HomeMy WebLinkAbout0419.091•
,~-'
,
r
~ ~ sta!lelJOi t ____ 5
l september 5, 1991
Honcrabla City Council
Palo Alto, California
Greer p.r1t S1t3.teb¢J~,_~J·,~cility
Members of the Council:
This report wi 11 h!'"ing Council up-to-date on the status of the
Greer park Skateboard Facility. It also s::.ts forth concer-ns
regarding safet.y and continuing operational costs. The report
recommends that: 1j the existjng facility be closed for safety and
cost reasons, and 2) staff be dire.::ted to devise a new' plan to
acco~odats the needs of Palo Alto skateboarders and report back to
C~uncil within six months.
In April 19500, Cou.!"lcil authoriz€'d inclusion of a sknteooard
facility in the Greer Park Master Plan. The fa~ility was built at
a cost of approximately $95,000. Shortly after its opening in mid
January 1991, staff reported to Council (CMR:166:91) that several
problems regarding operation of the facility had arisen. As a
result of these difficulties l staff met ~ith users of the facility
and subsequently reported to Council that several changes to
operations ~ould be put into effect.
In May 1991, the City Attorney reported that his office had
discovered a state statute reql.liring the "operator of a skateboard
parkft to ~llo* skateboarding only if skaters wore helmets, elbow
pads and knee pads. In t:r..e City Attorney's opinion~ this code
requirement was never intended to apply to unsupervised publ ic
facilities. Tiii::;: requirement "w'as discussed '~,rith council on May 28,
1991, at which time the ~ity Manager reparted that he had taken the
following steps to assure aoded safety at the facility:
1. The hours of the skateboard facility W'ere SE:!t at 8:00
A.M. to 8:00 P.M. daily.
2. Sign~ 'Jere to be post.ed advising skl3.ters of the City
regulati:ms including the need to .... 'ear safety equipment.
CMF.~.t19:91
1
c,
.,
.; ''''''",,"",,< ~."" -
-
3 .
o
City monitoring to
eq~ipment regulations
the s~ateboa~d park.
assure compliance with safety
~'as ordered fot' all open !'lours of
~.liei].t.ale ar.d Use of thn.::_f.i:tcjlity
Experience .. -1 th the faci 1 i ty shorN'S that the number of skaters
during off school Se2:50n variE:s ceb,een 50 and 120 per day.
Activity is heaviest on ;.rcekends and after school/work hours.
Users are almost all ~ale between the ages of 5 and 45, with the
average between 15 and 26. Skaters represen: same 120 cities, ~any
traveling overnight to reach the facility as its reputation has
grown. Experience dl:ring the su:mrn.er shows that most morning
skaters are betveen 8 and 14 years oldi afternoon users are 12 to
20 years old; and evening skater~ are 15 to 25 years old. Skaters
willingly use protective equipment when required to do so, but
appear less likely to use the gear if left to their o ... ·n devices.
ConO,l.l.ct in the bo· ... l is accepta:ble j ·..,ith skaters exercising
con.siderabl.g influenca over those -who might be prone to be reckless
or disorderly.
The skill requi:&:-ed to negotiate the bo' .. '1 has served to select those
ltrho use it. Over time j younger less experienced skaters have
declined in number as older j more expert users have come to the
facility. The facility is clearly not -3. "beginner" level f2llcilitY4
Apcident History
Because skatebearding requirzs substantial physical skill, staff
3.nticipated that some accidents might occur at the facilitY4
Initial problems involving recklessness; lack of proper safety
equipme.nt, and improper conduct in the bo\rll have been markedly
reduced by providing full-time supervision at the facility.
Despite 'these precautioT~S; accidents do occur. Te date, our
records i~dic~te seven medical c~lls to the skateboard park. In
each case paramedic personne I responded and, in the case of three
of these calls l the inj\:.red parties ',.;ere transported to Sta::'lford
Hospital for further treatnent. Beca~se the sport requires fast
reaction time, balance, and is conducted at high speed, ",e can
expect accidents to continue even with the highest level of staff
monitoring.
In July 1991, aT. accident occurred at the skateboard faci 1 i ty
involving a sin91e individual ""ho -was transported to Stanford
Hospita14 In early August a second ace ident e.ccurred, after the
park. had closed for the day, involving two individuals. Both
accidents were serious and caused staff to revie'J safety practices
at the facility. The early August incident has prompted staff to
establish nighttime security r,easures to assure that the faci 1 i ty
is not used after dark. Another serious accident occurred in late
August resulting in temporaI"Y loss of consciousness on the pdrt of
CMR:419:91
2
i.
~
I
I
I
l
, .-'-
-
the skater.
A special problem has arisen regarding use of the bowl after hours.
While the bo'.l "closes" at 8:00 P.M., a number of skaters have made
use of it after dark. This is a serious concern for many reasons,
including the fact that the facility has no night lighting. One clf
the more serious accidents occurred after the fac i 1 i ty .... ·as closed
and involved two skaters co) li::En'3 head on at high speed. On a
temporary basis, a night guard has been stationed at the bowl to
secure it after dark. Reports fro-.:n. the guard indicate that
ini tially some :2 5 to 40 s'.aters \oIere turner:) a .... ·ay each night after
dark. That number has nO'..· dropped to approxi::tatelj 3 to 5 each
night.
A number of skaters have reported that injuries are more common
than we knowi but because they fear closure of the facility by the
City, injured parties do not report all accidents to us.
Ehysical Facility and Secu __ ~ __ u-y
The skateboard park is easily accessible. The fence surrounding
the facility is a low four to six foot fence designe~ to demark the
bowl and not to provide any C1easure of nighttime security. The
main access to the facility is a gated entrance ,.;hich can be
locked; however', the gate is not designed to provide lockout
security.
OUr research did not discover any "standa::-d" skateboard bo· • ...! design
nor were .'e able to find any l:";easure of the level of difficillty
attached to various d8signs. The architect engdged by the city has
cesigned several facilities in the · .... estern united States and feels
that this facility should be classified as "beginner to
intermediate" in difficulty.
Finances
.Aside fro!!! the capital costs, no funds .,·ere anticipate::i to be spent
to operate this facility. Operational p.xperience and the accident
history has led us tc temporarily assign staff to supervise the
bowl during th~ day and to provide seC'Jr i ty at night. The cost of
such services is high and will total $30. 000 by the end of
September. Costs to provide tt.ese services .... ·ould vary as hours are
reduced due. to schc>ol sessions and fall/,winter daylight hours.
Staff is investigating the imposition of a fee to offset these
costs~ however. the practicality of setting the fee high enough to
cover all costs may make this approach infeasible.
!nsurance costs for the facility are borne entirely by the City's
liability insurance fund. Our e.xcess insura~ce (over the normal $1
million exposure} is inapplicable here, and so the entire burden of
CMR:419:91
J
L
•
•
"~ ~ ..
>':';'-
•
\. • ): .
..
~
!
I
I
, ,
," , , ,
~
'I
-
o
any insurance payout falls to the General Fu~d.
Several observations/conclusions can be made regarding t~e above
information. First. the facility does not seem to be serving the
population intended by t.he CounciL Early teenagers and high
schoolers must compete 'With ILll1ch older and i'!lore experier.ced
skaters. While a mix of skaters is desirable~ it appears that the
facility, because of its design and challenge, tends to encourage
older, more experienced skaters. Redesign of the facility to
reduce the level of difficulty and thus help attract beginning to
intermediate skaters is expensive --between $30.000 to $50,000.
Observations by the monitors indicate that approximately 50 percent
of the users are Palo Alto tee~'ls. Manz~ younger skateboarders
continue to use parking lots, shopping centers, school grounds,
etc.
Second, providing monitoring has reduced accidents by controlling
behavior in the 00'10'1 and assuring the use of protective safety
eguipm~nt. Despite the reduction r accidents still occur, largely
due to the nature of the activity. No amount of monitoring ~ill
guarantee that. accidents ;.will not OCC1.lr. Skdt.ers travelling at
high speed .,i11 still collide or cotterr,pt mane-:.lvers b.eyond their
skill levels. At least t ... 'o of the most recent accidents have been
serious enough to require hospi ta 1 rled ical tre.atment. Removing
supervision will likely result in increased accidents and the
discarding of safety gear.
Third, the fi nancial and potential 1 iabil i ty exposure is
significantly higher than anticipated~ Man:t city programs C2.rry
some degree of safety :r 15k. In every other case ..... e are able to
regulate the activity in order to bring the risk to within
acceptable levels. In addition, we are often able to pass the
liability on to the progra:;, user thus protecting the general
taxpayer~ We are unable. to do eitt,er in this case. No other
recreational program under Ol.'r jurisdictio."l involves the
corr.bination of speed and acrobatic ability required r~ere~ Even if
we found it possible to obtain liability lJaivers from users
(difficult if not. impossible iQr youngsters to deliver to us" ~~
still cannot rule out the likelihOOd of a "'legitimate'" accident
causing irreparable har~ to an individual.
Fourth, we are confronted ~ith a completely unanticipated problem
in the form of uI'lauthorized night time use~ The guard w'e have
posted during the nighttirne hours reports that he regularly de:nies
access to individuals as late as 3;(10 A.H~ If '*'e remove the guard,
we "'Quld have to substitute some form of physical security to
ensure that no one would attempt to use the bo'",l at night. Aside
from the cost of installi ng such an i.:r.pro·'..:ement, there is some
CMR:419:91
4
,
I
!
I
I
---"~
r
1
".
•
" ~ ;-'::~'" -,
,0 . .,
questicn as to "!h~ther or not any security device · ... e build would be
effective.
In summary, our experience to dat€ has been mixed. We are able to
e~sure the reasonable safety of participants as long as we continue
to supervise the facility heavily. At the same time, because of
the nature of the activity. no am~unt of supervision ~ill eliminate
serious accidents. Some of those accidents again, because of the
nature of the sport, 'Will be serious and possibly life threatening.
These two factors --safE:ty and costs --turr' out to be overriding
concerns. There app~ar to be four basic options at this point:
1. continue operation of the bo~l as we now do. This means
supervision during open hours and s~ree kind cf nighttime
security during off hours. The cost of such an operation
is apprcximately $lQO,OOo/year.
2. continue operation of the. bc .... l 'With reduced supervision.
This would mean some sort of spot checking to assure that
users were voluntarily observing all rules.
3. Make physica I changes to the bo .... l to help reduce accident
potential and attract a different group of users.
4. Discontinue use of the bo .... l. This ~ould involve some one
time closure costs.
Recommendation
It is my recommendation that Counci 1 adopt Option 4 above and
authorize closure of the bawl. No other action deals with both
safety and costs as effectively. We have always prided ourselves
on our ~illingness to ~experiment~ and provide services and
facilities other cO!!lrnunities might l::;e reluctant to try. In those
cases where our acti ons t'.avE: subsequently proven to be \In,",,ise~ '",'e
have been equally willing to discontinue the ~experimental~
service. The skateboard bo .... 'l appears to fit this category. After
nir.e mcnths of operation~ we find that \.Ie are not serving the
population ~e set out to serve; the costs are very high at a time
when we can least afford added costs; redesign of the facility
would be costly; and the risk of 5srious injury to users is high
even 'With supervision. These factors. --and IT,Qst particularly the
last one --cOl!l.bine to rnakp.: continued operation of the bowl an
inappropriate activity for the City.
Closing the existing bo....,l does not obviate the rJeed for a safe and
appropr iate venue for skateboardsl s. The sport is embraced by
large numbers of Palo Alto tc=ns and deserve.s some consideration in
the City~s overall recreational offerings. Consequently~ I further
recommend that Council direct starf to · .... ork with appropriate
CMR:419: 91
5
•
,-
1
I
I
I
i
-
o o
parties to pr"'~pare a: proposal for accommodating skateboarders'
needs. This proposal should focus directly on the needs of Palo
Alto skateboarders, appropriate levels of difficulty, safety and
cost. Staff should report back to Council within six months vith
such a proposal or, in the alternative, an explanation of ~hy such
a pl~n cannot be reco~~ended~
Respectfully submitted,
{ J:L.'~'/ w~~ Z'::"i'-R"'/---
City ran~qer
CMR:419:91
6
•
, .'
f.
/