HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-08-19; Parks & Recreation Commission; 891-7; Larwin Park Design alternativesPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AG <DA BILL
DEPT.
TITLE:LARWIN PARK DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES (ACTION)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Plan C ("Major modification, redesign alternative"); direct staff to bring forward the
recommendation to City Council for their action, and proceed with the development of
Larwin Park.
ITEM EXPLANATION;
On February 25, 1991, the Parks and Recreation Commission adopted the preliminary
concept plan for Larwin Park prepared by Van Dyke Associates. Subsequent to the Parks
and Recreation Commission meeting and during the design development and park
planning process, additional information was brought forward. This information results
in new issues, amplifies some of the existing issues, and may affect the viability of the
approved plan. They are:
• Heightened public concern and expanded scientific research into
possible health hazards of EMF
Biological report identifying sensitive coastal sage and a pair of
gnatcatchers.
Updated grading figures (indicating quantities in conflict with the
Hillside Development Ordinance)
Updated cost estimates ($3.5 million or $.8 million over current
C.I.P. Budget)
In response to these issues, staff has identified two alternatives to the previously approved
plan. In conjunction with the original plan, staff will review the following three options.
PLAN A - Original Plan (prepared by Van Dyke Associates)
PLAN B - Original Plan less ballfields
PLAN C - Major modification (redesign alternatives)
FISCAL IMPACT;
The 22-acre Larwin Park has been identified in the C.I.P. to be constructed in fiscal year
91-92, and $2.7 million has been funded for this project.
The cost to develop Plan A has been estimated at $3.5 million.
At this time, there are no specific cost estimates for Plan B nor C. However, staff feels
the cost for these alternatives are within the $2.7 million current C.I.P. Budget.
EXHIBITS;
1. Larwin Park Status Report
O s'
July 18, 1991
TO: CITY MANAGER
VIA: Parks and Recreation Director" V.
**-
FROM: Park Development Coordinator
LARWIN PARK STATUS REPORT: PARK DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
The City's Park Planning Consultant, Van Dyke Associates, have completed a preliminary
park plan for 22-acre Larwin Park. This plan includes a balance of passive and active
uses including:
(1) Multi purpose field (softball and soccer)
(3) Tennis courts
(1) Basketball court
(1) Play lot/Tot lot
(1) Picnic/Open play area
(1) Rest room
Trails
Open Space Areas
Parking
This plan was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on February 25th. At
that time, the plan was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Also, prior
to this meeting, staff met with neighborhood groups on two occasions to review the park
concept.
During the public meetings, several issues have been raised by adjacent neighbors. The
major issues include:
Traffic/parking (especially related to the proposed park access off of
Vancouver Street and through the Tanglewood Project)
Ballfields adjacent to houses
Electro magnetic fields (EMF) from powerlines
Subsequent to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, additional information has
brought forward new issues and amplified some of the existing issues. These issues are:
Heightened public concern and expanded scientific research into
possible health hazards of EMF
Biological report identifying sensitive coastal sage and a pair of
gnatcatchers.
Updated grading figures (indicating quantities in violation the Hillside
Development Ordinance)
Updated cost estimates (3.5 million or 1 million over current C.I.P.
Budget)
EXHIBIT 1 "" 2B
Page 2
In response to the latest information, staff has prepared several alternative conceptual
park designs to address the issues described above. Out of the several alternative
concepts, staff has selected one concept, referred to as "Plan C" ("Plan A" being the
original Van Dyke plan), which provides the most recreational amenities with the least
neighborhood and environmental impacts. Plan C includes:
(1) Open play area
(2) Tennis Courts
(2) Basketball courts (1 full and 1 half court)
(1) Play lot/Tot lot
(2) Picnic areas
(1) Rest room
Trails
Open Space Areas
Parking
A third alternative exists where the original ("Plan A") is left intact except that the
organized sports fields are replaced with a passive open play area. This option is
referred to as "Plan B."
To clarify, we currently have 3 alternative park plans under consideration:
PLAN A Active Park (original Van Dyke plan approved by the Parks
and Recreation Commission)
PLAN B Original plan ("Plan A") less ballfields
PLAN C Passive Park redesign
The pros and cons of the three plans are outlined in the attachment.
Staff recommends Plans A, B and C be brought back before the Parks and Recreation
Commission at their August meeting for review in the light of new information. The Parks
and Recreation Commission recommendation may then be forwarded to the City Council
for direction prior to proceeding with design development for Larwin Park.
MARKSTEY,
Attachment
dm
Assistant City Manager
Municipal Projects Manager
Mark:Larwin:Design.Alt \j ^ . O **i
("W I
CO
Q.
CD
o-5? 83d.
°-i
DL
%
4-rfCO
COT3
.CD
"COCD
CD %
Z -1
<; c
-J CO
a-E
2.-— ^
CO
CO<°-
-7 CD
^ -^< >>2?CO
x~~~os
•J
a
o "a" sQ. O
+ ^
5?
§
C\^§o0
.<o.2 S2 c -jc$ a <5
§ 0> °-
CO C 05.0 0 >Eliminates ,Eliminates >More pass/I 1 1
Eliminates ballfieldsMore passive park1 1
fli 'TTT*SjJ CO
•^ <ow om O3^U O— ^Q.
.1 1
Provides most complete actiparkHelps meet ballfields standa+ +
ECO
D)2
Q_
i£
CO
D,egative Declarationastal sageatcatcher nest area^8§>
•= to co5 c c
in '™ '«C/7 4-< 4~*O CD CD
CL CC CC
+ + +
-- CO
Would require EIREliminates approximately 1/z coastasage on siteEliminates gnatcatcher nesting arei • i
COi2 co
CO Q>co S-o <o
« 05
M/ou/d require EIRAlmost completely eliminatessageEliminates gnatcatcher nestin• 1 1
15•4.^
CD
E
O
'>cLU ballfield objectionsaccess objectionsEliminatesEliminates+ +Eliminates ballfield objectionsEliminates access objections+ +
-C0)3
OC
£
tj
Ballfields adjacent to housesAccess issue off Vancouver &Tanglewood• i
T3
o
5 tj
.2>§.sf
coCD
ear powerlines deleted:ated away from powerliriurt in close proximity toC " 0 CO
Slai
1511CO O *~ OCO h- -r- C5.
+ + ,
81
Ballfields near powerlines deletedTot lot in close proximity to powerl+ .
&
^'js1
Ballfields and tot lot in closeto powerline easement•
LL
SLU
CDO
ballfields, relocation ofid passive park designuces required grading;ide Development Ordinaof large retaining walls•5 ta^i §i^icilisp
Q Q. O)> LU
+ + +Grading quantities reduced withdeletion of ballfieldsStill violates Hillside DevelopmentOrdinanceStill requires large retaining wall+
•«u
Extensive gradingViolates Hillside DevelopmenOrdinanceLarge retaining wallsII 1
O)c
'"8k_CD
o
I
inoi
c!c
'I
"CD o
*«"co 3CD CO
8-0.Q.==co o
«2 ento cO 'IZO OT
* X« CD
+
^^\J
Ds«.to CM
O) C3)C C11O) CD
•o 52
*8S,CO O O)
£> 0 ^«^_ . . ^rO tj 03
C .91 Q.
il°
CD C3) OQ .£ =: 51+
^«c9*§3
So1
1
Y--
c3r- *-.II
65.as•
<nO
O
"8
Declaration can be issuinot be delayed.If Negativeproject will+
m
EIR and coastal sage mitigation pitwill delay projecti
cco
^L
o
I•w
E
CD
8»CO «_~. oa .£.to OCQ ^
c3 Q.
StS€
a: SLU ^
•
CD
3•o<D
0CO
£
I
inco
o4-^
o
I
in
c\i
2
iCOcoCD
a
coQ.
.0
COO
«- CDCD_ n
D
CD
Q.
O
OJ
CD
4-*
O)
'§CD
I
CO
c
ICO
o$
to
E
wCD
S oCO *
I
qc
co