SR-303-011 (5)
Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board Meeting
December 6, 1999
Comments and Recommendations on the Recommended Concept Design for the Virginia
Avenue Park Expansion Project
Public Comments:
?
disappointed that previous recommendations of VAPAB not noted in summary
fashion or included in staff report
?
WG mission was to integrate Plasticmart site into the plan
?
the staff report does not include the previous history and extensive process prior to
WG establishment
?
hope that the storage and maintenance areas are for use by Virginia Avenue Park only
and not to meet other city storage needs
?
proposed public art integration – it is unclear whose history and culture will be
represented
?
Pio Pico plaza concept is not in final plan
?
not in favor of proposed swimming area
?
remain to be convinced that the parking proposed along the Pico Blvd. Frontage will
be regulated effectively for use by park users only even with a 2 hour parking
restriction
?
Is there some way that the traffic study can also cover the issue of resident parking
restrictions along Virginia Avenue?
?
Will temporary parking on grass cause damage or erosion? How will it be protected?
?
Why have a swimming pool with the new municipal pool at the College being built?
?
Why do people not support a pool? It is necessary to have a pool. Children of the
community need a local pool. Parents’ schedules do not allow us to always take our
children to the pool at the College—schedules conflict with each other.
?
Is the Farmers Market the same size as it is currently?
?
Is there a way to screen the parked cars from Pico Boulevard and from the interior of
the park?
?
Why is Pio Pico Plaza not in this plan? The community made a presentation and had
support of corner concept in past history. Where are old plans?
?
What type of trees are proposed? Will they be mature trees or will they take 20 years
to mature?
?
Will the pool be ozonated or chlorinated?
Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board Comments
P. Tigler
?
new design upholds the integrity of the Phase I plan with two exceptions-the addition
of the pool and the integration of the Farmer’s Market in a different configuration
(not supportive of pool;supportive of Framer’s Market)
F:staffreport\VAPConceptDesign-4
1
?
Farmers Market: The traffic and circulation issues presented by the market are yet
proven to be resolved. The true impacts can only be evaluated once the market is
operating. The ability to address to these impacts must be built into the plan. We
suggest a CUP that has a regular review of 6 months for the first 3 years and annual
review thereafter. Physical damage to the park by the market is a distinct possibility.
A bond posted by the market would insure money to fix any damage would be readily
available. Inclusion of a bond should be part of the CUP.
?
Parking: The Pico adjacent parking is vulnerable to domination by the College. The
City has shown a lack of ability to enforce parking restrictions and posted rules in the
existing Virginia adjacent lot. Solutions that rely on enforcement responsibility are
not likely to be realized.
?
Pool: The inclusion of major new park features was not part of the WG’s charge. We
feel the need has not been substantiated; a water play feature already exists in the
plan; this pool is outside the SM Parks Masterplan and current facility schedule: costs
related to construction, maintenance and staffing are beyond City commitment and
the physical space need are reasons to abandon the pool feature and concentrate our
efforts on other development aspects and needs.
?
Maintenance and Staff Budgets: The City has a poor history with maintenance and
staff budgets. The status quo is below par. It is imperative that appropriate levels of
funding be guaranteed to operate a first class facility as it is built. This concept is
mentioned in the staff report but lacks crucial emphasis.
?
Interior Space: It is our concern that the expanded interior spaces be equipped with an
academically inclined infrastructure. The most up to date electronics,
communications and furnishings for educational use are a must.
?
Design and Art Review: It is imperative that community input does not stop at this
“concept design” juncture. Design detail and art review are important elements that
help create a flavor of the park. We want inclusion in the decision making of these
elements.
E.Bell
?
pool was supported by community members who participated in WG process
B. Tomeo
?
concern that estimated construction cost exceeds the available budget by 1.5 million
and wished that the WG had prioritized to meet the budget and perhaps the Board
should prioritize the plan to meet the budget
T. Waring
?
supportive of previous budget comment-is the plan to scale the project down or find
more money? Will components be eliminated in the future?
?
supports the need to monitor the CUP for the Farmer’s Market as previously stated
?
is the Pavilion area a performance space?
?
what will draw people to use the Central Garden? Are there seating areas proposed?
Why will people stop there?
F:staffreport\VAPConceptDesign-4
2
S. Cloke (VAPAB liaison)
?
if Board and community support the plan, thinks that Council will find the funding; if
Council does not fully fund it, the design should return to be prioritized by Virginia
Avenue Park Community
Nick Steers
?
likes concept
?
concerned with levels of staffing needed to maintain and operate pool and facilities
over time: In future will there be a need to close facilities due to lack of staff?
J. Leavitt
?
thinks projects will be funded
?
concern that parking along Pico Blvd. Frontage will be too attractive to SMC students
?
likes the plan and suggested uses of programmatic spaces
?
keep youth involved as project develops—have youth part of an art program
(examples: at Central Garden outdoor environmental classroom area). Important to
have youth part of civic process.
?
encourages use of ozonated pool
E. Faber
?
supportive of plan. Feels that all the issues can be solved
?
biggest concern is staffing and maintenance
?
message to City Council should be: “Let’s get it done, built and moving!”
A. Munoz
?
pleased with plan overall, concern with parking on grass in terms of car grease and oil
and parking on basketball courts for same reasons
?
as plan progresses need to address lighting issues for improved security
R. Green
?
not supportive of pool
?
concerned that proposed temporary parking may become permanent: What does
temporary mean?
N. Gordon
?
wants to make sure that Board is included in future decisions that are made
M. Padilla
?
supports concept plan
?
wants to insure that the park will have paths and access for bike riding
A.Adams
?
public art should reflect and focus on ethnic groups of community
?
supports the pool and initially did not support it
F:staffreport\VAPConceptDesign-4
3
?
Important to recognize the complete history of the project and those people who
contributed to this history
B.Rhuys
?
concern about the liability and maintenance needs of the pool—if these issues can be
resolved then comfortable with including the pool
?
as project design progresses it should come back to the VAPAB and community for
input
?
local artists should be involved in the project—tap into local talent
F:staffreport\VAPConceptDesign-4
4