Friday Harbor Climbing Enthusiasts Meeting Notes for May 29, 2007

 

Our Mission

To build a public climbing structure to facilitate educational and recreational use on San Juan Island.

 

Present at today meeting

Marc Islam

Jeff Durham-Guckian

Michael Balise
Mark Hetrick

 

Agenda

Island Rec Update (Marc)

Reviews of Manufacturers and Installers (Pete, Marc)

Governing Standards (Marc)

Fairgrounds Interest (Marc)

Discussion

Next Steps

Next Meeting Tuesday, June 12h, at 5:30.  Location TBD

 

Our second meeting included a brief review and quite a bit of discussion since our two new participants, Jeff and Michael, had a great deal to offer.  Thanks to everyone for their continued interest.  We agreed that our primary goal before the next meeting is to identify our top choices for a location.  The location will dictate the features and overall cost to a great extent.

 

  1. Marc attended the May 17th Island Rec board meeting to update them on the our efforts.   Island Rec is interested in how much support we have for this project, who’s involved, and the direction we are headed.  Due to the short amount of time available on the 17th for public comment, we were not able to ask our questions.  Marc will attend the next board meeting on June 7th at 5:30.

 

  1. Pete provided us with some literature from Entre-prises.  We still need to do the same for the other manufacturers and installers that we identified.  Entre-prises USA is based in Bend, OR.  They are responsible for a number of indoor and outdoor facilities around the Puget Sound (below).  Pete understood that the cost to build a recent pinnacle was approximately $120,000, a price that is also reflected in the call for proposals for the Federal Way Community Center.  Note: that cost does not include land, building, lighting, water or foundation.
    1. REI’s Pinnacle in Seattle
    2. Western Washington University
    3. University of Washington
    4. Federal Way Community Center, check out their call for proposals

 

  1. There are several standards that govern the construction of artificial climbing walls.  Other than noting their existence, we did not go into detail on these.  They are here for future reference:
    1. The American Climbing Wall Industry provides a good starting point
    2. EN 12572 is a European standard for the durability and safety of artificial climbing walls that is also accepted in America as a quality mark.

                                               i.     00136195 prEN 12572-1 Artificial Climbing Structures - Part 1: Safety requirements and test methods for ACS with protection points. Under Approval.

                                             ii.     00136196 prEN 12572-2 Artificial Climbing Structures - Part 2: Safety requirements and test methods for bouldering walls. Under development, planned for release in 2008.

                                            iii.     00136197 prEN 12572-3 Artificial climbing structures - Part 3: Safety requirements and test methods for holds. Under development, planned for release in 2008.

    1. EN 1176-1 governs climbing walls that are used as attractions
    2. EN 795 applies to fall security
    3. EN 1177 applies to shock diminishing (landing on the ground)

 

  1. Marc did not make contact with the Fairgrounds Committee yet.  Postponed to our next meeting.

 

  1. General Discussion
    1. We all agreed that we the location will dictate many of the features of the climbing wall.  We need to narrow down our location:

                                               i.     Why does it matter?

1.     Indoor facilities can be made of wood, reducing the overall cost of the climbing structure.

2.     An indoor facility itself is likely to be prohibitively expensive.

3.     There are management issues tied to indoor facilities.  A more aggressive business model may be required to keep the facility itself up to date.

4.     Outdoor facilities could be as simple as a freestanding pinnacle, or as complicated as a pinnacle with a roof (no walls) over it.  May be built in stages.

5.     Outdoor facilities require only land to build on.  More options may be available.

6.     An outdoor facility attached to a wall of an existing public structure may provide the best 80% solution for 20% of the cost.

                                             ii.     Location…Location…Location

1.     We all agree that private structures are not an option since owners will be scared of the liability risk involved.  We need to look for public structures/locations.

2.     A location close to town is ideal, though not necessary.  Synergy with other facilities that promote physical activity is a plus.

3.     Fairgrounds: Can we convince the fairgrounds to let us use the outside of one of their buildings?

4.     Ball Fields: we wouldn’t take up TOO much space.  Really.  We promise.

5.     LaFarge Gravel Pit: a dramatic location for a dramatic activity.

 

    1. Additional Features not discussed at our last meeting

                                               i.     Making the rock difficult at the bottom and easier towards the top discourages climbers that are not well equipped from climbing too high (the UW climbing wall is structured this way)

                                             ii.     Location should be locked in the evenings, visible from the road, and have no way to scramble to the top without proper equipment.

 

  1. Next Steps
    1. Investigate Locations (who’s interested, who’s not)

                                               i.     Town Assets (Marc will contact King Fitch)

                                             ii.     County Assets (Marc will contact Chad Foley)

                                            iii.     Fairgrounds (Marc will contact Christine Miller)

                                            iv.     Private Businesses

1.     Browne Lumber (Marc)

2.     Roche Harbor (Mark)

3.     Harbor Village (Marc)

                                             v.     Port of Friday Harbor (Marc will contact Steve Simpson)

                                            vi.     Island Rec (Marc)

 

    1. Tour climbing structures around the Puget Sound (what features work well, which ones don’t)

                                               i.     REI (Marc)

                                             ii.     SpireRock (Marc)

                                            iii.     Monroe’s Mystery Manufacturer (Jeff)

                                            iv.     Sherman Rock Features (Michael)

                                             v.     Kent Parks & Rec’s Entre-Prises pinnacle (Pete)

                                            vi.     WWU (Justin)

                                          vii.     UW (Michael)

                                         viii.     Marymoore (Marc)

    1. Obtain accident data for outdoor, unsupervised structures (Marc)

                                               i.     SpireRock

                                             ii.     Sherman Rock

                                            iii.     UW

                                            iv.     Marymoore

 

  1. Next Meeting Tuesday June 12th, at 5:30pm.  Location TBD

 

 

 

Please contact Marc Islam for questions/comments at or by phone at 360.317.5377