (PZ831).
2. Excerpt from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission “Public Playground
Safety Handbook” on the topic of “Use Zones”
MOTION:
That the City Council and PRCS Commission:
(1) Discuss the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project (Project); and,
(2) Solicit comments from the Syd Kronenthal Park/Culver City East Neighborhood
related to the Project and the other playground site in Syd Kronenthal Park.
7
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of The Syd Kronenthal Park Playground
Rehabilitation Project and (2) Solicitation of Comments from
the Syd Kronenthal Park/Culver City East Neighborhood
Related to the Project and the Other Playground Site in Syd
Kronenthal Park.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Background Information Related to the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground
Rehabilitation Project (PZ831).
1 - 4
2. Excerpt from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission “Public
Playground Safety Handbook” on the topic of “Use Zones.”
5
8Background Information Related to the
Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project
Date Description
October 2007 As part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process, extensive public outreach began in order to collect and analyze
public comment regarding Culver City's parks, facilities and recreational opportunities. The two-year process involved three
public workshops, a telephone survey, two focus groups, three Veterans Memorial Park conceptual plan workshops and an
independent park-user survey performed by staff.
January 2008 Mayor Alan Corlin was informed by the Office of Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke that Culver City had been
awarded a Los Angeles County Proposition A grant in the amount of $250,000 for eligible parks projects.
February 2008 The Facility Assessment and Deferred Maintenance Plan Element of the Master Plan was distributed to the members of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Staff used this document as a template to create an in-house
Deferred Maintenance List that is updated several times a year to reflect the ever-changing condition of the City's parks and
facilities.
March 4, 2008 Project possibilities for the use of the Proposition A funds and staff’s recommendations were presented to the Parks and
Recreation Commission at their monthly meeting. The Commission requested that staff conduct comprehensive public
outreach to get the community's input regarding park project priorities and come back with their suggestions.
April 1, 2008 After considering fifty-seven (57) public comments on the topic, the Commission recommended that the funds be used
primarily to update the playground at Culver City Park. The list of suggestions for parks projects made by the public is kept for
future reference.
April 21, 2008 At a public meeting, the City Council also heard public comment on the issue and adopted a Resolution approving a grant
application for $250,000 in Los Angeles County Proposition A Excess Funds for the playground rehabilitation at Culver City
Park.
September 9, 2008 The City Manager's Office received letter from the Office of then Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke inviting the
City to submit a "Call for projects" Wish-List of potential Proposition A compliant city park-related projects by September 30,
2008.
Week of September 15,
2008
The Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services (PRCS) Commission received consensus to hold a Special
Meeting on September 19, 2008 to give the public and the Commission an opportunity to make Wish-List recommendations.
September 17 - 19, 2008 City staff solicited public comment regarding preferred Wish-List projects to present at the Commission's September 19, 2008
Special Meeting.
September 19, 2008 At a Special Meeting, the PRCS Commission considered forty-one (41) newly submitted public comments on the topic and
reviewed the list of suggestions that had been made by the fifty-seven (57) members of the public in April. The Commission
took action to recommend the following Park Project Wish-List to the City Council (in priority order): (1) Fox Hills Park
Playground Rehabilitation; (2) Veterans Memorial Park Playground Improvements; (3) Syd Kronenthal Park Playground
Rehabilitation; and (4) Bill Botts (Little League) Field Improvements.
Page 1
9Background Information Related to the
Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project
Date Description
September 22, 2008 The City Council approved the Commission's Park Project Wish-List as proposed at the September 19, 2008 Commission
meeting (the Commission's Wish-List was submitted as a separate Memo and distributed at the meeting).
October 27, 2008 The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved funding for only two (2) Wish-List projects, Veterans' Memorial Park
Playground Improvements (partially funded); and Bill Botts (Little League) Field Improvement. The proposed playground
projects at Fox Hills and Syd Kronenthal Parks remain unfunded.
December 2008 through
October 2009
The Prop 40 matching funds for the Veterans Park and Bill Botts Projects become unavailable due to the State Budget crisis
so certain elements of the Projects had to be postponed pending release of the funds.
May 5, 2009 PRCS Commission conducted its final review of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
June 2009 A Certified Playground Safety Audit of all City playgrounds was completed that identified the following playgrounds as next in
line for replacement (in priority order): (5) Blair Hills Park 2 - 5 and 5 - 12; (6) Lindberg Park 2 - 5 and 5 - 12; (7) El Marino 2 -
5; and, (8) Tellefson Park 5 - 12.
July 31, 2009 The results of the Certified Playground Safety Audit were conveyed to the PRCS Commission during their Annual Culver City
Parks and Facilities Tour (a noticed public meeting). In successive years, verbal updates regarding the conditions of the
playgrounds are given to Park Tour participants.
September 2009 A CD of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was distributed to the members of the City Council. The Master Plan is
currently posted on the City's website in the "Highlights" section of the PRCS Homepage.
December 2009 The Veterans Memorial Park Playground for Children Ages 5 - 12 was constructed with Prop A funds and a KaBOOM! grant
(the first element of #2 on the City Council approved Park Project Wish-List)
November 2010 The Notice of Completion was filed for Bill Botts (Little League) Field Leveling Project (#4 on the City Council approved Park
Project Wish-List).
March 2011 The Notice of Completion was filed for the Veterans Memorial Park Playground for Children Ages 2 - 5 (the final element of #2
on the City Council approved Park Project Wish-List).
June 2011 The City Council approved Park Facilities (Quimby) Funds and Capital Improvement and Acquisition (General) Funds for the
Fox Hills Park Playground Rehabilitation Project (#1 on the City Council approved Park Project Wish-List).
September 2012 The Notice of Completion was filed for the Culver City Park Playground, which contains separate play areas for Children Ages
2 - 5 and Ages 5 - 12.
Page 2
10Background Information Related to the
Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project
Date Description
October 2, 2012 The following Agenda Item was publically noticed and discussed by the PRCS Commission: "Consideration of a
Recommendation to the City Council to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Submission of a Proposal/Application for Grant
Funds from the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District Excess Funds Grant Program in the Amount of
$250,000 for the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project." The Commission was informed that SK Park
was being recommended by staff because the other top three Projects on the September 28, 2008 City Council approved Park
Project Wish-List were either completed or had received other funding. Staff also reported that no City matching funds were
available to enhance the Project. The PRCS Commission supported staff's recommendation.
October 22, 2012 The following Agenda Item was publically noticed and discussed by the City Council: "1) Adoption of a Resolution Approving
the Application for Grant Funds from the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District Excess Funds Grant
Program in the Amount of $250,000 for the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project; and, 2) Approval of a
Budget Amendment to Appropriate the Funding for this Project Upon Receipt of the Fully Executed Grant Agreement." The
City Council was informed that the PRCS Commission had voted in favor of recommending the SK Park Project for funding.
Staff also reported that the existing Tot Lot at SK Park was not included in the Project.
November 2012 Culver City Green Space Plan was completed. The Plan was informed by extensive public outreach performed in 2011 and
2012, including the collection and analysis of 702 surveys, three community meetings, and input from the Green Space Plan
Advisory Committee. In the Plan, the rehabilitation of the SK Park 5 - 12 Playground is identified as an unmet community
need and an opportunity for the improvement of the City's park system.
December 2012 through
October 2013
During this time period, two major Parks Work Plan projects took place simultaneously: (1) ET Based Central Controllers
Upgrade Project - The City was under a State mandated deadline to comply with AB-1881, the Model Water Efficiency
Landscape Ordinance, to upgrade and/or replace all irrigation controllers in the City's existing Calsense Central Controller
system to ET Based Central Controllers.
(2) PAR Course Equipment Replacement Project - All of the outdated and defective PAR course exercise equipment
throughout the City was replaced as part of an on going project. The planning for this Project began in 2010 and it was
implemented during this period at: Fox Hills Park, Veterans Park, Lindberg Park, and Blanco Park.
November 2013 The Notice of Completion was filed for Fox Hill Park Playground Rehabilitation Project (#1 on the City Council approved Park
Project Wish-List).
March 2013 The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved Proposition A Cities Excess Funds in the amount of $250,000 for the
Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project.
April 2013 Parks Division Associate Landscape Architect position was vacated and remains unfilled throughout the next year. This
consultant's duties include creating Parks projects bid documents, such as plans and specifications, and managing Parks
projects as directed by the Parks Manager.
July 2013 The fully-executed Proposition A Grant Agreement for the SK Park Playground Project was received.
Page 3
11Background Information Related to the
Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project
Date Description
March 2014 A Parks Division Associate Landscape Architect is contracted and immediately begins assisting the Parks Manager with the
following projects, among others (not necessarily in chronological order): Senior Center Courtyard Conceptual Design; Studio
Estates Landscaping; Culver City Park Hillside Fire Abatement; Fox Hills Park Shade Structure and Culver City Senior Center
Boulder Installation.
October 13, 2014 The following Agenda Item was publically noticed and discussed by the City Council: "Approval of Final Plans and
Specifications and Authorization to Publish a Notice Inviting Bids for the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation
Project, PZ-831." The plans and specifications and a rendering of the playground were posted on the City's website for
viewing by all interested parties.
October 13, 2014 The following Agenda Item was publically noticed and discussed by the City Council: "Adoption of a Youth Employment Plan
for the Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project, PZ-831."
January 12, 2015 The following Agenda Item was publically noticed and discussed by the City Council: "Award of a Contract to R.E. Schultz
Construction Services, as the Lowest Responsive and Responsible Bidder, in the Amount Not-To-Exceed $207,888.00
($173,240.00 Bid Plus $34,648.00 in Change Order Authority) for the Construction of the Syd Kronenthal Park
Rehabilitation Playground Project, PZ-831."
April 1, 2015 Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project construction began.
April 30, 2015 Syd Kronenthal Park Playground Rehabilitation Project Grand Opening Ceremony was held.
Page 4
12Denotes Use Zone with
Protective Surfacing
6 ft.
6 ft.
6 ft.
6 ft.
6 ft.
6 ft.
6 ft. MIN
8 ft. MAX
STEPPING
FORMS
SLIDE
Figure 28. Use Zones for Composite Structure
|410|Handbook for Public Playground Safety
5.3.10 Fall height and use zones not specified
elsewhere
Most playground equipment belongs in one of the categories
listed above. If it does not, the following general recommen-
dations should be applied:
• The fall height of a piece of playground equipment is the
distance between the highest designated playing surface
and the protective surface beneath it.
• The use zone should extend a minimum of 6 feet in all
directions from the perimeter of the equipment.
• The use zones of two stationary pieces of playground
equipment that are positioned adjacent to one another
may overlap if the adjacent designated play surfaces of
each structure are no more than 30 inches above the pro-
tective surface and the equipment is at least 6 feet apart.
• If adjacent designated play surfaces on either structure
exceed a height of 30 inches, the minimum distance
between the structures should be 9 feet.
• Use zones should be free of obstacles.
• The use zone should extend a minimum of 6 feet from the
perimeter of the supporting structure. This 6-foot zone
may overlap that of an adjacent swing structure or other
playground equipment structure.
5.3..5 Protrusions on suspended members of
swing assemblies
Protrusions on swings are extremely hazardous because of
the potential for impact incidents. Nothing, including bolts
or other parts, on the front, back, or underside of a swing
should stick out more than 1/8 of an inch. See test proce-
dures in Appendix B.
5.3.9 Fall height and use zones for composite
structure
When two or more complementary play components are
linked together in a composite structure (e.g., combination
climber, slide, and horizontal ladder), the use zone should
extend a minimum of 6 feet from the external perimeter of
the structure (see Figure 28). Where slides are attached to a
platform higher than 6 feet from the protective surfacing, the
use zone may need to extend further in front of the slide (see
§5.3.6.5).
Figure adapted from
ASTM F1
13Phone: 760.690.4030
Toll Free: 888.843.6128
Fax: 760.282.7082
Web: www.recrepublic.com
SYD KRONENTHAL PARK
CULVER CITY, CA
MAY 28, 2015
OPTION 1
KOMPAN
COTTAGE
PLAYHOUSE
KOMPAN
6’7 ELEMENTS SWING
2 BUCKET SEATS
KOMPAN
FLOW 1
DESIGN CONCEPT "A"
14
ATTACHMENT 2Flow 1 ELE400209
Red
Green
Blue
Product Info
DESIGN CONCEPT "A"
15DESIGN CONCEPT "A"
16Single Bay Swing 6'-7" KSW91013
Use zones shown for belt seats.
Also available with infant or ADA seats.
* = Highest designated play surface.
** = Total height of product.
Highest designated play surface and space required
are according to ASTM 1487.
Equipment must be installed over resilient surfacing
appropriate to the safety guidelines in your area.
Product development is an ongoing process. We
reserve the right to make modifications on all
our products. This product may not be mirrored,
scaled or altered in any way. Safety zones must
be retained for proper placement of equipment.
If any changes are required, please contact your
KOMPAN representative at 1.800.426.9788.
Product Info
MOMENTS
Technical information available at kompan.com
To verify product certifi cation, visit ipema.org
This Product is available only in the
in-ground version.
Best User Age: 2-5 years
ADA ANALYSIS
Elevated
Activities: 0
Accessible Elevated
Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Play Types
Present 0 1 1
Required 0 1 1
Available infant seat
Available ADA seat
DESIGN CONCEPT "A"
17SHOP & SERVICE/CONSTRUCTION - MSC6424P Product Info
Phone: 760.690.4030
Toll Free: 888.843.6128
Fax: 760.282.7082
Web: www.recrepublic.com
SYD KRONENTHAL PARK
CULVER CITY, CA
MAY 28, 2015
OPTION 2
KOMPAN
6’7 ELEMENTS SWING
2 BUCKET SEATS
KOMPAN
STORY MAKERS
CONSTRUCTION/SERVICE
KOMPAN
SPINNER BOWL
DESIGN CONCEPT "B"
18SHOP & SERVICE/CONSTRUCTION - MSC6424P Product Info
DESIGN CONCEPT "B"
19To verify product certifi cation, visit ipema.org
Spinner Bowl ELE400024
13'-9"
[419cm]
1'-8"
[52cm]
13'-9"
[419cm]
1'-10"
[55cm]
ELE400024BL
148.3 ft² / 13.8 m²
* 1'-6" / 46 cm
** 2'-0" / 61 cm
Scale: 1/8"=1'
Red Blue
Yellow
Green
* = Highest designated play surface.
** = Total height of product.
Highest designated play surface and space required
are according to ASTM 1487.
Equipment must be installed over resilient surfacing
appropriate to the safety guidelines in your area.
Product development is an ongoing process. We
reserve the right to make modifications on all
our products. This product may not be mirrored,
scaled or altered in any way. Safety zones must
be retained for proper placement of equipment.
If any changes are required, please contact your
KOMPAN representative at 1.800.426.9788.
Product Info
ELEMENTS
Technical infomation available at kompaninfo.com
Footing Information: In-ground posts.
Surface installation also available.
Best User Age: 4–12 years
ADA ANALYSIS
Elevated
Activities: 0
Accessible Elevated
Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Play Types
Present 0 1 1
Required 0 1 1
DESIGN CONCEPT "B"
20Single Bay Swing 6'-7" KSW91013
Use zones shown for belt seats.
Also available with infant or ADA seats.
* = Highest designated play surface.
** = Total height of product.
Highest designated play surface and space required
are according to ASTM 1487.
Equipment must be installed over resilient surfacing
appropriate to the safety guidelines in your area.
Product development is an ongoing process. We
reserve the right to make modifications on all
our products. This product may not be mirrored,
scaled or altered in any way. Safety zones must
be retained for proper placement of equipment.
If any changes are required, please contact your
KOMPAN representative at 1.800.426.9788.
Product Info
MOMENTS
Technical information available at kompan.com
To verify product certifi cation, visit ipema.org
This Product is available only in the
in-ground version.
Best User Age: 2-5 years
ADA ANALYSIS
Elevated
Activities: 0
Accessible Elevated
Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Play Types
Present 0 1 1
Required 0 1 1
Available infant seat
Available ADA seat
DESIGN CONCEPT "B"
21Phone: 760.690.4030
Toll Free: 888.843.6128
Fax: 760.282.7082
Web: www.recrepublic.com
SYD KRONENTHAL PARK
CULVER CITY, CA
MAY 28, 2015
OPTION 3
KOMPAN
SPRING RIDER
KOMPAN
CIRCUIT
ELEPHANTPLAY
ROTATING NET
WITH DECK
DESIGN CONCEPT "C"
22Circuit ELE400037
Green
Red
Blue
Product Info
DESIGN CONCEPT "C"
23To verify product certifi cation, visit ipema.org
Racer ELE400002
Red Yellow
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
ELE400002
152.8ft² / 14.2m²
*1'-5" / 43cm
** 2'-3" / 68cm
2'-4"
[71cm]
1'-2"
[36cm]
13'-3"
[403cm]
14'-4"
[438cm]
* = Highest designated play surface.
** = Total height of product.
Highest designated play surface and space required
are according to ASTM 1487.
Equipment must be installed over resilient surfacing
appropriate to the safety guidelines in your area.
Product development is an ongoing process. We
reserve the right to make modifications on all
our products. This product may not be mirrored,
scaled or altered in any way. Safety zones must
be retained for proper placement of equipment.
If any changes are required, please contact your
KOMPAN representative at 1.800.426.9788.
Product Info
ELEMENTS
Technical infomation available at kompaninfo.com
Footing Information: In-ground posts.
Surface installation also available.
Best User Age: 2–5 years
ADA ANALYSIS
Elevated
Activities: 0
Accessible Elevated
Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Activities
Accessible Ground
Level Play Types
Present 0 1 1
Required 0 1 1
DESIGN CONCEPT "C"
24City of Culver City Syd Kronenthal 2-5 Play Area / Option 1
Great Western Park & Playground | Tyler Kyriopoulos_ 435-760-5103 _ Tyler@gwpark.com
DESIGN CONCEPT "D"
25City of Culver City Syd Kronenthal 2-5 Play Area / Option 1
Great Western Park & Playground | Tyler Kyriopoulos_ 435-760-5103 _ Tyler@gwpark.com
DESIGN CONCEPT "D"
26DESIGN CONCEPT "D"
27City of Culver City Syd Kronenthal 2-5 Play Area / Option 2
Great Western Park & Playground | Tyler Kyriopoulos_ 435-760-5103 _ Tyler@gwpark.com
DESIGN CONCEPT "E"
28City of Culver City Syd Kronenthal 2-5 Play Area / Option 2
Great Western Park & Playground | Tyler Kyriopoulos_ 435-760-5103 _ Tyler@gwpark.com
DESIGN CONCEPT "E"
29DESIGN CONCEPT "E"
30June 2, 2015 Design Selections from the Yellow Comment Cards
Design Option
Number of times this Design
was selected as the Number 1
Design Choice
Number of times this Design
was selected as the Number 2
Design Choice
A 8 1
B 5 7
C 3 1
D 7 2
E 3 3
Total Votes Cast: 26 14
Total Number of Cards = 27
1 person did not vote for any of the Design Options but made comments.
12 people who voted for a #1 Design Option did not vote for a #2 Design Option.
ATTACHMENT 3
31June 2, 2015 Comments from the Yellow Comment Cards
Card No. 1st Choice 2nd Choice Comments
1 D None.
The 5 - 12 playground is not appropriate for all ages in this age range. Please make sure you adjust plans for any
other parks in Culver City getting a revamped playground. No slides! No swings!
2 C None.
Please use the additional money to be focused on the younger ones. The playground company needs to pay the
additional money.
3 A None. None.
4 A None. Sand. Tall slide. Swings. No spinners from 2 - 4 kids don't have coordination it's dangerous.
5 A None.
I was with kids and missed my chance to speak. But around the end of the spoken comment, someone
mentioned liking the space to be open & not fenced in. It is SUCH A RELIEF to take a "pre-rational" toddler
somewhere they can't wander into danger - especially if watching multiple kids. I often see requests on
Peachhead, the big local parents list, for enclosed playgrounds. I LIKE the enclosure. The things we miss most
are the tall slide w/ climbing structure, swings, and SAND. Sometimes my daughter would play only in the sand
and go home happy.
6 E B None.
7 A B None.
8 A None. It is very important to provide the younger children with traditional swings & safety swings.
9 A B I like the concept that has both a bucket swing and traditional swings.
10 A D
Need at least one bucket swing + one regular swing. *More than 2 swings would be better. That is where we
often get "lines." I like the spring rider but not the rotating net with deck. (in option C) Closing the toddler side
during the day AT ALL is unacceptable. Especially at nonstandard times. Re: Wood chips vs. sand - many
opportunities for development are lost with wood. Shade structure is NOT as important.
11 B None. Swings & sandbox!
12 None. None.
I do not like any of these designs because it allocates a tiny space to toddlers and excludes them from the larger
play yard. I disagree that there should be such a huge separation between ages. Ideal park to see is Glen Alla
Park, Stoner Park and Tongva Park. Older kids play side by side w/ toddlers. We miss the sand! Small kids
spend hours playing in the sand. Wood chips hurt our kids' feet! I think the unsafe equipment in the large yard
(older kids have gotten hurt) should be removed and replaced by toddler appropriate equipment. I like the
block captain idea!!
13 D None. Design D with infant swing, a toddler swing and a toddler bench.
14 E D There should be mixed swings. 1 normal swing 1 baby infant swing
32June 2, 2015 Comments from the Yellow Comment Cards
Card No. 1st Choice 2nd Choice Comments
15 D E Design D with infant style swing sets. Thank you for updating the playground!
16 D E None.
17 D A None.
18 D B None.
19 B E
The playground that you put in, how are the children going to play on it when it get(s) hot(?) Children need
swings and slides.
20 C A Main structure have more imaginary play.
21 A B
Design A with conventional swings. Want equipment that doesn't exclude one of age groups. Would like
(undecipherable word) + bucket swings. Think the spinner bowls are useless. Need to accommodate all age
groups, toddler and pre-school set, 6 months - 2 years; 2 - 5 years.
22 C B I love the double swing on E!
23 B C
The new playground equipment is really nice, but more age appropriate playground for little ones, would be
great.
24 B None. Please include standard swing sets.
25 B None.
There is quite a bid of wasted space in the redesigned big playground. The swing set that was there prior to be
(the) redesign should be replaced so there are swings for both age groups. In addition, the children miss the
tactile lessons learned from the sand, which should be replaced or at least a sandbox.
26 E B
Opportunity for kids to learn and be challenged cognitively & physically. Meet needs of toddlers and
preschoolers. Use more of the space - tables, music, shape/object recognition. Double slides - kids enjoy racing
down them. Keep fencing - safety for toddlers, they do not know to stay off the street. Moms Club
Communication: president@culvercityeastmomsclub.org
27 D None. Design D with the right swings.
33343536373839404142June 2, 2015 City Council & PRCS Commission Concurrent Meetings:
Draft Summary of Public Comments
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
--- This Excerpt Begins at Webcast 21:38 ---
First Public Comment Period
City Clerk Martin Cole – There are six cards, Mr. Mayor.
Marta Zaragoza – I live in this neighborhood and raised my children in Culver City. I was disturbed when
I found out that if it had not been for the two gentlemen who made others in the neighborhood aware of
this lack of transparency by the City, this meeting would not be taking place; as a result of their outreach,
now we have democracy. There is a reason for the separation of the 2 – 5 and 5 – 12 playgrounds and
that reason is safety. Problem - Only 180 public notification postcards (to a 500 foot radius of properties
bordering the Park) were sent out but there are 413 households in the neighborhood. Problem – Not
everyone uses the Internet so neighbors need to communicate with each other. There is no rush; we
need to get the right type of equipment for our children now, not do what is expedient for staff or the
committee. Remember that small children have different abilities and needs than older children.
Mariena Quintanilla – I appreciate you guys putting together this meeting. As a product manager, I want
to give you my professional opinion. I agree that we need feedback before we get the bid. There are
things that you guys can do so you can put out a bid that actually meets the needs of the neighborhood.
I know that the $60,000 remaining is for the sun shade and I hope that focusing on our younger children
does not preclude having a shade structure at the 5 – 12 playground since playgrounds do get hot. Keep
in mind that the playground should challenge the children both physically and mentally. The time we
spend in developing the playground reflects how much we value our children.
Justin Pole – My wife and I are concerned because our child is not allowed into the small children’s
playground area when the Pre-school is in session. The new playground equipment does not matter if we
cannot use it. The woman who works at the Pre-school told me that we are barred from the playground
when the Pre-school is in session; I have been told this many times. We need to get some resolution so
that the small children can use the equipment from 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. If we are paying the taxes
to use this stuff, then we need to be able to use this stuff, especially during the day when my daughter
would want to use it.
Vince Motyl – I live right across the street from this Park. I have been here for 38 years. The “old-timers”
call this McManus Park; the new people realize that it is Kronenthal Park. We know about the notification
system which really did not work in this case and I think that we’ll get that corrected. I want to say thank
you to the City Council and the PRCS Commission for recognizing the problem and acting so quickly to
hold this meeting. Thank you for getting it together and I hope that we get this resolved.
Erik Paesel – We are ecstatic that you are holding this meeting and that the City Council reacted so quickly
from the last meeting. We appreciate that everyone is here tonight. We talked about the public
notification and the fact that despite the public notification in the early years, there was no
communication with the community in the year before the equipment was installed in 2015, so this is
what happened!
ATTACHMENT 4
43June 2, 2015 City Council & PRCS Commission Concurrent Meetings:
Draft Summary of Public Comments
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
What we want is something like what they have at Veterans’ Park. At Veterans’ Park, there seems to be
three distinct age groups: the toddlers (6 months – 2 years), the preschoolers (2 – 5 age group) and the
school-age set (5 – 12 age group). We also want options that address all three age groups here at SK Park,
including both the toddlers and the 2 – 5 year olds. I am in favor of Option A if we can combine two swing
sets. The choice between only bucket swings or only conventional (flat) swings does not work for both
the toddler and 2 – 5 age groups. (Staff interjects here: There could be one of each.) There could be one
of each?
Mayor O’Leary – These are some of the comments we need in writing, this would be very specific and
very appropriate. Continue with your comments tonight.
Erik Paesel – What were the other Parks that you re-did?
PRCS Director Hernandez – Culver City Park, Fox Hills Park, and El Marino School all have the same type
of equipment we have here.
Erik Paesel – It’s all geared toward the 5 – 12 set?
Parks Manager Reynolds – No, at Culver City Park and Fox Hills Park we have both 2 – 5 and 5 – 12
equipment.
Erik Paesel – That is what we want!
Council Member Sahli-Wells – It’s a bigger space.
PRCS Director Hernandez – One of our issues here is that we do not have the large space that was
available at Fox Hills or Culver City Parks. We are restrained to the available playground spaces unless we
take out some of the other park amenities to accommodate a new playground structure.
--- Break in Record: This Excerpt Begins at Webcast 37:10 ---
Ken Mand – Thank you for coming out and hearing our concerns. All of these options are great for the 2
– 5 set. I want to re-emphasize that it would be great if everything remains on the super fast-track.
Basically, my daughter is three and I would like her to be able to use the equipment before she outgrows
it. For example, to speed-up the process maybe we can separate the procurement of the equipment from
the actual going out to bid and the preparation of the site for the playground installation. Thank could be
a way of picking up some time.
I think that the estimate to do the whole space was roughly $110,000 to $130,000. Is it possible for the
Council to approve a not-to-exceed amount at this evening’s meeting to get funding in place to speed up
the process? I would think that we can get consensus from the community within the next couple of
weeks regarding the design.
Also, just to be able to come up with creative ways to shorten the life-cycle of the whole project and going
out to bid. From here, it is pretty close; the designs are in place. Again, this is lessons learned for
everybody but I would really like to see something happen quickly. Whatever I can do to help, organize
and get the message out. I am more than happy to help out.
44June 2, 2015 City Council & PRCS Commission Concurrent Meetings:
Draft Summary of Public Comments
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
Marrischia Davis – I am a teacher here at the Pre-school. I have been in this classroom since 2001. Not
once have I been asked anything about our Program or the outside. I have been here every single day for
15 years but no one checked with me or with the other teachers about the changes at the playground.
We know what is going on here so I think that it would be imperative for you to check with the teachers.
I also wanted to address the locking out of the kids who aren’t age-appropriate for our area. We do close
the 2 – 5 playground area for 30 – 40 minutes a day while we are outside playing, only so the little kids do
not get hurt with our kids out there playing. Our kids are age 2½ to 5 and no matter how many times we
tell the kids to be careful, somebody gets hurt, especially with the red swing out here. But I would never
say, “Hey, you can’t come in here, we’ve got it from 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.” It does not happen, it does
not happen; only the time when we are outside for 30 or 40 minutes do I ask people to please come back
later.
Theodore Alamillo (a small child) – His mother, Nicole Alamillo, spoke for him: The first time he come to
the playground (after the new playground was installed) he cried because he could not do it, the new
equipment was too hard for him to play on. He just turned 5 last week. He wanted to tell you that then
new equipment was always too hard for him to play on.
Mayor O’Leary – (asks the children) What to you miss about the old playground equipment?
General Response – (from adults) Swings!
Saudra Davis – I am a 30 year resident. I wanted to say a couple of things. Teacher Mori (?) is my daughter
so I came out here to support her but also to support the babies because I come out here often and see
the babies playing in the class. But I wanted to say thank you so much City Council for coming out here
tonight. It is a demonstration of caring about the community; of democracy. I wanted to ask where the
public notices are posted because I heard that most people have not seen them. So I was kind of curious,
was it at City Hall, where was it? Also, not only new residents but also long-time residents are very
concerned about what happens at the playground. You have already addressed the issue of noticing the
impacted communities but I want to make sure that it actually happens and that people are made aware
that things are impacting their community.
Charles Babb – I am an interactive video game developer and level designer. I was looking at the actual
blueprints and I think that there are a lot of things missing, like things to develop cognitive play. Everything
is stationary but kids like to pick things up and carry them around, like Lego blocks. I don’t have children
now but I when I do I would like my kids to have things to carry around on the playground. Are there any
plans, any playground companies that will bring in these non-stationary cognitive play and movement and
imagination elements?
Mykeai Clark – I have a 5 year-old and a 1-year old and we are basically at this park every single day.
Before the installation of the new playground equipment, my 5 year old was able to do everything on the
playground independently since he was about 2 or 3 years old. Now, a lot of the activities require that
the parents participate, the kids can’t just come out and play independently. You mentioned that Culver
City Park was changed. We no longer go to that Park because my son did not like the changes and I did
not like them. We did not complain; we just quit going there. We stopped going because we did not like
45June 2, 2015 City Council & PRCS Commission Concurrent Meetings:
Draft Summary of Public Comments
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
the changes and (at that time) we could still come here. Blair Hills still has the traditional type of
playground equipment.
I can understand that there are needs for updates and that new technologies come into play as far as kids
cognitively developing. But, it seems to me that toddlers should still be able to play with their friends or
independently on the bigger apparatuses without parents being involved. Not to say that I mind being
involved because I love playing with my son. But, I don’t think that there should be such a huge separation
between the playground areas for ages 2 – 5 and 5 – 12, or whatever it might be.
City Clerk Martin Cole – And, Mr. Mayor, that concludes the speaker cards.
Webcast 49:50
At this point in the meeting, staff answered questions/concerned raised by the speakers, the members of
the City Council, and the members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission.
--- Break in Record: This Excerpt Begins at Webcast 80:50 ---
Second Public Comment Period
Nicole Alamillo – I agree that kids like to play with water and sand but we no longer go to the Park on
Jefferson because they added water to the playground and there is no emptying area for that water and
it became like a cesspool of germs; there is no drain. So, please do not add an area/feather like that here
at SK Park.
(At this point, there seems to be some confusion as to which area Ms. Alamillo is referring to at Culver City
Park but PRCS Director says that there is a drain and offers to give her his contact information so that they
can discuss it further.)
Irene Dorsey – I walk through the neighborhood a lot here. My husband and I have lived here for 35
years. One thing that I haven’t heard mentioned is that there are a lot of senior citizens in the
neighborhood. We may not even have kids but that does not mean that we are not interested in the Park
or in having a safe playground. The thing that concerns me is notification. I thank PRCS Commissioner
Garland for his suggestion (of using block captains to get flyers to everyone in the neighborhood) for
people who are not computer savvy or don’t have a computer, those who live in rear residences and/or
are shut-ins, who we know do not know about these things. Do not overlook the senior citizens – put
something in place to reach out to these people. We want to attract people who respect the property as
we respect the property. We do not want to see the neighborhood decline again. Culver City is new and
interesting and a lot of people want to come here. We’ve got to let the older homeowners know what’s
going on.
Marta Zaragoza – It is unfortunate that our Park was not assessed completely, both sides. It is unfortunate
also that our General Fund will be impacted because those responsible did not do it right. Let’s do it right
before you finish now. So there is $61,000 because most of it was used on the other side for the older
children. It was used for our children, yes, but it was not used equally for all the children. Your mistake
does not constitute us having to have a poor standard for how you are going to complete the Project…and
46June 2, 2015 City Council & PRCS Commission Concurrent Meetings:
Draft Summary of Public Comments
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
you thought you had completed it already. So, please, whatever you have to do. And, yes, the parent
that brought up the part about shading, thank you, because even with it not being summer, those slides,
those handles get very hot. So please ensure there is shading.
Mariena Quintanilla – In respect to communication with the Mom’s Club, I did write the president’s email
address, we have a generic one. The Board is going to be shifting at the end of the month. So hopefully
you guys will be able to see that on comments. I don’t know if there is something for community groups
to subscribe to that is different than the one for regular residents. I agree with what everyone is saying…it
is great to hear everyone’s feedback. Thank you to everyone from the community who came.
As part of my Mom’s Club, I would love to hear that people want to hold events here at this Park. I am
one of maybe half-a-dozen families that live in the Helms Arts District, out of about one hundred families
in the Mom’s Club. But no one wants to have an event here. Everyone wants to be in Carlson Park which
is where a lot of the members live, which is just viewed a little bit differently. I love this neighborhood
within Culver City and would like to see it treated and valued with respect.
Council Member Sahli-Wells reminds everyone to sign up for email notifications on the City’s website.
City Clerk Martin Cole tells those who have provided their email address that they will be signed up for
both the “Syd Kronenthal Park Neighborhood” email notification group and the “City Council Meetings
and Agendas” email notification group.
Vince Motyl – I never realized that it cost so darn much money to build a playground. We know we have
$61,000 left. I think it is being somewhat unrealistic, in this budget year, to go to the City Council, when
we have so many other needs, to ask for another $50,000 for a Park. My question is, what can be done
with the $61,000 we have left?
Mayor O’Leary notes that all questions will be answered at the end of the public comment period.
Peggy Koyanagi – Thank you for coming out and responding to our needs. I am part of the Mom’s Club,
as well. I don’t want to be a naysayer, but on my card, I could not choose an option, to be honest. I feel
kind of like, the woman here, that a mistake was possibly made in the designing of what was placed. I
feel very sad for future kids because I do not think that my kids will be able to play in the area because it
is going to take too long. But because I am a part of this community and I care about the future of other
children as well, I don’t think it is fair to give them a substandard solution. I am actually an interior
designer and I always take the needs of my clients into account when designing a space.
I disagree with completely separating the children. If you want specific examples, I hate to say this
because I love Culver City, but we often take our kids to (Glen) Alla, Stoner and Tongva Parks. If you want
to see examples of equipment that works really, really well. Many, many of my friends meet there
because they love the play equipment. And I know that we are limited by budget, but in an ideal world,
children of different ages like to play together, they learn from each other. For example, my children go
to Montessori School where the philosophy is that younger kids learn from older kids and separating them,
I don’t think is what they benefit from.
47June 2, 2015 City Council & PRCS Commission Concurrent Meetings:
Draft Summary of Public Comments
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
Ken Mand – Just wanted to touch base on a couple of things…The water and sand table would be great
but we are on a limited budget and the expense of bringing plumbing out there seems unnecessary
because we are just looking for 2 – 5 year old stuff. The shade structure (at the 5 – 12 playground) would
be great, again limited budget. We are lucky to have a lot of trees around the side and there are two
separate pavilions where people can get a reprieve from the sun. So, while that would be great, I don’t
necessarily want that expense to be a hindering factor for getting something for 2 – 5 year olds.
I was a little bit confused, Dan, would this be two separate contracts that would go out, one for
procurement of the equipment and one for installation, or is it all in one? I just wanted to bring up, I saw
some old (meeting) minutes from a Project at Fox Hills where Kompan equipment was able to be listed as
a no-known equal without substitution as a way to grant the funding without necessarily public bidding
it.
Justin Pole – I just want to say that I think signage would be a great idea. I think clarity of communication
between the Park and the people that are using it, especially regarding the Pre-School would be great.
The other thing that I wanted to say, too, is that I really hope that this can get figured out how the 2 – 5
children can get serviced as well, because if the money was allocated that all children would be getting
this revamped structure and this obviously doesn’t work. I think that something needs to be figured out,
especially if an “oops” was made and they were forgotten. I mean, now, it’s like the hands are tied and
it’s almost like, “Sorry 2 – 5 year-olds, we don’t have any money.” And I don’t think it is appropriate to
say to everyone in the neighborhood, “Go raise your own money,” especially if there was already money
there on the table that should have been spent for 2 – 5 year olds.
Mykeai Clark – Just to reiterate what the other lady said about the (age) separation. I mentioned earlier
that I have a 5-year old and a 1-year old. Am I supposed to put my 1-year old one place and let my 5-year
old go run on his own? Because you guys mentioned that the two age groups can’t be combined for some
reason. It would, once again, be nice if both could kind of mesh together in the same playground.
Also, the gate, I kind of like the gate because it does keep the little kids separated from what could possibly
be going on. I have to run and grab my son on this new equipment because if he starts getting too close
he is going to get kicked in the head, or something serious could possibly happen.
--- End of Excerpt at Webcast 97:40 ---
48Dear Council Members:
We, the East Culver City Neighborhood around Syd Kronenthal Park have come
together and provided our Community Consensus for one of the design options
presented to us at the 6/2/15 Council Meeting.
On Wednesday 6/10/15, we relayed our selection of Design Option ‘A’ to Mr. Dan
Hernandez and Mr. Martin Cole, with one flat swing and one bucket swing. As
Mr. Hemandez stated during the 6/2/15 Council Meeting, making this minor
modification to the swing is quite simple to implement.
Enclosed you will find a list of the Community Members who have come forward
to voice their opinion on the 2-5 year old play structure, as well as the voting
forms we developed to gather input at our 6/9/15 Community Meeting at the Echo
Horizon School. As you can see, the votes were well over 90% in support of the
design Option ‘A’.
Our Neighborhood is a dynamic group of new homeowners and long established
Culver City residents. The Syd Kronenthal Park Playground has been a central
meeting place for many of the parents of young children in our area. As these
friendships develop at the Park, the Community strengthens as a whole. With the
removal of the old structure that all kids could use and installation of the new play
structure that only caters to older children, the heart of our Community has been
diminished. Parents with 2-5 year olds are now forced to drive to other parks in
the area, which is both laborious and time consuming.
The installation of new equipment to serve the 2-5 year olds will help to not just
enrich our little ones’ lives, but to also reestablish the Syd Kronenthal Park as our
Community gathering point.
Culver City is truly the gem of the Westside and we sincerely thank all the support
of Council Members and City Staffto rectify the unintended negative effects of
the new play structure selection and implementation. Adding the 2-5 Year Old
Design Option ‘A’ will be a fantastic improvement, and surely will be cherished
by our Community.
ATTACHMENT 5
49psgis
CCP
ecrt:i onrepu1ic
SYD ?AK
Cli CITY, CA• MAY 28, 2015
1bii
KOMPAN
6’7 ELEMENTS SWING
J
BUCKET SEATS
i s-kr
‘wi4-
- -
L
.A I
Phone: 760.690.4030 ToIl Free: 888.84361 28• Far.: 760.282.7082 Web Nw.recrepuS0c.com
KOMPAN
COrE4GE
PLAYHOUSE
KOMPAN
FLOW 1
50Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
51Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
52Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
53
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
54
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
55
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
56
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
57
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
58
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
59
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
60
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
61
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
62
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
63
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
64
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
65
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
66
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
67
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
68
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
69
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
70
Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
71Contact information has been removed. City Clerk has original copies on file.
72Syd Kronenthal Park 2-5 Playground Budget Based on Design Concept 'A'
DESIGN
CONCEPT "A"
% of
Construction: Recreation Republic Total
1 Playground Equipment, Tax & Freight $32,752.00
2 Mobilization $7,500.00
3 Demo Exist. Equipment & Rubber Surfacing $5,250.00
4 Demo Exist. Subgrade 13" Depth $9,750.00
5 Survey $500.00
6 ADA Ramp $3,600.00
7 Sumps $2,500.00
8 Fine Grading & Compaction incl.
9 Playground Equip Installation $37,148.00
10 Filter Fabric & EWF Provide & Install $9,525.00
11 Clean & Restore Area incl.
12 Subtotal Construction Costs $108,525.00
13 Contingency - 10% $10,850.00
14 Change Orders - 10% $10,850.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $130,225.00 95%
Administration:
15 Staff Design/Administration $6,250.00
16 Playground Audit $500.00
17 ADA Surfacing Cert. $500.00
18 CEQA $100.00
ADMINISTRATION SUBTOTAL $7,350.00 5%
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $137,575.00
PROP 'A' GRANT UNEXPENDED FUNDS $62,051.20
TOTAL UNFUNDED AMOUNT REMAINING $75,523.80
ATTACHMENT 6
73Unofficial Transcript of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Members’
Final Comments at the June 2, 2015 Concurrent Meetings
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
--- This Excerpt Begins at Webcast 100:30. ---
Final Comments from the PRCS Commission
Councilmember Clark – …I would like some advice from the Commission.
Commissioner Heineman – As I understand it, the grant was sought specifically for a specific amount of
equipment for a specific age. Right?
PRCS Director Hernandez – That is correct.
Commissioner Heineman – So, if that’s the case then I don’t particularly perceive this as correcting
something that should have been done. I keep hearing that a mistake was made. I think, if you wanted
something in addition to what was done…but if the grant was, from the way I understand it, for that then
what is left, I could see being utilized toward something else. But knowing the budget as it is going right
now, I think it is really a hard thing. And hearing Chair Stuart talk about other people seeking out…possibly
the community maybe needs to go out and help to try to seek some more funds. That is just my feeling.
Chair Stuart – This is a Culver City tradition. People ban together as neighborhoods, they raise funds to
do things. Like I said, Vets’ (playground) was rebuilt because Dan O’Brien and the Great Parks Association
reached out to KaBOOM! and got money to rehab that playground.
My suggestion to do that is, because you need to understand the budget, and you need to understand
the dire straits that every City, not just us, is in financially.
I don’t think they made a mistake. They applied for funds for a certain period of time. There is a
playground out there. My daughter would never play on any playground equipment. She did not like it.
Every kid is different.
A community that organizes to help themselves is a strong community. And, government can’t always do
it; they just can’t. Now, they may be able to add to it; they may not. I have seen the budget, it is pretty
rough, it’s real rough. And so, if they have choose between tearing out this (2 – 5 playground) or building
affordable housing, I wonder what they are going to choose? Or what they may have to, because that for
the betterment of the entire community.
And I appreciate them discussing it, but I also appreciate the position that they are in with the budget and
with what little money we have. So, consequently, when I say to a community, you need to organize, it’s
really good if you do. We have community garden people that are organizing because they want more
community garden space. They want to figure out a way to create a community. We don’t have land but
they are creating ways to have this community. It is an old tradition and that is the reason I suggested it
to you guys. You know, it’s been done before, it will be done again.
But if they want to fund it, that is fine with me to, too. I am glad to see it funded. I am just saying, that is
the reason we suggest you participate.
Vice Chair Zeidman – I still remain disappointed in the process. I would have like to have seen the public
involved ahead of time. However, it looks like all the money that was spent was spent here so it wasn’t
ATTACHMENT 7
74Unofficial Transcript of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Members’
Final Comments at the June 2, 2015 Concurrent Meetings
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
like the City took the money for the grant and put it somewhere else. So you got the value of the money
that was there. Unfortunately, probably could have been, should have been or might have been spread
out differently to allow for more age groups which would have meant a smaller or less expensive group
for the older kids. And I am disappointed in that. It would have been much better, looking back, and I
wasn’t on the Commission back then either, if everyone was involved ahead of time.
In the future, apparently, we are all going to be involved and that will be great. The problem we have
now is that there is $61,000 left and we don’t know what it is going to cost. Director Hernandez has said
it might be $115,000 but I doubt it, or it might be $140,000; we don’t even know. So, if you are looking
for advice, my advice to you is don’t do anything until you get a definitive cost. Because allocating $40,000
more and finding out that that gives you another substandard structure, doesn’t work.
Why spend $100,000 on something that is not right if it turns out that it is going to cost $170,000.
Alternatively, if it can be done on $100,000, then come back and say, “Hey, we need $40,000, this is what
we have.” If the community participates or not, and you guys can deal with that on your own, but this is
what we need. But right now, we are saying, yeah, let’s do something but I don’t know what and allocate
money but we don’t know how much and maybe it will work. That makes no sense whatsoever.
And so, my marching orders would be to staff, to find out immediately what it is going to cost. Get
somebody out here and find out what it is going to cost, what we can do. And then and only then, come
back and say, “This is how much money we need.”
Commissioner Kent Marin – It is not my position that a mistake was made in the manner that the current
grant money was spent. It is my position that the transparency in public notice was where the greatest
error was made and it seems like we are doing the most learning there. So, so far, so good. I am trying
to imagine what future community input would look like because I am skeptical that the public is equipped
to look at specs and know from a two-dimensional image that their kid would or would not be able to
reach something or would feel engaged or need parental involvement. I am skeptical that that would
happen, that there would be any appropriate expertise from parents that the suggested equipment is
appropriate.
But, what I imagine community input would look like is, yes, inviting comment, but also specific targeted
survey questions:
? How old are your kids?
? How many kids do you have?
? What is your currant usage of the currant equipment look like?
? Where are your satisfactions and dissatisfactions?
And that would be a way that I perceive getting community input into the pre-bid process. So I wanted
to say that.
I do not feel that I can counsel you (the City Council) on whether or not to put a line item in the budget.
I’m sorry. So, I only want to give input on what I think the public notice and community conversation
should look like.
75Unofficial Transcript of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Members’
Final Comments at the June 2, 2015 Concurrent Meetings
Please Note: This is not an official record of the meeting; some comments are paraphrased.
Commissioner Garland – I believe that the area right back behind us here (the 5 -12 playground area)
probably does not need a shade structure with the trees, with the existing shade areas that are there.
Fortunately, we live in Culver City where we have this wonderful climate. I would like to see that $61,000
carried over to whatever we are going to do next. And that would be a nice way to start doing whatever
we are going to do. Hopefully, we can get a bid or some numbers that are reasonable and we can
somehow find the money to do what is necessary.
--- End of Excerpt at Webcast 109:30 ---
76