Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs automated gates at Sierra Bella Park; staff proposes $30,000 option and alternatives
Summary
Vice Mayor Steiner and staff discussed installing automated A-frame entry gates and openers at Sierra Bella Park to curb after-hours loitering. Staff estimated roughly $30,000 for gates with openers; council asked for alternatives and directed staff to return with options and cost comparisons.
Council discussed a request from Vice Mayor Steiner to evaluate installing two inward-opening A-frame gates with automated openers at Sierra Bella Park to secure the parking lot after hours.
Moses Cortez, the city’s facilities, parks and trails manager, described the proposed system: two A-frame gates with inward swing, two automated openers, a controller mounted near the trash enclosure, and an internal traffic loop to allow vehicles to exit if they are inside when the gates close. Staff estimated total cost around $30,000 and said they would use existing conduits where possible to reduce trenching.
Vice Mayor Steiner said the request followed multiple resident reports of activity after dark. He reported operational data collected for the park: 90 calls for police service this year, 34 police proactive patrols and 51 property checks by park rangers. He told council the site is partly hidden from quick street views and that the installed camera system provides recorded footage but not live monitoring.
Council concerns and alternatives discussed included: whether manual gates (opened/closed by staff or contractors) could substitute for automated gates; whether locking the restrooms and using the contracted security company to secure the park would be a lower-cost option; equity and access concerns (members asked whether the gate would make the park feel exclusive or limit access from neighboring streets); reliability concerns about sensors or vehicles being locked in; and whether similar blind-spot parks such as Griffin Park should be evaluated for the same treatment.
Moses suggested a phased approach: install gates first without automated openers to test effectiveness, or have the security contractor open/close gates where staff already use contractors to lock restrooms. Council asked staff to provide more detailed cost comparisons, operating scenarios, and data about calls and patrols at other parks (Griffin Park and others) to determine whether a broader capital program or a one-off pilot is appropriate.
No formal motion to appropriate funds was made; the item was presented for council direction and staff was asked to return with options and pricing.
