1. INTRODUCTION
1 Source: US Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census, https://bit.ly/48sLs56 2 Source: City of Bishop: Demographics, https://bit.ly/3QSLY6p The City of Bishop, California is located in the Owens Valley serving as a year-round recreation gateway providing access to the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the west and the White Mountains to the east. Bishop is home to 3,819 residents1
within the City limits but serves the larger regional population of over 10,000 people2.
Located on US 395, Bishop sees thousands of visitors each year heading to the surrounding world class recreation opportunities ranging from rock climbing, hiking, mountain biking, fishing, camping, skiing, and more. While many take advantage of the surrounding outdoor recreation opportunities, the City of Bishop also provides local recreation opportunities for the surrounding community and visitors through the park, which is also host to many regional community events.
Populations Within 50 Miles of Bishop Park
Distance Population Within Distance
10 Miles 10,831
20 Miles 13,540
30 Miles 15,006
40 Miles 22,476
50 Miles 23,087
City/Town
(Labeled as “Name: Population”)
Distance Rings (10-mile intervals)
NORTH
Aspen Springs: 70
Benton: 279
Chalfant: 660
Bishop: 3,819
Big Pine: 1,875
Wilkerson: 543
Populations based on 2020 Census Data
West Bishop: 2,754
Crowley Lake: 980
Dixon
Lane-Meadow
Creek: 2,780
June
Lake: 611
Lee Vining: 217
McGee Creek: 45
Mammoth
Lakes: 7,191
Mono City: 224
Paradise: 174
Mesa: 275
Round Valley: 482
Sunny
Slopes: 139
Swall Meadows: 178
Dyer: 232
Figure 1: City of Bishop Vicinity Map 10-Mile with Distance Rings 265
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
The Park includes ±49.5 Acres in the heart of the community providing recreation opportunities such as soccer, softball, baseball, swimming, tennis, pickleball, volleyball, football, playgrounds, skateboarding, mountain biking, and community gardening. Events hosted at the park include Mule Days, Labor Day Arts & Crafts Festival, Community Band Concerts, Earth Day, Trunk or Treat, Softball / Tennis tournaments, Big Day in the Park (4th of July), Tree Lighting Ceremony Christmas Parade, Arbor Day, Bishop Invitational, and Twilight Swim Meet.
Established in the 1970s, the Park has continued to evolve with the City over the last 50+ years with various improvements to support the community and transforming into a recreation hub for the surrounding area.
Previous Master Plans were developed in 1990, 2002, 2008, and 2009. Much of the park land is owned by Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) and the City of Bishop has a long-term lease to operate the park on these lands. The City of Bishop owns ±6.5 acres of the Park. The Park is an important element of the community and continues to be a top priority for the City of Bishop. The City of Bishop Park Master Plan provides a guiding vision for implementing future park improvements.
Dixon
Lane-Meadow
Creek
West Bishop
Wilkerson
Bishop City Park
Bishop
Motorcycle
Park
Model
Airplane Field
Bishop Gun
Club
Duck Pond
Izaak
Walton
Park
Buckley Ponds Bishop Golf
Course
Brown’s Town
Campground
Fairgrounds
1 Mile
3 Miles 2 Miles
4 Miles
5 Miles 6 Miles
7 Miles
Owens River
Mill Pond
Recreation Area
Distance Rings (1-mile intervals)
NORTH
Recreation Area
Figure 2: Location of Bishop City Park
E Yaney St
3.2 AC
3.7 AC
0.2 AC
0.6 AC
3.3 AC
28.5 AC
9.5 AC
1.2 AC
Maciver St
W Yaney St
E Elm St
East Pine St
May St
Central Ave
Howard St
N 3rd St
N Main St
Spruce St Spruce St
Hanby Ave
City of Bishop Park Boundary
Commercial
Residential
Open Space Owned by LADWP
Open Space
Figure 3: Zoning and Ownership
266
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
2. PARK MASTER PLAN GOALS
The list of goals are intended to guide the City’s decisionmakers in determining how to adequately serve the recreational needs of Bishops current and future residents as the city continues to grow.
Goal
1 Create an actionable plan for future
development.
Goal
2 Increase outdoor recreational
opportunities and recreational use of the
area’s vast open space network.
Goal
3 Prevent the degradation of the City’s
recreational resources.
Goal
4 Upgrade the existing facilities in Bishop
City Park to reflect the current demand
for recreational activities.
Goal
5 Secure and maintain long-term funding
sources for recreational opportunities
within the community.
267
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Page6
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following section provides
an overview of the City of Bishop
community profile, who the Park
primarily serves, current Park
budget allocations, existing Park
amenities including who is using
the fields, and key take aways
from field observations, and staff
and stakeholder input that were
considered in developing the updated
Park Master Plan. Existing conditions
and trends help shape decisions for
implementing the Park Master Plan
based on current priorities and future
community needs.
268
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Demographics & Statistics
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Some other race Two or more races Hispanic or Latino origin (any race) White alone 2020 Race Distribution
State of California Inyo, County California City of Bishop 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Under 10 years 10-19 Years 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-69 years 70 or older 2020 Age Compositions
State of California Inyo, County California City of Bishop City of Bishop Quick Facts Estimated Age Composition
California Climate Investments Priority Population Map Racial and Ethnic Distribution 3,819
Total Population
51.2 Median Age
2,370
Total Housing Units
2,133
Total Housholds
57%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher
51%
Employment Rate
5.5%
No Health Coverage
2024 Median Household Income
Source: US Census Bureau - American Community
Survey 2024 Estimates
State of California $100,149
Inyo County $73,991
City of Bishop $83,686
Priority Populations
DAC 1/2 mile neighbor: low-income
community
DAC 1/2 mile neighbor: low-income
household eligible
Disadvantaged community: Tribal
land, Low-income community
Low-income community
Not a priority population area:
low-income households are eligible
City/Town Boundary
Priority Populations
DAC 1/2 mile neighbor: low-income
community
DAC 1/2 mile neighbor: low-income
household eligible
Disadvantaged community: Tribal
land, Low-income community
Low-income community
Not a priority population area:
low-income households are eligible
City/Town Boundary
Chalfant
Mesa
nd Valley
Dixon
Lane-Meadow
Creek
Bishop
West Bishop
The priority populations map
contains spatial data identifying
disadvantaged communities
and low-income communities
for the purposes of California
Climate Investments, consistent
with California Environmental
Protection Agency's (CalEPA)
disadvantaged communities
(DAC) designations.
Source: https://bit.ly/48JOzps
269
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
City of Bishop Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Standards Adopted Budget, 2025-2026
NRPA Standards
(<20,000 Residents) 1
City of Bishop
(3,819 Residents)
Meets or Exceeds
NRPA Standards
Median Acres of Parkland per 1000
Residents 12.9 13.1
Number of Residents per Park 1,001 3,819
Outdoor Facility Description Number of Facilities
per Residents
Number of Facilities
per Residents
NRPA Recommended Facilities
for City of Bishop Population 2
City Park:
Existing Amenities
Meets or Exceeds
NRPA Standards
Playgrounds 1 per 2000 1 per 1909 1.9 2
Basketball 3 1 per 4479 0 per 3819 0.9 0
Diamond Fields 1 per 1958 1 per 955 2.0 4
Rectangular Fields 1 per 2578 1 per 1909 1.5 2
Tennis Court 3 1 per 3500 1 per 1909 1.1 2
Multi-Use Court 1 per 3900 1 per 1909 1.0 2
Pickleball Court 3 1 per 3483 0 per 3819 1.1 0
Dog Parks 1 per 10188 1 per 3819 0.4 1
Community Gardens 1 per 8800 1 per 3819 0.4 1
Swimming Pools 1 per 9745 1 per 3819 0.4 1
Splash Pads 1 per 13,391 0 per 3819 0.3 0
Skateboard Parks 1 per 10776 1 per 3819 0.4 1
Volleyball Courts 1 per 7075 1 per 1909 0.5 2
Fitness Zones 1 per 8274 1 per 3819 0.5 1
Total Adopted Budget: ~$1.5m
Employee: 50%
Operations: 21%
Maintenance: 17%
Grants: 3%
Other: 1%
1. 2025 NRPA Agency Performance Review
2. NRPA Recommended Facilities: (City of Bishop Population (3,819)) / (NRPA Residents per Facility)
3. Dedicated to a Single Sport (not Multiuse)
270
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Key Takeaways and Needs
Standards and Funding
Satisfies National Recreation & Parks Association (NRPA) comparative standards for Median Acres of Parkland per 1000 Residents
Does not satisfy NRPA comparative standards for number of residents per Park (Exceeds baseline variable)
Satisfies many NRPA comparative standards for outdoor facilities per resident Does not satisfy NRPA comparative standards for outdoor Basketball, Pickleball, Splashpad
Serves low-income & disadvantaged communities → grant funding opportunity Infrastructure & Facilities
A-Frame needs major rehab or replacement
Parking lots, bike/pedestrian paths need repair + ADA improvements Maintenance staff needs improved facilities
Field 6 needs replacement
Lighting & Fields
Lit fields provide nearly double the use — add lights to all fields New & Expanded Amenities
Indoor recreation facilities remain a top community priority Roller hockey, basketball, replacement of outdated equipment Separate pickleball and tennis courts
Partnership & Safety
Partner with LADWP for land purchase/lease and future expansion Improve park safety — cameras, lighting, safe bike/pedestrian routes Fields
200
0 400
600
800
1000 916
(30%)
Field 1
(lit)
Field 3
(lit as of 2025)
314
(10%)
Field 2
257
(8%)
572
(18%)
Field 4
636
(21%)
Field 5
406
(13%)
Field 6
Field 1 & 3
Only Lit Fields
1,173
scheduled uses
38%
of all park field use
Next highest:
Field 5 — 636
(no lights)
Baseball Softball Soccer Football Frisbee / Other Source: City of Bishop Parks & Recreation 2023 Lighting drives demand.
Lit field
Lit field
Grand total: 3,101 uses
Source: City of Bishop Parks & Recreation 2023
GRAND TOTAL
3,101 Uses
636
(21%)
Field 1 & 3
Only Lit Fields
1,173
scheduled uses
38%
of all park field use
Next highest:
Field 5 — 636
(no lights)
Grand total: 3,101 uses
Field 3
(lit as of 2025)
314
(10%)
Field 2
257
(8%)
572
(18%)
Field 4
636
(21%)
Field 5
406
(13%)
Field 6
Field 1 & 3
Only Lit Fields
1,173
scheduled uses
38%
of all park field use
Next highest:
Field 5 — 636
(no lights)
Softball Soccer Football Frisbee / Other Source: City of Bishop Parks & Recreation 2023 Lighting drives demand.
Lit field
Grand total: 3,101 uses
572
(18%)
636
(21%)
406
(13%)
Field 1 & 3
Only Lit Fields
1,173
scheduled uses
38%
of all park field use
Next highest:
Field 5 — 636
(no lights)
Lighting drives demand.
Grand total: 3,101 uses
572
(18%)
636
(21%)
406
(13%)
Field 1 & 3
Only Lit Fields
1,173
scheduled uses
38%
of all park field use
Next highest:
Field 5 — 636
(no lights)
Lighting drives demand.
Grand total: 3,101 uses
271
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
272
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
4. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY
The City of Bishop engaged the community through two public outreach efforts to inform the City Park Master Plan. An online survey collected 890 responses from residents, park users, and regional visitors, with 260 participants providing additional written comments. A community workshop provided an opportunity for in-person engagement, drawing 50+ attendees who submitted 72 written comments via activity boards.
Combined, these efforts reached approximately 940 community participants.
Survey respondents were predominantly residents within Bishop city limits (59%), with additional participation from surrounding Inyo and Mono County communities. The largest respondent age group was 31–50 (57%), with strong representation across all age groups. Respondents identified primarily as community members and residents (78%), with significant participation from parents and guardians (46%) and coaches (13%), reflecting the park's importance as a hub for youth sports and family recreation.
Survey Responses: Demographics
Where Do You Live
100 200 300 400 500
Bishop - City Limits 515 (59%)
Bishop Paiute Reservation 55 (6%)
Other (Inyo County) 53 (6%)
Big Pine 51 (6%)
Other 45 (5%)
Chalfant / White Mtn. Estates 45 (5%)
Wilkerson 41 (5%)
Mammoth Lakes 16 (2%)
Mustang Mesa 13 (1%)
100
Round Valley 10 (1%)
Independence 9 (1%)
Crowley Lake 8 (1%)
Paradise 6 (1%)
Lone Pine 4 (0%)
Benton 3 (0%)
Starlight 3 (0%)
Aspen Springs 1 (0%)
Swall Meadows 1 (0%)
What is Your Age Group?
100 200 300 400 500
31 - 50 499 (57%)
51 - 65 131 (15%)
18 - 30 106 (12%)
Over 65 94 (11%)
Under 18 50 (6%)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Community Member / Resident 694 (78%)
Parent / Guardian 411 (46%)
Coach 119 (13%)
Visitor 81 (9%)
Student 47 (5%)
What is Your Relationship to Bishop City Park?
273
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Common Renovation & Improvement Themes Top Amenities The Community Would Like To See Community Voices
How They Feel About the Park Today
• Widely loved: Used daily by residents of all ages
• Safety & cleanliness are top concerns: restrooms, transient activity near family areas • Sports facilities are heavily used but aging: soccer fields, volleyball courts, skate park • Scheduling conflicts frustrate users: pickleball, pool hours, lit field access • Bike park is a regional draw — residents want it protected and expanded How They Feel About the Park Moving Forward
• Year-round usability is a priority: shade, splash pad, and indoor facilities for a high-desert climate • Basketball courts are the #1 requested addition — the only major sport with no public facility in Bishop • Underserved groups need more: girls softball, adult soccer, seniors, low-cost youth options • Infrastructure before new amenities — better lighting and facility upgrades ranked above additions • Visitor Services is a priority for many residents, with community discussion ongoing around the best path forward. 100 200 300 400 500
Community Events 458 (51%)
Indoor Recreation Center 331 (37%)
Roller Hockey Rink 319 (36%)
Splash Pad 308 (35%)
Amphitheater 205 (23%)
Restrooms 187 (21%)
Other 166 (19%)
Expanded Bike Park 164 (18%)
Basketball Court 161 (18%)
Picnic Pavilions 142 (16%)
100 200
Playgrounds 121 (14%)
Pickleball Court 118 (13%)
Expanded Skate Park 98 (11%)
Expanded Exercise Stations 84 (9%)
Softball Field 80 (9%)
Baseball Field 58 (7%)
Soccer Field 57 (6%)
Expanded Dog Park 51 (6%)
Tennis Court 40 (4%)
Football Field 29 (3%)
Lighting
Only two lit fields — causes scheduling bottlenecks and late youth games Tennis & pickleball lights require 48-hr advance reservation and $6/hr fee Surface & Condition
Volleyball sand is dangerous gravel — not actual sand Soccer fields are uneven with hazardous burned field lines Skate park transitions are abrupt and unsafe
Walking paths are uneven tripping hazards — not ADA compliant Bike park jumps deteriorating without irrigation
Facilities
Bathrooms unsafe, dirty, and inadequate — especially near ball fields Pool changing rooms and bathrooms in poor condition
No restrooms near community garden or back fields
Playground equipment dated, lacking shade
Access & Infrastructure
No safe pedestrian crossings on Main Street
No bike lanes connecting to park
Community garden road unpaved and inaccessible
No bike racks at park entrances
Missing Amenities
No basketball courts — only major sport with no public facility in Bishop No year-round pool or indoor recreation space
No splash pad despite extreme summer heat
274
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
5. PARK MASTER PLAN
The Park Master Plan provides a guiding vision
for future park improvements over the next
20+ years. A Master Plan is a living document
and it is understood that the Park Master Plan
may be amended or modified through the
design phases in order to meet current
standards and/or to provide modern amenities
as projects are implemented. The Park Master
Plan should be reviewed every five to ten years
to ensure the proposed improvements reflect
the most current City priorities, changes in
demographics, and continue to compliment
other guiding documents and plans.
Additional Future Considerations • Allow for roller hockey use at basketball courts: mixed use surfacing.
• Ongoing sidewalks / shared use pathways
/ ADA improvements within the park.
• Safety enhancements for bike and
pedestrian connectivity to the park
(crosswalk improvements, connect trail
and sidewalk gaps).
• Add security lighting and cameras. • Add electrical connections for events. • Add playground amenities, shade, improvements for outdated equipment.
• Monitor and rehab skate park as nedeed. • Ongoing tree removal & replacement for problematic trees.
• Ongoing pool maintenance, repairs and
replacement.
• Continue coordination with LADWP for
adjacent land and future park expansion
options, e.g., additional fields, potential
relocation of elements such as dog park or
field 5 to accommodate a larger recreation
center at alternate location.
275
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Proposed Amenities Inspiration
Proposed park amenities are selected based on
community input and availability of park space
and resources. Inspiration images as shown on
this slide are intended to provide general intent
of amenity options and do not reflect actual site
conditions
276
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Funding Program Funding Type Eligible Projects Funding Information Funding Timeframe CA Statewide Park Program (SPP)
www.parks.ca.gov
State New parks and recreation opportunities in underserved communities; Expand and/or renovate existing park
• Round 5 - $188M;
• Grant Range: $200K - $8M
Applications Summer/Fall 2026
Comment period May 2026
Recreation Trails Program (RTP)
www.parks.ca.gov
State & Federal Development and rehabilitation of trails and trailhead facilities • Annual Program: Varies ±$5-7M • Grants: ±$200K - $1M awards.
• Match on State Funds - 12%
• Federal Funds – 5%
TBD - 2026/2027
CA Active Transportation Program (ATP)
www.catc.ca.gov
State & Federal Capital projects and plans that encourage increased use of active transportation (biking, walking, rolling)
• Annual Program: FY 27 Estimate of $619M
• Grants: ±$250K - $10M awards
• Match: no requirement, leveraging funds a plus
FY 2027 Cycle 8 - June 22, 2026
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Federal pass-through Outdoor recreation projects • Annual Program: $35M • Grants: Max $6M
• Match: 50%
TBD – Summer/Fall 2026
Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership
(ORLP)
www.parks.ca.gov
Federal pass-through Outdoor recreation areas and facilities open to the public, involve land acquisition, development, or both, and located in a disadvantaged census tract • Annual Program: $90M
• Grants: $300K - $15M
• Match: 50%
TBD (Last call was March 2025)
Habitat Conservation Fund
www.parks.ca.gov
State Nature interpretation programs, protection of various plant and animal species, and acquisition and development of wildlife corridors and trails. • Annual Program: Varies ±$2M
• Grants: $100k - $1M awards.
• Match: Dollar for Dollar
TBD – 2026/2027
Local Funding Local All park elements including operations and maintenance. Could include other jurisdictions, schools, to support field use.
• Budget process. Could be used for match to
state/federal funding.
Annual
Private Funding Private Large private donation for specific park amenities (name on a building, dugout, picnic area, court, field, etc.); create smaller donor opportunities (bricks, name on a wall, art)
Donations. Could be used for match to state/
federal funding.
One-time
Park Funding Opportunities
6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The implementation plan provides an initial tool for City staff to utilize for initiating grant applications and projects based on current priorities, potential funding available, and a reasonable direction for the next 5+ years working towards the larger vision of the Park Master Plan. Implementation of the Park Master Plan may change over time based on available funding sources, annual budgets and City priorities, ongoing maintenance needs, and other factors that may influence certain improvements over others. Proposed Park amenities may also be modified from the Master Plan through the environmental and design phase based on current standards and budget available.
Priority 1
Near Term
1-5 Years
Preliminary Estimated Cost:
$5,136,900
Priority 2
Medium Term
5-10 Years
As funding becomes
available
Preliminary Estimated Cost:
$5,483,000
Priority 3
Long Term
10+ Years
As funding becomes
available
Preliminary Estimated Cost:
$14,945,000
277
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
278
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH
279
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
APPENDIX B: EXISTING PARK INVENTORY
280
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
APPENDIX C: PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
281
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Survey Questions and Responses
Which location best describes where you live?
98 1
1 3
3 4
6 8
9 10
11 13
16 41
45 51
55 515
0 100 200 300 400 500
Other
Swall Meadows (Mono County)
Aspen Springs (Mono County)
Benton (Mono County)
Starlight (Inyo County)
Lone Pine (Inyo County)
Paradise (Mono County)
Crowley Lake (Mono County)
Independence (Inyo County)
Round Valley (Inyo County)
No Answer
Mustang Mesa (Inyo County)
Mammoth Lakes (Mono County)
Wilkerson (Inyo County)
Chalfant / White Mountain Estates
(Mono County)
Big Pine (Inyo County)
Bishop Paiute Reservation (Inyo
County)
Bishop – City Limits (Inyo County)
What is your age group?
How would you describe your relationship to Bishop City Park? 10 50
94 106
131
499
0 100 200 300 400 500
No Answer
Under 18
Over 65
18-30
51-65
31-50
47 81
119
411
694
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Student
Visitor
Coach
Parent / Guardian
Community Member / Resident
282
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
How often do you visit Bishop City Park on average?
3 14
18 80
92 99
205
379
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Once per year
No Answer
Not often
Monthly
A few months per year
Daily
Several times per month
Weekly
Which Bishop City Park amenities / activities do you use? 73 25
46 95
129
150
179
220
228
233
241
263
277
299
379
443
443
458
499
563
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Other
Football Field
Senior Center
Volleyball Court
Tennis Court
Pickleball Court
Dog Park
Softball Field
Outdoor Exercise Area
Skate Park
Community Garden
Soccer Field
Baseball Field
Bike Park
Community Events
Pool
Picnic / Group Gatherings
Playgrounds
Viewing Pond
Walking Paths
283
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
What additional amenities would you like to see in Bishop City Park? 166
29 40
51 57
58 80
84 98
118
121
142
161
164
187
205
308
319
331
458
0 100 200 300 400 500
Other
Football Field
Tennis Court
Expanded Dog Park
Soccer Field
Baseball Field
Softball Field
Expanded Exercise Stations
Expanded Skate Park
Pickleball Court
Playgrounds
Picnic Pavilions
Basketball Court
Expanded Bike Park
Restrooms
Amphitheater
Splash Pad
Roller Hockey Rink
Indoor Recreation Center
Community Events (Farmers
Market, Vendor events)
Which adult programs do you or a family member participate in? Which youth programs do you or a family member participate in? 88 43
60 85
214
217
251
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Other
Tennis Tournaments
Volleyball
Pickle Ball Tournaments
Swim/Water Aerobics
Soccer
Softball
38 52
131
155
179
212
229
232
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Other
Youth Football
Gymnastics
Summer Camps/After School
Youth Softball
Swim Team/Lessons
Youth Baseball
Youth Soccer
284
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Which recreational uses do you or a family member participate in? Would you like to see any improvements with recreation or sports programs offered at Bishop City Park?
Does anything prevent you from accessing Bishop City Park? 37 132
193
240
520
0 100 200 300 400 500
Other
Movie in the Park
Weddings/Family Gatherings
in the Pavilion area
Concerts
Special Events (i.e. Mule Days,
Trunk or Treat, Tree Lighting/Christmas
Parade)
55 360
475
0 100 200 300 400 500
N/A
No
Yes
22 96
772
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
N/A
Yes
No
What prevents you from accessing Bishop City Park?
What modes of transportation do you use to get to Bishop City Park? 5 8
13 13
16 16
42 43
0 50
Distance
Weather
No sidewalks
Lack of bike lanes
Unsafe crossings
Traffic speed / volume
Personal safety concerns
Unsafe for kids to access park
without supervision.
10 48
389
439
782
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Other
Ride Share
Bicycle
Walking
Personal vehicle
285
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
In your experience, how easy is it to find parking in Bishop City Park? Does Bishop City Park adequately support your transportation needs? (parking, biking, walking, drop-off, accessibility, etc.)
In what ways does Bishop City Park not meet your transportation needs? 5 20
44 109
199
513
0 100 200 300 400 500
Very difficult
No Answer
Somewhat difficult
Neutral
Somewhat easy
Very easy
27 77
786
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
N/A
No
Yes
20 7
14 21
33 35
0 40
Other
ADA or stroller accessibility
Lack of walking paths
Loading / Unloading space for
vehicles
Lack of parking for vehicles
Lack of bike paths / bike racks
286
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Public Outreach Survey "Other" Responses
This portion of the public survey summary analyzes open-ended "other" comment responses collected across eight questions in the City of Bishop City Park Master Plan public survey. Each section presents a breakdown table for that question's responses, followed by an overall cross-question summary. Where responses appear to reflect coordinated outreach campaigns rather than independent community expression, this is flagged in red italic in the Notes column.
How to read this section
Total Comments: Approximate count of respondents whose comment fell into this topic category. Many comments covered multiple topics, so totals within a question may exceed the number of respondents. % of Responses: Percentage of that question's "other" respondents whose comment included this topic.
Notes (black): Context, specifics, or clarifying information about the topic.
Notes (red italic): Indicates responses that appear to reflect a coordinated outreach campaign rather than independent community sentiment. This distinction is important when weighting public input.
Overall Summary — All Questions Combined
260 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
75 Keep / repair the A-Frame Visitor
Center
29% Likely coordinated via Chamber of Commerce network; many near-identical responses across multiple questions.
15 Remove / do not fund the A-Frame 6% Organic, independent responses expressing fiscal concerns. 45 Roller hockey / skating rink (yearround)17% Heavily coordinated — SRHL board members and coaches explicitly self-identified; near-verbatim language repeated across questions.
30 Basketball courts needed 12% Entirely organic; no opposition expressed; high equity concern noted (low cost of entry, no courts anywhere in Bishop). 25 Volleyball court sand improvement 10% Consistent organic complaint across nearly every question; widespread frustration with current abrasive/rocky sand. 25 Pickleball courts (expand / dedicated) 10% Mix of organic demand and some coordination; legitimate highuse sport. Tension with tennis users noted. 20 Indoor recreation center 8% Organic; Snowcreek (Mammoth), Minden, and Moab cited as models. Some suggest repurposing vacant Kmart/Vons
buildings.
20 Softball fields (more fields / dedicated
girls fields)
8% Organic; girls/women's softball specifically identified as underserved relative to baseball and soccer.
20 Homelessness & safety concerns 8% Organic; bathrooms, drug paraphernalia, and families being deterred were recurring specifics.
18 Splash pad 7% Organic; described as a "no-brainer" for a high-desert community with extreme summer heat.
18 Field lighting (all sports fields) 7% Organic; affects baseball, softball, soccer, and ultimate frisbee.
Late game times for youth cited as primary concern.
Total Subject % Notes
15 Bike park (expand / maintain) 6% Largely organic; volunteer-built asset. Tourism value noted — visitors drive from Ridgecrest and post-Mammoth trips.
15 Bathrooms (renovate / add) 6% Organic; safety, cleanliness, and lack of facilities near back fields and community garden cited.
12 Pool improvements / longer season 5% Organic; scheduling, shade, water temperature, and season length all raised independently.
12 Soccer fields (repair / improve) 5% Organic; lumpy surfaces, ankle injury risk, and lack of lights cited repeatedly.
10 Tennis courts (preserve / expand) 4% Organic; concern about loss of courts to pickleball conversion.
BUHS tournament access also raised.
10 Parking issues (event overflow /
safety)
4% Organic; mostly event-specific (Mule Days, July 4th, tournaments). Schat's employee parking encroachment
flagged.
10 Skate park improvements 4% Organic; poor flow design, aging infrastructure, and dangerous transitions cited.
8 Farmers market at city park 3% Organic; better parking, shade, and restrooms than current Academy Street location cited as rationale.
8 Walking paths (repair / expand / pave) 3% Organic; uneven surfaces cited as tripping hazard; requests for ADA and wheeled device compatibility.
8 Amphitheater / permanent outdoor
stage
3% Organic; back-of-park location near tennis courts cited as ideal.
Community events and local music noted.
6 Shade structures (playgrounds / fields
/ pool)
2% Organic; summer heat makes existing play areas and bleachers unusable. Pool shade flagged as safety concern.
6 Community garden improvements 2% Organic; paved parking, restroom access, electricity, and deer fencing requested.
5 A-Frame cited as information resource 2% Likely part of same coordinated A-Frame campaign; respondents noted using Visitors Center for local recreation info.
Comment counts are approximate. Many respondents commented on multiple topics; counts reflect topic mentions, not unique respondents. Total mentions will exceed 260. 287
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Chart: Overall Summary
Organic response Likely coordinated campaign
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Keep / repair the A-Frame 75 (29%)
Roller hockey / skating rink 45 (17%)
Basketball courts 30 (12%)
Volleyball court sand 25 (10%)
Pickleball courts (expand) 25 (10%)
Indoor recreation center 20 (8%)
Softball fields (more/girls) 20 (8%)
Homelessness & safety 20 (8%)
General praise 20 (8%)
Splash pad 18 (7%)
Field lighting (all fields) 18 (7%)
Bike park (expand/maintain) 15 (6%)
Bathrooms (renovate/add) 15 (6%)
Remove / don't fund A-Frame 15 (6%)
Pool improvements/season 12 (5%)
Soccer fields (repair) 12 (5%)
Tennis courts (preserve) 10 (4%)
Parking (events overflow) 10 (4%)
Skate park improvements 10 (4%)
Farmers market at park 8 (3%)
Walking paths (repair/expand) 8 (3%)
Amphitheater/outdoor stage 8 (3%)
Shade structures 6 (2%)
Community garden improvements 6 (2%)
A-Frame as information source 5 (2%)
General Open Comments
Q: Open-ended general comments (shown at end of survey) 260 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
52 Keep / repair the A-Frame Visitor
Center
20% Likely coordinated via Chamber of Commerce; many near-identical submissions.
12 Remove / do not fund the A-Frame 5% Organic; fiscal responsibility arguments; some suggest the $1.5M be redirected.
20 Basketball courts needed 8% Organic; no opposition; equity concern (only sport with no public court in Bishop).
22 Roller hockey / skating rink 8% Coordinated — SRHL outreach apparent. 15 Indoor recreation center 6% Organic; Snowcreek/Moab cited. Suggest repurposing vacant Kmart/Vons buildings.
10 Splash pad 4% Organic; described as "no-brainer" for desert community. 18 Homelessness & safety concerns 7% Organic; bathrooms, drug use, families deterred. 10 Parking issues (events overflow) 4% Organic; mostly event-specific. Schat's employee encroachment flagged. 10 Pickleball / tennis courts 4% Organic; court access, lighting, scheduling. 10 Bike park (expand / maintain) 4% Organic; tourism draw, volunteer-built. 8 Pool / aquatics hours & season 3% Organic; scheduling, shade, season length. 20 General praise / park appreciation 8% Organic; staff recognition, maintenance quality. 630 of 890 total respondents left this field blank. The 260 who commented are the base for percentages throughout this report. 288
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Chart: General Open Comments Organic Coordinated
10 20 30 40 50 60
Keep / repair the A-Frame 52 (20%)
Roller hockey / skating rink 22 (8%)
General praise / appreciation 20 (8%)
Basketball courts needed 20 (8%)
Indoor recreation center 15 (6%)
Homelessness & safety concerns 18 (7%)
Pickleball / tennis courts 10 (4%)
Parking (events overflow) 10 (4%)
Bike park (expand/maintain) 10 (4%)
Splash pad 10 (4%)
Pool / aquatics hours & season 8 (3%)
Remove / don't fund A-Frame 12 (5%)
Park Amenities Used
Q: What additional amenities would you like to see in Bishop City Park? 65 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
22 Visitors Center / A-Frame
(listed as amenity used)
34% High coordination signal — nearly all phrased as
"Bishop Visitors Center A-Frame." Likely Chamberdirected. 6 Ultimate frisbee fields 9% Organic; multiple independent mentions. 4 Roller hockey rink 6% Organic; listed as current amenity used, suggesting familiarity with SRHL.
3 Bike park / dirt jumps / pump
track
5% Organic.
2 Community garden 3% Organic.
2 Yoga / open lawn / grass
spaces
3% Organic.
2 Music / band gazebo events 3% Organic.
2 Duck feeding / pond area 3% Organic.
1 Basketball (noted as needed,
not available)
2% Organic; respondent noted "Need basketball court" as a missing amenity.
1 Disc golf 2% Organic; single mention.
1 Birdwatching / arboretum 2% Organic.
The A-Frame Visitors Center responses dominate this question's "other" field, likely reflecting coordinated Chamber outreach to list it as a used amenity.
289
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Chart: Park Amenities Used
10 20
Visitors Center / A-Frame 22 (34%)
Ultimate frisbee fields 6 (9%)
Roller hockey rink 4 (6%)
Bike park / dirt jumps 3 (5%)
Community garden 2 (3%)
Yoga / open lawn 2 (3%)
Music / band gazebo events 2 (3%)
Duck feeding / pond 2 (3%)
Basketball (noted as missing) 1 (2%)
Disc golf 1 (2%)
Organic Coordinated
Additional Amenities Desired
Q: What additional amenities would you like to see in Bishop City Park? 130 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
28 Keep / restore / repair the
A-Frame Visitor Center 22% Coordinated; near-identical phrasing repeated. Same Chamber outreach pattern. 12 Indoor recreation center / gym
/ indoor pool 9% Organic; Minden, Mammoth Snowcreek, and Moab cited as models. 10 Splash pad 8% Organic; desert heat and young children cited consistently.
9 Pickleball courts (more /
dedicated)
7% Mix of organic demand and some coordination.
8 Basketball courts 6% Organic; no opposition.
8 Improved / real sand on
volleyball courts
6% Organic; current sand described as dangerous gravel. 7 Roller rink / roller hockey
facility
5% Coordinated — SRHL outreach apparent.
6 Covered / year-round pool 5% Organic; extended season and lap swim access requested.
6 Shade (playgrounds, fields,
pool)
5% Organic.
5 Amphitheater / permanent
stage
4% Organic.
5 Farmers market at park 4% Organic; better infrastructure than current location cited.
4 More / better walking paths 3% Organic.
4 More trees / shade plantings 3% Organic; future generations and climate change mentioned.
3 Frisbee / ultimate frisbee
field
2% Organic.
3 More seating / benches 2% Organic.
3 Signage for Senior Center 2% Organic; loss of A-Frame wayfinding cited as contributing factor.
2 Community garden
improvements (parking,
power, water)
2% Organic.
2 Rock climbing wall 2% Organic.
2 Disc golf course 2% Organic.
2 Bike park expansion 2% Organic.
1 Park security / more patrols 1% Organic; homelessness and vandalism cited. 290
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Total Subject % Notes
1 Fenced playground 1% Organic; safety for special needs children cited. 1 Land acknowledgment 1% Organic; Tribal recognition requested. 1 EV charger 1% Organic; single mention.
1 Batting cages 1% Organic.
1 Permanent multipurpose
recreation center 1% Organic; chair yoga, stretching, senior programs cited.
Chart: Additional Amenities Desired
10 20 30
Keep/restore/repair A-Frame 28 (22%)
Indoor rec center / gym / pool 12 (9%)
Splash pad 10 (8%)
Pickleball courts (dedicated) 9 (7%)
Basketball courts 8 (6%)
Improved volleyball sand 8 (6%)
Roller rink / hockey facility 7 (5%)
Covered / year-round pool 6 (5%)
Shade (playgrounds/fields/pool) 6 (5%)
Amphitheater / permanent stage 5 (4%)
Coordinated Organic
291
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Areas to Improve / Renovate
Q: Which areas in Bishop City Park would you like to see improved / renovated? 200 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
55 A-Frame / Visitor Center
(repair, restore, keep)
28% Coordinated; same outreach pattern. Some nuance: a few suggest replace with new building rather than restore.
5 Remove / tear down the
A-Frame
2% Organic, independent. Some suggest new visitor structure in its place.
28 Bathrooms (all locations —
renovate, add, clean)
14% Organic; front bathrooms, field bathrooms, pool bathrooms, and community garden all cited separately.
22 Volleyball courts (sand
quality)
11% Organic; described as "skin-gouging gravel" and "DG" — not actual sand. Nets and lines also requested.
18 Bike park (expand, maintain,
improve)
9% Organic; specific mention of volunteer builder Keith, water access for jumps, and pump track flow problems.
16 Pickleball courts (dedicated,
expanded, resurfaced)
8% Organic demand, some coordination; lighting payment
system also raised.
14 Soccer fields (repair,
smooth, turf, lights)
7% Organic; lumpy fields, ankle injury risk, and burned/herbicide lines flagged as hazards.
12 Tennis courts (resurface,
expand, lighting)
6% Organic; BUHS tournament needs cited; pickleball
encroachment concern.
12 Pool (renovate, year-round,
shade, improve)
6% Organic; pool bathrooms, changing rooms, and slide also raised.
10 Softball fields (repair, more
fields, dedicated girls field)
5% Organic; girls/women's softball lack of dedicated space emphasized.
10 Skate park (redesign,
expand, repair)
5% Organic; abrupt transitions, poor flow, and aging
infrastructure cited.
10 Walking paths (repave,
complete, ADA)
5% Organic; uneven concrete and tripping hazards noted. 8 Field lighting (all fields) 4% Organic; LED conversion, on-demand switching, and staff scheduling burden all raised.
8 Playground (update, shade,
fencing)
4% Organic; dated equipment, hot swings in summer, and lack of baby swings cited.
6 Community garden (parking,
restrooms, fencing, power)
3% Organic; deer damage, theft, and access road condition raised.
6 Dog park (expand, improve
grass, add features)
3% Organic; mowing frequency and lawn health cited.
5 Pond / gazebo (maintain,
improve surroundings)
2% Organic; walkway around pond and seating requested.
5 Parking lots (repave,
restripe)
2% Organic; foul ball safety near softball fields also raised. 4 Field 6 (regrass, add lights) 2% Organic; specific field cited repeatedly as in poor condition. 3 Homelessness / safety in
park
2% Organic; drug use, transients near restrooms and
playgrounds.
3 Amphitheater / permanent
stage
2% Organic; back-of-park location near tennis courts cited. 2 Roller hockey rink 1% Coordinated — SRHL.
2 Basketball court 1% Organic.
2 Exercise equipment (update
/ clean)
1% Organic.
This was the longest question response set. The A-Frame dominates but organic infrastructure concerns (bathrooms, volleyball sand, bike park, soccer fields) are numerous and consistent.
Chart: Areas to Improve / Renovate
10 20 30 40 50 60
A-Frame / Visitor Center 55 (28%)
Bathrooms (all locations) 28 (14%)
Volleyball courts (sand) 22 (11%)
Bike park (expand/maintain) 18 (9%)
Pickleball courts 16 (8%)
Soccer fields (repair/lights) 14 (7%)
Tennis courts 12 (6%)
Pool (renovate/year-round) 12 (6%)
Softball fields 10 (5%)
Skate park (redesign) 10 (5%)
Organic Coordinated
292
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Adult Programs Participated In
Q: Which adult programs do you or a family member participate in? 55 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
21 Baseball (adult) 38% High repeat count noted in source data. 9 Ultimate frisbee 16% Organic; winter frisbee group specifically mentioned. 5 Hockey / roller hockey 9% Organic; some SRHL coordination likely. 4 Bike park / skate park 7% Organic.
3 Visitors Center / A-Frame
(listed as program)
5% Coordinated — A-Frame campaign responses appearing in program question.
3 Community garden 5% Organic.
3 Yoga 5% Organic.
2 Volleyball 4% Organic; sand quality complaint included. 2 Swimming / lap swimming 4% Organic.
2 Tennis 4% Organic.
1 Walking / birdwatching 2% Organic.
1 BMX racing 2% Organic.
1 Car shows / community
events
2% Organic.
Baseball had the highest grouped repeat count (21 similar answers noted in source data). A-Frame responses appearing in a programs question is a strong coordination signal.
Chart: Adult Programs Participated In
10 20
Baseball (adult) 21 (38%)
Ultimate frisbee 9 (16%)
Hockey / roller hockey 5 (9%)
Bike park / skate park 4 (7%)
Visitors Center / A-Frame 3 (5%)
Community garden 3 (5%)
Yoga 3 (5%)
Volleyball 2 (4%)
Swimming / lap swimming 2 (4%)
Tennis 2 (4%)
Organic Coordinated
293
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Youth Programs Participated In
Q: Which youth programs do you or a family member participate in? 28 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
11 Hockey / roller hockey
(youth)
39% Coordinated — SRHL outreach; multiple near-identical responses. 3 Youth basketball 11% Organic; no courts available noted. 3 Bike park / skate park 11% Organic.
2 Visitors Center / A-Frame
(listed as youth program)
7% Coordinated — A-Frame campaign appearing in youth program question.
2 Pickleball (youth classes) 7% Organic.
1 Fly fishing camp 4% Organic.
1 Little Sparrows outdoor
preschool
4% Organic.
1 TANF basketball league 4% Organic.
1 Farmers market 4% Organic.
2 Tennis 4% Organic.
1 Walking / birdwatching 2% Organic.
1 BMX racing 2% Organic.
1 Car shows / community
events
2% Organic.
Hockey (roller) had the highest grouped repeat count (9 similar answers noted in source). SRHL coordination is evident.
Chart: Youth Programs Participated In
10 Hockey / roller hockey (youth) 11 (39%)
Youth basketball 3 (11%)
Bike park / skate park 3 (11%)
Visitors Center / A-Frame 2 (7%)
Pickleball (youth classes) 2 (7%)
Fly fishing camp 1 (4%)
Little Sparrows outdoor preschool 1 (4%)
TANF basketball league 1 (4%)
Farmers market 1 (4%)
Organic Coordinated
294
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Recreational Uses
Q: Which recreational uses do you or a family member participate in? 35 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
14 Visitors Center / A-Frame
(listed as recreational use)
40% Highly coordinated — nearly all responses in this question reference A-Frame visits, duck feeding, and gift shopping. Same campaign.
4 Ultimate frisbee 11% Organic.
3 Bike park / skate park 9% Organic.
2 Community garden /
gardening
6% Organic.
2 Pickleball 6% Organic.
2 Birdwatching / nature walks 6% Organic.
1 Farmers market 3% Organic.
1 Volleyball 3% Organic.
1 Running events 3% Organic.
1 Car shows / community
events
3% Organic.
1 Walking / birdwatching 2% Organic.
1 BMX racing 2% Organic.
1 Car shows / community
events
2% Organic.
The A-Frame / Visitors Center dominated this question's "other" responses, with nearly all mentioning visiting the A-Frame, feeding ducks, and buying gifts. This is the strongest concentration of coordinated responses in the entire survey.
Chart: Recreational Uses
10 15
Visitors Center / A-Frame 14 (40%)
Ultimate frisbee 4 (11%)
Bike park / skate park 3 (9%)
Community garden / gardening 2 (6%)
Pickleball 2 (6%)
Birdwatching / nature walks 2 (6%)
Farmers market 1 (3%)
Volleyball 1 (3%)
Running events 1 (3%)
Car shows / community events 1 (3%)
Organic Coordinated
295
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Recreation & Sports Program Improvements
Q: Which improvements with recreation or sports programs would you like to see at Bishop City Park? 220 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
60 Roller hockey rink (yearround)27% Most concentrated coordinated effort in survey. SRHL board members explicitly self-identified. Near-verbatim language throughout. ~8 responses explicitly noted "roller hockey" as grouped similar answers.
22 Basketball courts / league 10% Entirely organic; no opposition. Youth and adult leagues both requested. Equity concerns repeated (only sport with no public facility in Bishop).
18 More softball fields /
dedicated girls softball
8% Organic; late game times for youth, field sharing conflicts, and gender equity in field allocation all raised.
15 A-Frame / Visitors Center
(information for recreation
programs)
7% Coordinated — same A-Frame campaign; framed as needing Visitors Center to find recreation info.
14 Pickleball courts (more,
dedicated, lighting
improvements)
6% Mix of organic and some coordination. Lighting reservation system (48-hr advance / $6/hr) criticized repeatedly.
12 Indoor recreation center 5% Organic; basketball, volleyball, roller hockey, and year-round pool all cited as desired components.
10 Field lighting (all sports
fields)
5% Organic; youth late games, adult winter sports, and scheduling conflicts with limited lit fields all raised.
10 More baseball fields / little
league expansion
5% Organic; little league outgrown existing fields; fall program scheduling constraints cited.
8 Pool improvements (longer
season, warmer water, more
lessons)
4% Organic; toddler lesson water temperature specifically flagged as too cold; more weekend availability requested.
8 Soccer field improvements
(turf, smooth surface, lights)
4% Organic; ankle injury risk from lumpy surfaces, burned field lines as hazard, and need for futsol option raised.
7 Tennis court improvements /
expand / preserve
3% Organic; BUHS tournament needs, historical reduction from 8 to 2 courts noted, lighting improvements requested.
6 Bike park expansion 3% Organic; BMX racing potential and connection to skate park noted.
5 Amphitheater / outdoor
concerts / movie nights
2% Organic; community cultural programming cited.
5 Year-round / covered pool 2% Organic.
4 Splash pad 2% Organic; hot summers and young children cited. 4 Women's soccer / adult
soccer league
2% Organic; adult field access and scheduling equity noted. 4 Volleyball league / sand
courts
2% Organic; beach volleyball tournaments and open play requested.
Total Subject % Notes
3 Ultimate frisbee (lights /
scheduling priority)
1% Organic; winter play and field priority access requested. 3 More youth programs /
summer camps
1% Organic.
3 Farmers market at park 1% Organic.
2 Football field 1% Organic; multi-use potential and economic tourism benefit noted. 2 Free / on-demand tennis
court lighting
1% Organic; Inyo County cited as model for free on-demand lights. 1 Homelessness / safety
(recreation context)
0% Organic; unsafe conditions deterring park use for recreation. 1 RC car track (historical
amenity)
0% Organic; single respondent noted missing the model car racetrack.
Chart: Recreation & Sports Program Improvements
Organic Coordinated
10 20 30 40 50 60
Roller hockey rink (year-round) 60 (27%)
Basketball courts / league 22 (10%)
More softball/dedicated girls 18 (8%)
A-Frame Visitors Center (info) 15 (7%)
Pickleball (more/dedicated) 14 (6%)
Indoor recreation center 12 (5%)
Field lighting (all fields) 10 (5%)
More baseball fields 10 (5%)
Pool (longer season/warmer) 8 (4%)
Soccer field improvements 8 (4%)
296
City of Bishop | City Park Master Plan
Question 8 — Transportation Needs
Q: In what ways does Bishop City Park not meet your transportation needs? 20 "other" responses analyzed for this question.
Total Subject % Notes
4 Community garden access /
parking / road condition
20% Organic; dirt road muddy, bumpy, and difficult for low-clearance vehicles.
3 Dangerous crosswalks on
Main Street
15% Organic; vehicles running crosswalks; better signage requested. 3 Walking / bike path condition
(rough, unpaved)
15% Organic; skateboard and longboard compatibility also noted. 2 Lack of bike racks 10% Organic.
2 RV / oversized vehicle
parking (event conflicts)
10% Organic; RV-only designated area requested.
2 ADA parking inadequacy 10% Organic; ramp alignment issue at north bathroom specifically cited.
1 Awkward pedestrian route
from parking to playgrounds
5% Organic.
1 No safe pedestrian
connection (Bruce St to Elm
St)
5% Organic; requires going around entire park.
1 Schats / RV parking
encroaching during events
5% Organic.
1 No path lighting on back trail 5% Organic.
Smallest response set. Community garden access emerged as the primary transportation concern, followed by pedestrian safety on Main Street.
Chart: Transportation Needs
5 Community garden access/parking 4 (20%)
Dangerous crosswalks on Main St 3 (15%)
Path condition (rough/unpaved) 3 (15%)
Lack of bike racks 2 (10%)
RV/oversized parking conflicts 2 (10%)
ADA parking inadequacy 2 (10%)
Awkward route to playgrounds 1 (5%)
No Bruce St to Elm St connection 1 (5%)
Schat's parking encroachment 1 (5%)
No back trail lighting 1 (5%)
297
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 1 of 18
Bishop City Park Master Plan
2026 Existing Facilities Summary
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT:
• PLAYGROUND AREAS
o Toddler Playground
▪ Location: Front of Park next to Aquatic Facility:
▪ Ages: 2-5
▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Year-Round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2023-2024: New surfacing / equipment / shade structure ▪ Notes: Highly used amenity, beneficial for children / family users. o Children’s Playground
▪ Location: Back of Park / North of Pond
▪ Ages: 5-12
▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Year-Round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2019-2020: New surfacing / equipment / shade structure ▪ Notes: Highly used amenity, beneficial for children / family users. 298
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 2 of 18
• AQUATIC FACILITY
o Main Pool / Children’s Wading Pool
▪ Location: Front of Park / South of Stream
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Spring, Summer, Fall / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2025: Replastering
▪ Notes: Public interest for year-round pool facility continues to be of interest o Waterslide
▪ Location: West of Main Pool
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Spring, Summer, Fall / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2018: Structural beam repairs.
▪ Notes: City inquired about replacement and received quote which exceeded more than $1 million. Currently too costly for City to replace. Ongoing annual waxing of fiberglass shell. Fiberglass shell is usable but degrading
299
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 3 of 18
o Locker / Changing Rooms
▪ Location: North of Pools
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Spring, Summer, Fall / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2017: Floors replaced.
• 1995: Renovations for ADA restroom addition.
o Pool Pump House
▪ Location: South of Pools
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Spring, Summer, Fall / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2010: Large pool automated electrical system and filters:
▪ Notes: Ongoing annual system upgrades.
• RACQUET COURTS
o Courts 1 & 2
▪ Location: Southwest portion of Park. (Western 2 courts) ▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2010: Resurfacing
▪ Notes: Tennis only, no pickleball. Lighting could be upgraded from halogen to L.E.D. lighting, enabling better user experience and less energy consumption. 300
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 4 of 18
o Courts 3 & 4
▪ Location: Southwest portion of Park. (Western 2 courts) ▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2010: Resurfacing
▪ Notes: Tennis & Pickleball Striping (Mixed Use). Lighting could be upgraded from halogen to L.E.D. lighting, enabling better user experience and less energy consumption. • ATHLETIC FIELDS
o Field 1
▪ Location: West end of Park, West of RV parking area
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2015: Infield renovation.
• 2000 – 2001: New chain link fencing, dugouts, safety netting. ▪ Notes: Field 1 is the only large multi-use field with lighting in City Park. It hosts baseball, softball, soccer, football and T-ball events. Due to the overlapping and consistent frequency of use, the condition of the turf is weathered, compacted, and degraded in high use areas. Field striping for soccer matches is burned into the turf, requiring less yearround maintenance, but presents a slight safety concern due to the nature of uneven turf where striping is present. The (7) light poles are equipped with halogen lighting, which could be converted to L.E.D. fixtures for energy consumption purposes. City staff should ensure that any such conversion to L.E.D lighting will exhibit adequate lighting output for nighttime play. The raised planter area behind home plate of Field 1 should be evaluated and considered for removal or replacement due to overgrown tree. 301
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 5 of 18
o Field 2
▪ Location: Central / Northern portion of Park, East of RV parking area ▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2015: Infield renovation
• 2000 – 2001: New chain link fencing, dugouts, safety netting. ▪ Notes: Field 2 is a multi-use diamond field which is smaller than Field 1, without lighting fixtures. It hosts baseball, softball, and soccer events. Installation of lighting fixtures should be considered for nighttime use. Field striping for soccer matches is burned into the turf, requiring less year-round maintenance, but presents a slight safety concern due to the nature of uneven turf where striping is present. o Field 3
▪ Location: Central / Northern portion of Park, West of Spruce St. ▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2024: Installation of (4) Light poles
• 2013 infield renovation.
• 2000 – 2001: New chain link fencing, dugouts, safety netting. ▪ Notes: Field 3 is sized for Little League play only and is equipped with four overhead lights for nighttime play. It includes a grass infield, and a warmup area adjacent to the western side of the field.
302
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 6 of 18
o Field 4
▪ Location: North-Eastern portion of Park, East of Spruce St. ▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2013: Infield renovation.
▪ Notes: Field 4 is a large multi-use diamond field without lighting. Overlapping use of soccer / baseball / softball causes weathering, compaction, and degradation of the turf.
Adjacent batting cage is located at west end of Field 4. Light fixture installation should be considered for nighttime play. No permanent restroom facilities are present directly adjacent to Field 4 due to a lack of underground utility infrastructure. Future restroom installation connected to city infrastructure may require a lift station due to onsite grading conditions.
o Field 5
▪ Location: North-Eastern portion of Park, East of Spruce St. ▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2010: Installation.
▪ Notes: Field 5 hosts youth soccer events and is not sized adequately for full-sized soccer matches. No lighting or restrooms are present at Field 5. Field striping for soccer matches is burned into the turf, requiring less year-round maintenance, but presents a slight safety concern due to the nature of uneven turf where striping is present. 303
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 7 of 18
o Field 6
▪ Location: Back of Park, South of Spruce Street
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2017: Installation
▪ Notes: Field 6 is used for soccer, football, and mixed field events. Field striping for soccer matches is burned into the turf, requiring less year-round maintenance, but presents a slight safety concern due to the nature of uneven turf where striping is present. • GATHERING AREAS / AMENITIES
o Visitors Center
▪ Location: Front of Park, Along Main Street
▪ Condition: Poor-Moderate. (Structural concern)
▪ Use Frequency: Year-Round / Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation: na
▪ Notes: Visitors Center / Chamber of Commerce building is a well appreciated amenity for City Park, although it has structural degradation issues and has cause for concern for failure due to adjacency to the creek. City of Bishop has received previous maintenance inspections indicating that structural replacement / renovation is required. City staff should evaluate the options for replacing or relocating the building. Renovation in place of the existing structure will likely require oversight and approval from additional agencies due to the proximity to the creek.
304
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 8 of 18
o Senior Center:
▪ Location: Back of Park, North of Spruce Street.
▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Moderate: weekday midday.
▪ Latest Renovation: NA
▪ Notes: Inyo County Facility. Property is sub-leased from City. Dedicated restrooms located within Senior Center are not available to general public. o Bandstand
▪ Location: Front of Park, Southwest corner along Main Street ▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Spring, Summer, Fall
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2013
▪ Notes: The Bandstand is a highly visible amenity directly adjacent to Main Street and is primarily utilized in warmer months for concerts in the park and other performanceoriented events. It is in nice condition and should be upkept with routine painting and repair needs. City staff could consider installing an ADA accessible ramp, which is not present at this time.
305
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 9 of 18
o Rear Park Pavilion
▪ Location: Middle of park, between pond and Spruce Street ▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / Busiest on weekends in Spring / Summer ▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2011
▪ Notes: The Rear Park Pavilion is a popular amenity for the park and is usually booked for weekend use in the Spring & Summer. The structure is equipped with electrical supply, can accommodate ~4-6 picnic tables and has 2 adjacent charcoal grills nearby. Demand for the pavilion typically exceeds availability. City staff may want to consider installing an ADA compliant pathway to access the pavilion. City staff should also consider adding another picnic pavilion throughout the park due to generate additional revenue and accommodate park users.
o Pond Bridge & Gazebo
▪ Location: Middle of pond
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation: 2014 decking: Bridge planks were recently replaced with Trex material spanning between the concrete pathway at the shore to the end of the bridge, just short of the Gazebo roof.
▪ Notes: The Gazebo is a focal piece of City Park, as it is located I the middle of the scenic pond. It offers passive recreation for park users, as well as formally reserved event opportunities. Replacement of planks directly under the gazebo should be pursued for safety reasons as well as to match the directly adjacent bridgeway. The foundation columns are weathered and could benefit from sealant or paint. The wooden shingles atop the Gazebo could also be considered for replacement. 306
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 10 of 18
o Picnic Tables
▪ Location: Moveable tables dispersed throughout the park ▪ Condition: Moderate (Varies)
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Ongoing: Constant manual renovation.
▪ Notes: Portable picnic tables are heavily used and may show signs of degradation from weather / sprinkler irrigation. Most of the tables include a metal frame with painted wood seats / tables, although there are several tables manufactured from recycled plastic material. Park staff maintains and paints the wooden tables as needed. The only ADA compliant picnic table is located just west of the Toddler Playground. Unless already provided, City staff should consider placing an ADA compliant picnic table in the Picnic Pavilion.
o Barbeque Grills
▪ Location: Dispersed throughout park
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Ongoing: Annual painting. Remove and replace.
▪ Notes: City Park includes five outdoor charcoal grills, two of which are located adjacent to the Picnic Pavilion, and three which are located between the Aquatic Center and the Pond, North of the skate park. The grills appear to be well used and are in operable condition. Removal and Replacement of grills is recommended. 307
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 11 of 18
o Park Benches
▪ Location: Dispersed throughout park
▪ Condition: Moderate (Varies)
▪ Latest Renovations:
• NA. Ongoing as needed.
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Notes: Benches in City Park include permanent park benches with diamond steel pattern, portable wood benches used for field events, and permanent recycled plastic benches that are memorials or dedicated from park patrons. The portable wood benches are prone to degradation from field sprinkler irrigation and should be monitored by park staff for safety purposes.
o Trash Receptacles
▪ Location: Dispersed throughout park
▪ Condition: Moderate (Varies)
▪ Latest Renovations:
• Ongoing: painted annually, as needed.
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Notes: City Park includes a variety of portable steel cylindrical trash receptacles, and rectangular recycled plastic trash/recycling receptacles located throughout the park. • RESTROOMS
o Western Restroom
▪ Location: Front of Park, Southwest of Aquatic facilities ▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2023: Renovation due to fire damage
▪ Notes: Ongoing repairs and maintenance are important for park users. 308
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 12 of 18
o Fields Restroom
▪ Location: South of Field 2
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2016, 2024: Replaced toilets / painted building
▪ Notes: The fields restrooms were recently renovated due to recent fire damage. Ongoing maintenance is important for park users.
o Spruce Street Restroom
▪ Location: Back of Park, West of Spruce St.
▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2017: Installation.
▪ Notes: Ongoing repairs and maintenance are important for park users. 309
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 13 of 18
• RECREATION
o Skate Park
▪ Location: Middle of Park, West of Pond
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Moderate-High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2010: Installation. Ongoing maintenance for graffiti. ▪ Notes: The skate park is a nice amenity for Bishop citizens and visitors as it provides individualized recreation opportunities for skateboarding, rollerblading, biking, or scootering during dry weather. Some areas have signs of graffiti which are covered via paint by park staff. Park staff have noted that Pickleball users nearby the skatepark provide a beneficial oversight which seems to have cut down on vandalism. City staff should continue to repair and maintain the Skate Park and continue investments in skate or bike clinics.
o Bike Park
▪ Location: Back of Park, South of Spruce Street
▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation: Recently Installed
▪ Notes: The Bike Park is a volunteer oriented / recently installed amenity that was developed by the Bishop Area Bike Organization (BABO). It features a variety of areas dedicated to improving mountain bike or BMX skills.
o Volleyball Courts
▪ Location: Middle of Park, South of Pond
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Ongoing: Annually sand added, tilled and leveled.
▪ Notes: Coarse sand has volleyball users advocating for replacement with finer sand. 310
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 14 of 18
o Horseshoe Pits
▪ Location: Southeast of Tennis Courts 3 & 4
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Low-Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2020: Conversion from Bocce to Horseshoes.
• 2012: Bocce installation.
▪ Notes: Horseshoe stations were built by City staff to take place where previous bocce court was installed. Horseshoe pit area gets used but is in need of consistent maintenance to remove weeds. Possible opportunity area for replacement amenities. o Exercise Area
▪ Location: South of Senior Center, across Spruce St.
▪ Condition: Poor-Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Ongoing: Maintenance repairs.
• 2018: Installation.
▪ Notes: Exercise area is great amenity for park users, especially considering the proximity to the Senior Center, which is located just north of it across the street. Permanent shade structure poles are installed to allow for removable shade sail fabric. Exercise equipment shows signs of degradation and in need of repair / replacement. 311
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 15 of 18
o Dog Park
▪ Location: Middle / North end of Park, West of Spruce Street. ▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2014: Installation.
▪ Notes: Dog park features a big dog and small dog area, as well as dispersed benches and trees for shade. Water fountains are available. Park staff mentioned that weekends are when the dog park is most highly used. This park amenity is important for the overall well-being of the park because all other areas in the park require dogs to be on leash. • MISCELLANEOUS AMENITIES
o Pedestrian Bridges
▪ Location: Five bridges located in middle of park across creek ▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: Year-Round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Pre – 2010: Installation.
▪ Notes: Steel framing bridges with wooden planks. Bridges at multiple locations allow for easy access across creek at multiple locations throughout the park, allowing for pedestrian connectivity.
312
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 16 of 18
o Little Leage Concession Stand
▪ Location: Middle of Park, South of Field 2
▪ Condition: Moderate - Good
▪ Use Frequency: Moderate
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2024: Renovation.
▪ Notes: Small building owned by Little Leage for snack concessions. • LANDSCAPING
o General Landscaping
▪ Notes: The general park landscaping is well kept and maintained by Park Staff on a yearround basis. Tree pruning and safety trimming occurs annually. Mature cottonwood trees pose safety considerations and should be continually monitored or potentially considered for removal on a case-by-case basis. Some trees along pedestrian walkway South of Field 1 have instances of root disruption to adjacent concrete pathways and should be considered for replacement on a case-by-case basis.
o Community Garden
▪ Location: Back of Park, Southwest corner
▪ Condition: Good
▪ Use Frequency: High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• 2024: Renovation
• 2013: Installation
▪ Notes: Volunteer led community garden is a recent amenity added to the park that adds a sense of ownership to the park for participants. Installation of shade pergola is a benefit to the community garden. City staff indicates that community garden users have requested an additional nearby restroom facility.
313
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 17 of 18
• MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS
o Maintenance Building 1 (Storage gas shed)
▪ Location: Front of Park, South of Toddler Playground
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Low
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Pre-2010: Renovation
▪ Notes: Wood shingles on roof could be considered for replacement due to fire risk.
Access door shows signs of weather degradation at bottom, repair or replacement is recommended.
o Maintenance Building (shop):
▪ Location: South of Park Office
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Pre-2010: Installation
▪ Notes: Maintenance building for park staff. Not enough building capacity for vehicles, no air conditioning.
314
Bishop City Park
Existing Facilities Summary 18 of 18
o Park Office:
▪ Location: West of Tennis Courts
▪ Condition: Moderate
▪ Use Frequency: Year-round / High
▪ Latest Renovation:
• Pre-2010 Installation.
▪ Notes: Building is used as the main park office. City staff have noted that building is not equipped with restrooms or shower facilities.
315
Bishop City Park Master Plan Preliminary Planning Estimate Item
Number Proposed Amenity Unit Quantity Unit Price Prelim Total Notes 1 Field 1 Lighting Conversion EA 7 $30,000.00 $210,000.00 Existing Halogen light fixtures proposed to convert to LED. Unsure if existing wooden poles are able to support new lighting.
2 Visitors Services SF 500 $300.00 $150,000.00 ~25' x 20' New building 3 Pedestrian Entry Walkway SF 7200 $20.00 $144,000.00 Assumed 8' wide pathway. Concrete 4 Pool Slide Replacement EA 1 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 Estimate provided by City reference. 5 Splash Pad EA 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 Splash Pad to be located at existing pool slide area. 6 Park Office / Maintenance Building SF 5200 $300.00 $1,560,000.00 Located at existing Office / Maintenance building locations. 7 Court Light Conversion EA 8 $30,000.00 $240,000.00
Existing light fixtures proposed to convert to LED. Unsure if existing poles are able to support new lighting. New court lighting should provide mechanism for user operation 8 Parking Lot Resurfacing SF 75000 $15.00 $1,125,000.00 Asphalt & Base. Assumed grading. (No curb gutter sidewalk landscaping) 9 Picnic Pavilion EA 1 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 ~30x35' structure. Likely wooden framed pitched roof 10 Field 2 Renovation EA 1 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 Dirt infield, Grass outfield. Assumed adjacent netting / fencing 10 Field 2 Lighting EA 4 $58,000.00 $232,000.00 New lighting fixtures 11 Field 2 & 3 Concessions Building SF 1100 $600.00 $660,000.00 New Concessions building, possibly to include announcer booths & restrooms.
Assumed Multi Level
11 Field 2 & 3 Pedestrian pathway SF 2400 $20.00 $48,000.00 ~300 linear feet. Assumed 8' pathway. Concrete 12 Surface Parking Lot SF 22200 $25.00 $555,000.00 Asphalt & Base. Assumed grading, curb gutter sidewalk landscaping 13 Recreation Center SF 25000 $400.00 $10,000,000.00 ~95'x 180' Building. Assumed multi-story 14 Surface Parking Lot SF 11700 $25.00 $292,500.00 Asphalt & Base. Assumed grading, curb gutter sidewalk landscaping 15 Field 4 Lighting Additions EA 8 $58,000.00 $464,000.00 New LED fixtures for Baseball / Softball field. 16 Mini Enclosed Soccer Field SF 1 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 60' x 135' (Artificial turf w/ perimeter walls / netting) 16 Mini Enclosed Soccer Field Lighting EA 4 $20,000.00 $80,000.00 New LED fixtures for enclosed soccer. (Enclosed with perimeter walls, not an overhead structure)
Item
Number Proposed Amenity Unit Quantity Unit Price Prelim Total Notes 17 Roller Hockey Rink SF 1 $230,000.00 $230,000.00 70' x 150' 17 Roller Hockey Rink Lighting EA 4 $58,000.00 $232,000.00 New LED fixtures for roller hockey. (No overhead structure) NA
Pedestrian Pathway around Roller Hockey & Mini
Soccer SF 10000 $20.00 $200,000.00 ~8'-14' wide perimeter surfacing for sectators / pedestrians 18 Surface Parking Lot SF 21500 $25.00 $537,500.00 Asphalt & Base. Assumed grading, curb gutter sidewalk landscaping 19 Fitness / Activity Center Building SF 5000 $400.00 $2,000,000.00 Odd shaped bldg. 20 Improved Event Space SF 500 $20.00 $10,000.00 20' x 25' concrete platform for Park concert events 21 Slackline Area EA 4 $1,600.00 $6,400.00 (4) Posts for attaching (2) individual slacklines to. Posts would probably be ~4' high. 22 Fitness Course Replacement EA 1 $170,000.00 $170,000.00 ~30' x 30'. Possible inspiration shown here:
https://www.nationalfitnesscampaign.com/fitness-court (open to alternatives) 23 Basketball Courts EA 2 $80,000.00 $160,000.00 Including equipment and surfacing. 23 Basketball Court Lighting EA 6 $58,000.00 $348,000.00 6 Lighting fixtures NA
Pedestrian Pathway between Basketball &
Pickleball SF 4200 $20.00 $84,000.00 ~6-8' wide concrete pathway 24 Pickleball Courts EA 8 $60,000.00 $480,000.00 Incuding surfacing, netting, fencing 24 Pickleball Court Lighting EA 6 $58,000.00 $348,000.00 6 Lighting fixtures 24 Pickleball Court Pavilion SF 18000 $50.00 $900,000.00 Optional overhead structure w/ open air siding.
NA Pedestrian Pathway between Bike Park & Field 6 SF 4300 $20.00 $86,000.00 ~8' wide concrete pathway 26 Field 6 Flat Field LS 1 $1,200,000.00 $1,200,000.00 Estimate provided by City reference. 27 Restroom EA 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 Assumes pre fab restrooms 28 Surface Parking Lot SF 36500 $25.00 $912,500.00 Asphalt & Base. Assumed grading, curb gutter sidewalk landscaping 29 Open Space Drainage Area AF 5 $20,000.00 $100,000.00 Retention pond for surface runoff (existing and proposed) (Assumed 52,000 sf x 4' deep)
Subtotal: $25,564,900.00
General Notes: Planning level estimate subject to change. Actual cost to be refined with further design / engineering.