Figure 5-12: Parkshed Gaps Assuming Future MOUs with All Schools

FIGURE 5-12: Parkshed Gaps Assuming Future MOUs with All Schools

5.3 DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS

5.3.1 Design Guidelines

From a design standpoint most of the parks visited consist of a “suburban aesthetic” – they fit well into the context of the surrounding neighborhoods, and have a clean, well maintained landscape aesthetic. Trees and turf are the dominant vegetative material with some planting beds scattered throughout some of the sites. Some of the park sites have notable architectural features, but for the most part restroom and pavilion architectural materials consist of different types of concrete masonry unit (CMU) block or masonry facades with varying roof materials.

Design Guideline 1: Accessibility

From a design standpoint, accessibility should be a high priority for every park project that is undertaken to promote equality for people with disabilities, as well as comply with the U.S. Access Board/State of California standards. Staff that designs or manages construction projects should be familiar with accessibility standards; if this expertise is not present with existing staff members there are many classes available that can inform staff regarding accessibility standards. Larger capital projects often have design teams that provide accessibility quality control review, but it is important that the Division also keep a watchful eye on the work being designed and constructed, as another set of quality control review helps protect Oceanside’s infrastructure investments.

Hiring a third-party accessibility consultant is another option if in-house staff does not have accessibility expertise. A third-party accessibility consultant can review construction drawings prior to the drawings being issued for bid; if the drawings contain items that do not meet accessibility standards, it is significantly cheaper to catch such issues prior to the design being constructed and revise the drawings prior to bid instead of trying to fix non-compliant items after construction has already occurred. If a system-wide ADA Assessment has not been performed for the entire park system, it is highly recommended that a third-party ADA consultant be hired to make an assessment so that a plan can be put into place to remedy the deficiencies that are found. An important standard that is easily overlooked is the U.S. Access Board Standards for Outdoor Developed Areas which provides very specific ADA requirements for trails, benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, grills, camping facilities, picnic facilities, and viewing areas, to name a few. Each time a feature like those listed above needs to be replaced it is a good opportunity to evaluate if the area meets current ADA codes, and plan what can be done to remedy any accessibility deficiencies.

Lastly, in addition to meeting ADA standards it is recommended that new playground facilities also be designed to be inclusive. While ADA standards require that playgrounds can be accessed and entered by children with disabilities, an inclusive playground is designed to make the playground components usable to all children regardless of differing physical, mental, and social abilities. Special emphasis should be placed on ensuring the design allows for every child to interact with their peers or if they chose, play independently.

Design Guideline 2: Safety

From a design standpoint, CPTED should be a high priority for every design project that is undertaken. Staff that is responsible for park design or manages park construction projects should be well versed with the general principles of CPTED; if existing staff is not familiar with CPTED principles, there are training classes available. Large capital projects often have design teams that should be considering CPTED throughout the design process, but it is important for the Division to also keep a watchful eye on park projects being designed and constructed because Oceanside staff will have an insightful perspective regarding the dayto-day workings and challenges of a given site.

Safety within a public park system is a complex issue that can often be improved by proactively introducing additional amenities, features, and programs into a site to attract a greater number of users for the maximum number of hours throughout the day, which has a tendency of dispersing unwanted activities.

Lighting can play an important role in safety, perceived safety, and deterrence of unwanted nighttime activities, while also allowing the public to use the park system for longer hours each day. New LED lighting technology reduces the annual cost of lighting a park while also reducing the level of lighting maintenance required due to the long life of the

LED fixtures. For sites where installing underground electric lines is impossible, solar light kits are available, although pedestrian lights that utilize solar kits are often not aesthetically pleasing.

To help unify the park system and create a cohesive Oceanside “brand” we recommend two to three standard light poles/fixtures be selected. For example, a pole/fixture could be selected that works well with most Oceanside’s parks, something that has a suburban aesthetic, and another pole/fixture could be selected for parks which have a historic feel. In addition to unifying the brand of Oceanside’s parks, limiting the standards to two to three will also benefit maintenance staff as they will only need to stock a few different types of parts.

During the public workshops, concern regarding activity related to the homeless population was mentioned by the public. Parks that currently experience unwanted nighttime activities should be evaluated from a CPTED standpoint to see if there are design factors that contribute to the problem (lack of lighting, lack of visibility into the site for law enforcement due to tall plantings, and lack of programming/activities to attract lawful activity). Additionally, if site conditions exist that are conducive to sleeping in the park (i.e. someone can comfortably lay down on a bench, or seat wall) it would be worthwhile to consider providing site furnishings that encourage the public to relax while discouraging sleeping activities; standardizing these furnishings, similar to how the light fixture standardization was described above, would be appropriate.

Law enforcement presence is an important component of park safety, but law enforcement alone often cannot solve complex safety issues within a park system. A balanced approach of CPTED based design, site lighting, increasing the number of amenities, features, and programs to attract the greatest number of park users to a site for the greatest number of hours throughout the day, together with law enforcement will often improve safety and perception of safety within a park.

Lastly, park staff that oversees playground construction or renovations should be trained using the Certified Playground Safety Inspector Certification Program. Regardless of whether staff will perform playground audits, the expertise gained from this program will contribute to safer playgrounds throughout Oceanside’s park and recreation system.

Design Guideline 3: Park Experience

When considering different park experiences that the public can access in Oceanside it is helpful to consider the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a system used by the U.S. Forest Service to manage parks for several decades. While an in-depth understanding of ROS is beneficial, as it relates to the Oceanside Parks and Recreation Division describing and understanding the different types of parks and recreation experiences the public can participate in is what is most important. Park planners could assist the City with tailoring an ROS system to the City of Oceanside’s unique park experience offerings, which would enable the Division to proactively provide new amenities without adversely affecting the unique park experiences already found within the park system.

A quick example of how the ROS system can be applied to help inform the decision making process is as follows: a resident can go for a walk at an indoor recreation center, a beach park, or a suburban park, but their experience is very different at each of the three sites, hence they have a spectrum of different experiences even though the lens through which they experienced the different sites (walking) is the same.

Based upon public workshops and the Master Plan survey, additional walking and biking trails, pathways, and interconnectivity within the parks system is a top request from the public; as such, from an ROS standpoint it could be said that Oceanside’s residents are interested in recreation opportunities that includes providing additional access to trails within the park system. Of note, other requests made by the public included special event spaces, recreation centers, providing parks in closer proximity to all residents, and preserving open space.

In evaluating such requests, we recommend Oceanside first consider the spectrum of recreation opportunities that exist within the park system. This starts by using the inventory of features/amenities available within each park, and then asks the question “what is the experience of this amenity” within a given park – for example, how does the experience of a picnic area adjacent to a playground compare with the experience of a picnic area within a quiet naturalistic park? Does the park system have a lot of picnic areas adjacent to playgrounds, making that experience common? Does the park system have a small quantity of picnic areas situated in naturalistic parks, making that experience unique?

By identifying unique features and more importantly unique experiences that already exist within the park system, Oceanside can make ROS-informed decisions and feel confident that adding features to the park system does not alter existing unique experiences in an adverse way. Some notable experiences that stood out to the consultant team include the memorable trees and sense of enclosure experienced at Spring Creek Park, distinct topography of Joseph Sepulveda, memorable trails of Oak Riparian Park, and historic structures of Heritage Park.

As an example, if a playground is desired nearby an existing small parking lot within a naturalistic park, from an ROS standpoint you would start by considering if the naturalistic park experience is common or unique within the park system. Then you would perform an analysis of how the proposed playground will affect the public’s experience and the environmental quality of the naturalistic park. It is highly likely that a playground will cause an increase in the volume of visitors to the park, and that human impacts to the site will radiate outward from the playground site. This simple ROS-based analysis which could easily be performed by a park planner, can help Oceanside to proactively consider if the proposed playground alters the naturalistic park experience in an appropriate, or inappropriate way.

As a park system matures over the decades it often loses its most distinct experiences. Pressure from the public often causes each park to become “all things to all people” and as a result parks begin to have similar amenities and experiences. When the public has a great experience at a park across town it is logical that they request the same experience in their nearby neighborhood park. It is recommended that Oceanside identify and preserve the most unique experiences currently found within the park system for future generations; the ROS system is one way to do so because it provides a planning system that helps inform the decision making process, which in turn helps the Division proactively provide new amenities and experiences in the park system without adversely affecting the unique park experiences that currently exist.

Design Guideline 4: General Park Aesthetics

Park aesthetics relates to how a site is perceived by members of the public. This section is based upon observations made during site visits and provides some suggestions to help improve the general park aesthetics.

For many parks the experience begins in the parking lot, and some of the parks lacked adequate shade trees; adding more trees into the parking lots create a cooler, more welcoming entry experience for the public while simultaneously helping with the heat-island affect from a sustainability standpoint. Solar canopies in parking lots also provide relief from the sun while providing energy for the park, although they usually are not as inviting as a tree canopy.

Waste enclosures are often located within parking lots in a location convenient for the waste management services. The trash enclosures with opaque gates, as opposed to transparent or semi-transparent gates with vertical slats, provide better visual separation from waste/recycling related activities, thus improving the experience of the park. Waste enclosures located in highly visible locations was observed at some parks. In the future as these waste enclosures need to be rebuilt, it is recommended to locate them out of the direct line of site of the public, and/or using muted colors/vegetation to minimize their visual presence on the site.

While the Park Experience section spoke to the need to preserve distinct recreation experiences throughout the park system, a sense of system wide unification is also desirable. Oceanside’s typical identification signage is a good way to provide continuity within the park system. One simple way to highlight this signage and further unify the park system is to add a few ornamental trees nearby each park identification sign, creating a pleasant visual cue for the public.

Consistency of branding with architecture can be challenging because so many of Oceanside’s park buildings already exist. To further unify the park system, when the time comes to repaint or replace structures, a park system wide effort to shift building colors to a consistent color palette could be made. Muted earth tones make sense for park architecture that is more common (i.e. CMU block buildings), whereas more distinct architecture could utilize colors that draw more attention to the building, with structures located on the beach potentially having a brighter, more beach-like aesthetic. Overall, the goal could be to use a timeless color palette that does not cause the architecture to look dated.

Design Guideline 5: General Sustainability and Cost Efficiency

Many municipalities experience an ever-increasing request to “do more with less,” so the following items represent potential cost efficiency measures related to the ongoing planning and design of the Oceanside Parks and Recreation System. Many of the restrooms found in Oceanside’s parks are constructed of CMU block; when the time comes to replace these restrooms, the City should evaluate using premanufactured restrooms. While this is not a good solution for architecturally prominent sites where custom architecture is desired, the façade finishes available on premanufactured building exteriors should meet the needs of many park sites. These buildings are predesigned and premanufactured and are specified by a consultant (not designed), so Oceanside could realize considerable savings in design fees and construction costs.

It can be difficult to accurately anticipate the demand for future sports – for example, generally football participation is declining nationwide so rectangle fields built using precise dimensions for football may see less use over time. A different approach is to plan and design for recreation spaces: rectangular shaped turf areas that accommodate multiple different sports such as soccer, football, or lacrosse in north-south and east-west orientations (for younger players) so that the field of play can be shifted to minimize wear patterns. If designed correctly, a space that accommodates one large soccer field in the north-south orientation can “nest” multiple smaller fields in the east-west orientation, allowing the fields to be programmed more regularly because they accommodate different sports and/ or different age groups within the nested fields.

Similarly, large existing softball fields can be retrofitted to also accommodate youth softball or baseball (up to a certain age limit) with the use of temporary or roll-away fencing. While synthetic turf fields are expensive to construct, their synthetic surface allows for increased programming of the fields, and multiple sports can be striped into the playing surface to improve the multi-purpose nature of the field and maximize its use. Lighting existing fields using LED sports lighting will allow the fields to be programmed longer into the night, providing greater use out of the existing facilities. As seen in from the examples above, the goal is to creatively retrofit and maximize the use of existing facilities in lieu of acquiring additional land to construct new facilities, as retrofitting is often more cost effective and sustainable.

In order to use existing park lands within landlocked and spatially constrained sites more efficiently, converting traditional storm water ponds to usable space may be possible using permeable paving and/or underground storage solutions. While this type of solution can be expensive, the potential to repurpose existing park lands currently occupied with storm water ponds may be cheaper than purchasing new land to address increasing Parks and Recreation needs.

Centralizing and creating multi-sport athletic complexes is generally more cost effective than one or two fields scattered throughout a variety of different parks. The athletic complex approach simplifies scheduling and fewer staff are needed to manage the site with. Additionally, athletic fields require a higher level of maintenance than passive parks, so centralizing sport activities into complexes allows for maintenance equipment to be stored on-site, which is more sustainable than trailering maintenance equipment to each site because it saves time, fuel, and wear and tear on the equipment.

Related to park development, additional service requests from design consultants can be minimized by working diligently to refine the project concept, scope, program, and budget of a project prior to enlisting a design team – assuming in-house planning staff is available. Additionally, change orders from contractors can be minimized by fully vetting design concepts throughout the Division early in the design process, obtaining buy-in from all of the key decision makers, and then resisting the urge to change previously agreed upon concepts/program during construction. An important aspect of clarifying scope and program up front with the design team relates to any sustainability goals Oceanside has, including but not limited to Low Impact Development (LID), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and transportation alternatives to cars (i.e. trails, biking, or public transit).

Oftentimes budgets have a “use it or lose it” nature annually and as a result numerous purchases are made during the last few months leading up to the end of the fiscal year. With proactive planning, de-

sign, and permitting of small projects to get them shovel ready, as the fiscal year approaches it may be possible to utilize “use it or lose it” funds to accomplish small park projects. Also, if funds are left over from completed capital projects it may be possible to reallocate some of these funds to further contribute to these small projects.

As stated in the Park Experience section, public pressure often leads to a park becoming “all things to all people” so each park begins to have similar experiences and features. As an example, if the public responds well to a new splash pad at a park across town, it is logical that they request the same feature be added to a nearby neighborhood park. By analyzing the inventory of existing features/amenities found within the park system, park staff can proactively create gap analysis maps that identify areas where features (i.e. splash pads) are lacking. This type of mapping allows Oceanside to respond to requests from the public with mapping data that clearly shows if the requested feature already exists in the nearby vicinity so that the park system is not overly-redundant with certain features. Redundancy of some common features that are critical to the park system is certainly justifiable, but over-redundancy if not the most cost-effective approach. Standardizing park benches, trash and recycling receptacles, and tables may allow the City to obtain quantity discounts when ordering furnishings – provided Oceanside can store some extra furnishings until they are needed. Additionally, standardizing furnishings reduces the quantity of replacement parts maintenance staff needs to stock, and also reduces the time it takes to order and replace damaged furnishings. To help unify the park system and create a cohesive brand it is recommended that there be two to three standards for each furnishing type. It would be more sustainable if furnishings that are manufactured regionally are selected.

Design Guideline 6: Natural Resources Sustainability

It is important that all Division staff, as well as outside entities that work on park sites understand the location and importance of Oceanside’s natural resources. This includes Division management, field staff, maintenance staff, and programming coordinators, as well as volunteers, vendors, and contracted maintenance, programming, and recreation companies. Existing communication channels such as a monthly newsletter from the Director, bulletin boards, quarterly meetings, or Division meetings to highlight the natural resource areas within each park that need to be protected, should be utilized. As with any organization, this information will need to be repeated at a regular frequency (i.e. annually) due to staff turnover, and newly hired staff should be provided with a map/list of the natural resource locations.

From a design standpoint, environmental interpretation signage that informs and engages the public regarding the nature of the natural resource is recommended to help residents better understand and appreciate the natural resources found in the park system. As Freeman Tilden said, “Through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection.” Unique, age-appropriate, informative signage that actively engages the public will help enlist residents in the effort to preserve and protect the park system’s natural resources because protection is often a typical response to appreciation of the resource. That said, care should be taken when deciding which natural resources should be highlighted with the use of signage. Those most susceptible to illegal plant harvesting may be best served by not drawing attention to their presence. The uniqueness of some resources may dictate that the best method of protection is to direct patrons to stay out of the area, while managed use of a sensitive site (i.e. directing where the public may/may not walk) may be appropriate for other sites.

A “system-wide” approach, where the natural resources of the entire park system are evaluated for their uniqueness, habitat value, state or federal protection status, and sensitivity to human intrusion, is recommended. This inventory will inform which natural resources are most common or conversely, most rare. With each request for a new park feature/ amenity or capital project, staff will need to consider the potential long-term unintended consequences of further developing a site that contains natural resources. Factors including but not limited to park programming, level of use, park hours, circulation, and volume of patrons accommodated at each site can significantly impact natural resources.

With the help of City Environmental Resources staff, Division staff can evaluate if the protection of certain natural resources justifies designating portions of the park they are located in as off-limits to additional park development. Again, the “system-wide” approach will help the Parks and Recreation Division resist pressure to make a given park all-things-to-all-people. When a request to add an amenity/feature in a park that contains sensitive natural resources is received (i.e. the request to add a playground and additional parking) GIS data/facilities mapping can be utilized to look for nearby sites which do not contain sensitive natural resources and can better absorb the increased park usage associated with the new playground. 5.3.2 Maintenance and Operational Guidelines

From a maintenance standpoint most of the parks are older facilities with clean, well maintained landscape areas. Trees and turf are the dominant vegetative material with some planting beds scattered throughout some of the sites. Restroom interiors do not appear to be as well maintained as exterior landscape areas, and based upon the survey it appears as though that better maintenance of parks/ facilities may increase the public’s use of the park system.

Maintenance and Operational Guideline 1: Maintenance Population Based Standards

In an effort to increase the public’s use of the park system, it is worthwhile to consider how to improve the perception of park maintenance levels. There are many potential reasons for the public’s perception of the park system such as the level of maintenance funding, unrealistic expectations on behalf of the public, City-wide priorities that compete for funding, maintenance operations suffering because staff is utilized for events/programs, contracted maintenance firms under-performing, or perhaps a combination of some of the above. Below are some suggestions for potential consideration.

It is recommended to group the existing parks into tiers according to similar levels of maintenance. Specialty parks that require a higher level of maintenance effort, maintenance frequency, or maintenance expertise, such as piers, beaches, and active recreation sites would likely comprise the highest “tier” of parks, whereas more common parks that require less maintenance would comprise the lowest tier. It may be helpful to also include a middle tier that falls in between the high and low maintenance tiers, and site-specific factors such as salt spray, volume of use, or vulnerability to vandalism should also be considered when categorizing parks into different tiers.

A tiered approach which classifies parks into groups based upon maintenance needs could improve consistency in the level of maintenance service throughout the park system because it would help maintenance companies understand which types of parks require more (or less) maintenance. Providing specific, tier-based level of maintenance service requirements which include frequencies of trash pickup, and bathroom cleanings to contracted companies could also help highlight that population based standards expectations differ from park to park.

Additionally, because written maintenance standards currently only exist within maintenance contracts, taking verbiage from these contracts to craft a written set of maintenance guidelines available for the Division’s reference may be beneficial. Maintenance standards existing in contracts may unintentionally lead to a select few fully understanding the maintenance goals and expectations for each park. Creating a set of written maintenance standards that the Parks and Recreation Division has access to could allow for a greater percentage of the Division to review and understand the maintenance expectations of each park (or tier of parks), thus creating a shared vision for the level of maintenance the parks should have while simultaneously enlisting a larger number of staff to help identify any potential maintenance deficiencies.

When maintenance operations are contracted to outside companies, often the level of quality control is lost as compared to in-house staff that reports directly to the Division. As such, it is recommended that a specific area is targeted where an improvement in maintenance operations is desired and work towards bringing that maintenance operation in-house. Additionally, for special events and programs, many municipalities utilize in-house staff to supplement the level of cleaning/trash removal that contracted maintenance companies provide. While this improves the experience of the special event/program at one park site, pulling staff away from their typical duties may lead to maintenance neglect at other park sites.

It is recommended that staff continue investing in their professional development through CPRS Maintenance Management School or other similar courses, or by prioritizing networking with park maintenance staff from nearby municipalities. Opportunities to share the successes maintenance staff are experiencing while simultaneously learning new ideas about how other municipalities are addressing similar challenges may refine the maintenance processes of park maintenance.

Maintenance and Operational Guideline 2: Quality Assurance

It is understood that park supervisors review the maintenance of the parks they oversee, that the “secret shopper” tool is used to evaluate the Division, and that the public has access to a customer care platform where park issues can be reported to park maintenance staff.

One additional measure that is recommended is to provide dedicated staff to perform quality assurance reviews of each park site periodically. Prominent parks that experience the most frequent use may need to be reviewed every other month (six times a year), whereas parks that experience less use may only need to be reviewed three times a year. If the tiered approach to grouping parks with similar levels of maintenance needs is utilized (as described in the section above), the frequency of park quality assurance reviews should align with the tiered category, for example, six reviews for top tier parks, four reviews for middle tier parks, and three reviews for the lowest tier of parks. The review checklist used for these reviews should be thorough and should include categories such as but not limited to landscape and irrigation, building interior and exterior cleanliness, site furnishings conditions, trash removal status, park staff/maintenance staff friendliness, and general park aesthetics. Having dedicated staff responsible for quality assurance helps protect against the potential for subjectivity during the review process and developing objective, quantifiable review sheets and having the same staff member review all park sites helps standardize the results. Reviewing sites using multiple different staff members or subjective evaluation methods should be avoided as it leads to distorted findings.

Increased quality assurance measures help objectively identify what is working well and also identify areas for improvement, with the end goal of further refining maintenance operations to ensure that the public’s experience of a park consistently meets or exceeds their expectations.

Maintenance and Operational Guideline 3: Technology

Technology continues to change how we communicate as a culture, so it is important to regularly evaluate how well the current methods of communicating to, and receiving feedback from, the public are working.

Software systems that integrate numerous different aspects of Parks and Recreation work including but not limited to league scheduling, reservations, rentals, passes, and registrations are becoming more robust each year. As new sports lighting projects are designed, it is important to specify a lighting control system that integrates well with Oceanside’s existing software system.

Maintenance and Operational Guideline 4: Safety and Accessibility

A formal written process is recommended to be developed for how to evaluate and make important decisions which directly relate to the public’s health, safety, and welfare regarding when park infrastructure is damaged. If a portion of a park site does need to be shut down due to safety concerns, dated photographic documentation showing installed warning flagging, barricades, or signage should be obtained.

After-Action Reports that provide relevant incident details including but not limited to the park name, location, time, weather, photos, event description, and names of individuals involved should be completed, and new staff should be trained in how to exercise sound judgment in shutting down a site due to safety concerns, as well as how to fill out an After Action Report. This process can be used for damages to park infrastructure as well as when the public gets hurt in a park.

It is important to review the processes and After-Action Reports with management staff to consider if opportunities for improvement exists. Such reports provide a glimpse into how well staff is trained to respond to situations using sound judgment. From a public relations standpoint, when a portion of a park site does need to be shut down for maintenance, it is beneficial to provide signage that includes Oceanside Parks and Recreation branding and a number that can be called and a website address, if the public has questions regarding the closure. The number called will connect to a voice message that provides information regarding the start date of the closure, the reason for the closure and the work being performed, the anticipated opening of the site, and a “thank you” from the Parks and Recreation Division for the public’s patience. This “Frequently Asked Questions” voice message provides transparency for the public, and also frees up staff to perform their typical job responsibilities and spend less time answering the common questions.

Park maintenance staff that oversees construction should receive training in U.S. Access Board/State of California accessibility standards. Some municipalities undertake small park infrastructure renovation projects, and these projects typically don’t go through a formal permitting process where accessibility review takes place. As such, the maintenance staff that oversees these projects needs to be able to identify if a proposed solution adheres to accessibility codes. Alternatively, the Division can have one staff member trained in accessibility review and then set up a process so that these renovation projects are reviewed by the trained staff member prior to ordering materials or commencing with construction activities. A third option is to simply hire a third-party accessibility consultant to review proposed projects prior to construction. While this additional step in the process may require time and money, developing park infrastructure that does not meet current accessibility codes and subsequently being required to replace this infrastructure or dealing with litigation that arises as a result of non-compliant construction is much more costly.

Some commonly overlooked accessibility standards that maintenance staff can have a direct hand in replacing include benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, grills, camping facilities, picnic facilities, and viewing areas, as described in the U.S. Access Board Standards for Outdoor Developed Areas. Additionally, training key staff in CPTED principles will also benefit the Parks and Recreation Division; please see the Safety and Accessibility Design Guidelines sections for additional information pertaining to park safety and accessibility.

Maintenance and Operational Guideline 5: Sustainability and Cost Efficiency

Design Guidelines Section 6: Natural Resources Sustainability provides direction on how to develop protocols to protect sensitive Natural Resources with the help of environmental resources staff. Once the locations of the Natural Resources have been identified and protocols have been established, maintenance staff should be provided with maps highlighting these locations and training regarding how to protect the resources. This information will need to be repeated at a regular frequency (i.e. annually) due to staff turnover, and newly hired staff should also be provided with a map/list of the natural resource locations and the appropriate training.

Since the City maintains landscape areas using contracted maintenance companies, this same natural resources protection information will need to be provided to maintenance contractors at reoccurring intervals. Protecting sensitive natural resources with third party maintenance contractors will require diligence considering new maintenance staff that is unfamiliar with the nuances of site specific natural resource protection will frequently be used to maintain the park. Inconspicuous signage that informs maintenance staff while minimally adversely impacting the natural experience of the park may be warranted in some areas. Once Natural Resource protection protocols are in place it is advisable to include them in maintenance contracts so that contractors can be encouraged for their good performance, or alternatively, held accountable for their negligence.

In general, park projects should utilize landscape plant species adapted to Oceanside’s climate; those that require minimal supplemental irrigation, fertilization, or pruning once established. Existing parks which contain irrigated turf areas that experience infrequent use could be converted into native grass areas or low water use planting beds to conserve water. If potable water is currently being used to irrigate landscapes an analysis of reclaimed water utility infrastructure may reveal opportunities to retrofit existing park irrigation systems and connect to adjacent reclaimed water utilities.

To protect Oceanside’s water bodies, staff should be trained in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles which effectively control pests while also minimizing the application of toxic chemicals. Staff that oversees construction projects where soil is disturbed should take National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) training courses to gain an understanding of stormwater best management practices and ensure soils from construction related activities are not transported away from the construction site. Where irrigated turf currently exists directly adjacent to water bodies, consider providing a vegetated buffer with plants/grasses that do not require fertilization between the turf and the water body to help protect the water body from eutrophication.

Because Oceanside has a high percentage of older parks within its park system, long range budgeting for complete replacement of aging facilities may be warranted. While it can be difficult to secure funding to completely rebuild an existing facility, good record keeping regarding the costs to address outdated facilities in need of replacement using a “band aid” maintenance strategy can be helpful. Simultaneously casting a new, energy efficient, exciting vision for new facilities may prove successful, especially if the vision for the park replacement is master planned utilizing a phased approach. Lastly, an Energy Audit of existing facilities will help identify areas where energy efficiency can be improved, and may also provide useful information that helps prioritize the replacement of the least energy efficient parks.