HomeMy WebLinkAbout031324 Sp. Meeting 5.1 attachments1
––
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
Statement to Danville Parks and Recreation Commission – February 14, 2024
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Sharon Burke. I am a member of the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council.
Our council of 7 Alamo residents advises Contra Costa County on budget and
expenditures for County Service Area R-7, the Alamo Parks and Recreation District.
In 2021, a proposal was made to tear down what was known as the “small barn” in
order for the Bounty Garden to expand and because the small barn was in bad shape.
The Magee family called this building the Tack Room as that was where they stored
equipment or horse tack for riding. Danville voted yes to tear down this building but the
MAC voted initially to oppose the tear down in favor of restoring the building. However,
it soon became apparent that restoring such a deteriorating building would be far more
expensive than simply building anew so on second consideration, the MAC voted to
approve the teardown. As part of that motion, we asked that the Town preserve the 80
year old barn wood from the building to possibly be used in a new structure.
Since that time, we have explored what uses and purposes such a structure would
have. Many of our suggestions for uses were centered around agricultural or farm
purposes. Shaded space for outdoor classes with the history of the park. School groups
and tours. Farmers’ market. Farm to table demonstrations, perhaps by the Bounty
Garden. Gardening classes. Shaded exhibit space for historical story boards. Our
primary purpose for the building is as a starting point for tours of the park and its
resources, with emphasis on the history of the park and access to the Brand Room. The
Brand Room is the small building behind the Swain House that was used by Hap Magee
as a BBQ space and outdoor kitchen. Hap collected historic cattle brands and burned
these brands into the wood floor, where they still exist but are largely unseen by human
eyes because the Brand Room is not now open to the public. There would also need to
be some kind of expenditure to preserve the building and get it ready for tours. The
MuseumSRV has recently come into a windfall of receiving many of Hap Magee’s brands
which had been lost since his death. This is a wonderful, literally world class, historical
resource right here in Danville, as Hap Magee’s brand collection was unparalleled.
You have received copies of the study that Danville conducted as to where to site the
shade structure we are asking for. The MAC voted to approve Site 3, near the labyrinth.
We felt this was the only feasible site as it is near the historic area to begin tours and it
avoids conflicts with other park resources like the dog park and the Cottage. We also
have color concepts of two different designs that reuse the historic barn wood and are
large enough for our purposes. A working budget to build this design is $250-300,000.
We ask your approval to proceed forward with the next steps to build this structure.
Sharon Burke