The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.1 Attachment A1 –– v– v Shade Shelter Feasibility Study Hap Magee Ranch Park October 05, 2023 Prepared by Callander Associates Landscape Architecture Inc. for the Town of Danville 2 INTRODUCTION The Alamo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) has proposed installing a new custom shade shelter at Hap Magee Ranch Park to provide a space for programmed gatherings, such as park history tours and outdoor classes. The MAC is seeking input from the Town of Danville (Town) since they jointly share responsibility for maintenance and capital expenditures for the park. The Town of Danville has requested that Callander Associates (CALA) prepare a brief feasibility study that the Town can share with the MAC to convey the feasibility of various candidate locations for the shade shelter. The study’s purpose is to help inform both the MAC’s and the Town’s decision for the feasibility and potential location of the future shade shelter. PROCESS The process for assessing the feasibility of the different candidate locations included the following three steps: 1) Observations: A site walk to observe the setting of each of the candidate sites. 2) Visual Simulations: Drafting of visual renderings to gain a better understanding of the scale and contextual impacts of a shade structure at each candidate location. 3) Pros/Cons Lists: Development of a pros and cons list to summarize and help quantify the pros and cons for each candidate location. OBSERVATIONS A site walk was conducted on Tuesday September 12, 2023. Two representatives from CALA met with Dave Casteel, the Town of Danville’s Maintenance Services Director, at the park to observe each candidate site listed below and as shown on the Site Locations Exhibit on the following page: 1) Site 1 – Adjacent to Dog Park 2) Site 2 – Adjacent to Play Area 3) Site 3 – Near Labyrinth 4) Site 4 – Near Building The candidate sites were selected based on recommendations from the MAC, the Town of Danville, and through on-site observations. 3 4 Below is a summary of the observations made for each candidate site: Site 1 – Adjacent to Dog Park The first candidate site is an existing planting area located at the north corner of the parking lot adjacent to the dog park. The site has a substantial slope towards the parking lot and the core area of the park. Due to the site’s close proximity to the dog park, parking lot, and freeway, the site is spatially constrained and will require some tree removals. The site also strongly smells of dog urine due to its adjacency to the dog park. Freeway and dog park noise is persistent. Site 2 – Adjacent to Play Area The second candidate site is an existing turf area constrained in between a path and the play area. The site is relatively flat and shady. There was moderate noise from the play area at the time of the site visit, and could potentially be louder during peak play area times. Less than 100’ away was an existing picnic area with shade structures. 5 Site 3 – Near Labyrinth The third candidate site is an open unplanted landscape area with a light covering of mulch at the edge of a lawn area and close to the labyrinth towards the back edge of the park. The site is roughly 175’ away from the existing gazebo in the meadow area. The site was quiet and relatively flat other than being adjacent to a moderately steep embankment. Site 4 – Near Building The fourth candidate site is a relatively flat unplanted landscape area with a light covering of mulch adjacent to a white wood fence and a lawn edge. The site has mature trees relatively close to the site, which provides an abundance of shade. The site was relatively quiet, although it may get noisier during peak use when children are playing nearby. 6 VISUAL SIMULATIONS After the site walk, CALA obtained three different 3D shade structure models from Coverworx, a potential vendor identified by the MAC. The three models differ in size: 1) 20’x30’ Shade Structure 2) 30’x40’ Shade Structure 3) 42’x50’ Shade Structure Using the models and site photos, visual simulations were developed to gain a better understanding of the impacts a shade structure could potentially have at each candidate site. Through this process, it was found only a 20’x30’ shade structure can comfortably fit at all four candidate sites. Only Site 3 – Near Labyrinth can potentially fit a larger shade structure. Below are the visual simulations which show the 20’x30’ shade structure model overlaid on a site photo of each candidate site: Site 1 – Adjacent to Dog Park 7 Site 2 – Adjacent to Play Area Site 3 – Near Labyrinth 8 Site 4 – Near Building PROS & CONS After the development of the visual simulations, a pros and cons list was developed to summarize and help quantify the pros and cons for each candidate site, see below: Site 1 – Adjacent to Dog Park Pros  High visibility location  No redundant amenities close to site Cons  Sloping site will require extensive site work  Adjacency to parking lot  Adjacency to freeway  Adjacency to dog park  Constrained space  Tree removals required  Utilizes buffer area between dog park and parking lot  Not connected to main park circulation  May need to provide accessible path to area  Far from supporting amenities 9 Site 2 – Adjacent to Play Area Pros  Relatively flat site will require less site work  Centralized location and close to supporting amenities  Connection to park circulation  Shady  Minimal to no tree removals required Cons  Constrained space  Redundant amenity within area (picnic area less than 100 ft away)  Heavily programmed area  Reduced visibility from parking lot Site 3 – Near Labyrinth Pros  Relatively flat site will require less site work  Large space to work with  Currently unprogrammed area  Quiet  No redundant amenities close to site  Connection to park circulation  Minimal to no tree removals required Cons  Steep slope adjacent to site, may require a barrier  Competes visually with gazebo  Development of accessible path to location will likely be required  Further from supporting amenities  Not shady Site 4 – Near Building Pros  Central location  Currently unprogrammed area  Relatively flat site will require less site work  Shady  No redundant amenities close to site  Connection to park circulation  Centralized location and close to supporting amenities Cons  Removal of fence may be required  Extensive tree roots and canopy will need to be worked around or heavily pruned  Needs to visually match with buildings and may compete with adjacent buildings 10 RECOMMENDATIONS Cost is a significant factor that the Town and the MAC will have to consider. Below are rough estimated probable costs for each site: Site 1 – Adjacent to Dog Park $100,000 20’x30’ shade structure and installation $20,000 20’x30’ concrete pad for shade structure $2,000 50 SF concrete path for circulation connection $50,000 Extra site work for significantly sloped constrained site $50,000 Demolition, erosion control, grading, and drainage $20,000 Startup & mobilization $35,000 Contingency for feasibility study level of design $277,000 Total Estimated Probable Cost Site 2 – Adjacent to Play Area $100,000 20’x30’ Shade structure and installation $20,000 20’x30’concrete pad for shade structure $1,000 25 SF concrete path for circulation connection $35,000 Demolition, erosion control, grading, and drainage $15,000 Startup & mobilization $25,000 Contingency for feasibility study level of design $196,000 Total Estimated Probable Cost Site 3 – Near Labyrinth $100,000 20’x30’ Shade structure and installation $20,000 20’x30’ concrete pad for shade structure $10,000 50 LF of guardrail $15,000 400 SF concrete path for circulation connection $45,000 Demolition, erosion control, grading, drainage $15,000 Startup & mobilization $30,000 Contingency for feasibility study level of design $235,000 Total Estimated Probable Cost Site 4 – Near Building $100,000 20’x30’ Shade structure and installation $20,000 20’x30’ concrete pad for shade structure $8,000 200 SF concrete path for circulation connection $40,000 Demolition, erosion control, grading, drainage $15,000 Startup & mobilization $25,000 Contingency for feasibility study level of design $208,000 Total Estimated Probable Cost 11 Based on the unique pros and cons of each site, the following determinations were made: 1. Sites 1 & 2 should not be considered feasible locations due to the magnitude of the cons outweighing the pros. 2. Sites 3 & 4 could potentially be feasible, but consideration would need to be given to the impact of the cons as well as additional site modifications that would be required at each location. Alamo Municipal Advisory Council Sharon Burke, Chair Heather Chaput, Vice Chair Anne Struthers Cecily Barclay Michaela Straznicka Robert Brannan Robert Mowat Michelle Parkinson, Alternate Nicolas Angel-Ordonez, Youth Member The Alamo Municipal Advisory Council serves as an advisory body to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Agency. Candace Andersen, Supervisor Contra Costa County, District 2 309 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94526 925.655.2300 supervisorandersen@bos.cccounty.us January 8, 2024 Town of Danville Attention: Dave Casteel Maintenance Services Director Town of Danville 1000 Sherburne Hills Road Danville, CA 94526 Dear Dave, The Alamo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) has discussed the proposed shade structure at Hap Magee several times over the past two years. Alamo MAC members have carefully considered what the community would like and have spent time considering their own personal priorities as well as those of the community. At their December 5, 2023 meeting, the MAC made a motion to recommend Site Three (near the Labyrinth) using the design that was presented to the Alamo MAC (per designs attached) using the wood that was saved from the Tack Room. We look forward to working with you on this joint project. Sincerely, Sharon Burke Sharon Burke Alamo MAC Chair