Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/05/03 - Agenda Packet .. � J . /All IL r v ♦ - • O vie, CJi OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA C P.L,ANNING GOTN ' ION t 4, AGENDA 1977 MONDAY MAY 3, 1982 7-10 F.M. LIONS PARK C014MUNITY CENTER 9t61 EASE LINE,. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA t PUBLIC HEARING FOR: TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I. -Pledge of Allegiance II_ Roll Cali Commissioner King Commissioner Sceranka Co:mnssiouer Rempel_ Commissioner Tolstoy III. Staff Report No. 4 A. Greenway Concepts B. Park Concepts C. Flood Control D. Drainage IV. Adjournment ,s. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT. ' , ' � r `o F z 19777 DATE: May 3, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Ccmwtmission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY STAFF REPORT NO. 4 SUMMARY: This is the fourth in a series of reports analyzing the Terra Vista Planned Community Text and draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The following analysis covers discussion on the greenway design and concept; park locations, sizes and development; and flood control and drainage. The greenway concept and design is generally satisfactory, staff has made some ;uggestions and recom- mendations. The park locations and sizes require some revision; particularly with regards to the amount of parkland proposed and , the implementation for their development. The flood control and drainage concepts present sore nr++ ideas regarding joint usage with parks. The analysis on the parks has been provided by Bill Holley, Director of Community Services, which is attached. The flood control and drainage analysis was compiled by the Engineering Division and is attached for your review. Tonight's discussion should provide staff, applicant and consul�;ant with enough direction on these issues that will enable the apply cant to begin the completion of the final draft. We anticipate tc conclude Corm ssir�n review of the text during June and July and forward recommendations to the City Council in July or August. TOPIC NO. 1 : GREENWAY CONCEPT AND DESIGN One of the main elementc of Terra Vista are the greenways throughout the Corry:-:;Ly. They are intended to be linear parks containing wal,cways and trails which connect the various activity centers. The greenways are classified in two categories; (1 ) Vajor Greenways, and (2) Secondary Greenways. Terra Vista Planned Coimnity Staff Report No. 4 May 3, 1982 Page 2 1 . Major Greenway: The major greenway consists of a 40' -80' wide linear park. It.is intended to be designed to accom- modate pedestrian paths, bicycle trails, and jogging paths. A full conceptual plan and design of this greenway has not been provided at this time. It is recommended that more detailed conceptual plans are prepared and approved by the City's Design Review Committee prior to development of the first phase of the project. The conceptual plan should address pathway material , plant types, lighting, design features and recreational areas. In addition, any fencing along the greenway should be consistent in material and design. Details should be included in final conceptual plan. For consistency purposes, it is recommended that all .fencing along the greenway be installed by the devel- oper. 2. Secondary Greenway: The plan proposes two sizes for second- ary greenway; a 30'-40' greenway with separate pedestrian and bicycle paths and a 12'-20' greenway with a single path. The greenway system map does not differentiate the difference between these two types. A precise trail plan indicating sizes and conceptual designs _hould be prepared and approved by the City's Design ReviEA Committee prior to construction of first phase development. Again, all fencing along these - - greenways should be consistent and installed by the developer. The small greenway proposed, as small as 12 feet, is too narrow. The concept is to provide a 6 foot path which would leave only 3 feet on either side for landscape. This narrow- ness does not allow for much flexability in the final design. It is recommended that the greenways be no narrower than 20' wide. The text should also include some provisions for implementation ' and installation of the parks. The secondary greenways are probably going to be installed with the development in the immediate area. However, the major greenway is a major compo- nent of the plan and it isn't clear when it will be installed. The installation of the greenway and parks and the phasing of the cveraU plan need to be adequately addressed in the plan, Commission ideas should be made known at this time on this issue. c. -7 K } y L Terra Vista Planned- Corviunity Staff Report No. 4 May 3, 1982 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: The following are recommended revisions to the plan, io be incorporated into the final text. 1. A comprehensive conceptual plan for the major and secondary greenways addressing pathway design and material , plant types, lighting, design features, fencing, and recreational areas shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to construction of the first phase of development. 2. Secondary greenways should be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 3. Fencinc along all greenways shall be consistent in design and shall be installed by the developer. 4. A phasing and implementation plan for the installation of the greenways shall be developed and contained in the final text. COKMISSION ACTION: TOPIC NO. 2: THE PARK PLAN (See attached memo from Bili Holley) COWISSION ACTION: yt..; y� 1 ill i�t r � � 5". _ .. ` r✓ ...!?.r Terra Vista Planned Coatmunity Staff Report No. 4— May 3, 1982 Page 4 �n., CONTROL tta. Ied F Engineering) TUPIL IYV. 3: rLVVL' vuN1ROL ZSe2 Q44Ct.�ICV .. '� crrrn COMMISSION ACTION: TOPIC NO. 4: DRAINAGE (See attached memo from Engineering) COMMISSION ACTION: CITY TOFF TR�A{{N'��CHO�� CUCAMONGA c�c 1Wl�s l!'lllRl'1ND 1. M O O A F �� Z Date: April 28, 1982 :7 19 To: Planning Commission From: Bill Holley, Director, nSe' ces Department Subject: Terra Vista: The Park Plan PREFACE Terra Vista has progressed a long way in both tine and Positive content since it was presented to the Municipal Advisory Council in 1977 as the "Highlands". The purpose of this memorandum will be to discuss the current pro.posal of the Lewis Develcpaent Company in relation to meeting City park dedication standards, the Recreation Element of the General P1;=, and appropriateness of location. THE PAFK STANDARD The Municipal Code for Rancho Cucamonga, via Ordinance 105, directs that new residential subdivisions provide 5 acres of dedicated and developed parkland, or an equal value of in lieu fees, or an equivalent combination thereof, for each 1000 residents generated by the project. City Council, by Resolution, has established that for purposes of implementing the park dedication and development ordinance, the population for a dwelling shall be 3.1 persons per .alit. The items which are the subject of the two preceding paragraphs, the Ordinance and the Resolution, have been in the past and remain to date, controversial and unpopular with development interests. However, for the purpose at hand, review of the Terra Vista project with relation to the park standards, the controversy and unpopularity are irrelevant and nct a proper topic for discussion within the scope of our task. It is the law and provisions must be complied with prior to project_ approval. The Planning Commission recently set a ceiling limit of 8,000 units for Terra Vista, with the possibility of a density bonus for affordable housing. This report will assume that it is the 8,000 unit count that will serve as the basis for park planning. Increases above this base level may be handled at the individual tract stage through directed modification and/or payment of in lieu fees to achieve compliance. Having now completed the necessary preamble of background information, this s what the park requirement for Terra Vista is established at: "N'. "Pn "S.0 8000 x 3.1 x 5 124 acres parkland The proponents propose 83.3 acres of public parkland and trails within Terra Vista. This is in deficit by 40.7 acres and the overall plan cannot be approved until ccupliance is achieved. The Terra Vista Plan must include a written and specific methodology, within its text, by which 124 acres of parkland requireirents are to be met, be it through straight dedication, dedication and development, in lieu fees, credit for private open space, or any combination thereof considered acceptable by the Planninc Ccam-ission. THE PAMfi LCCATT_ONS AND THE GENERAL PLAN The responsibility for determining and approving the location of public park sites rests with the City. It is the City that is the guardian of the public trust and interest. While special interest concerns are generally compatible with that public interest, and those special interests can share in meeting that public interest . the City cannot share the "responsiL.�lity" for the decisions made in behalf of the public interest. In locating parks, judgement must be made on what best serves the public interest . . . if they also and coincidentally serve the special interest, so much the better. Toward understanding what those responsibilities are, a Park and Recreation Element was a%icpted as an integral part of the. General Plan, outlining Goal: and Objectives, 'implementation, and general site locations. It is this General Plan that serves as our guide toward developing the City's --ecreation facilities. Prcposed development mast react and be responsive to the General Plan . . , and not the other way around. With that in mind, how well does Terra Vista respond to the General Plan? _2_ ,:fyY .rig ... .._. SECTION 1. 11jE PARK/SCHOOL JOINT USE CONCEPT As proposed, Terra Vista fails to fully maXi-Mize opportunities for joint use between parks and schools as specifically called for in the General Plan. Elementary schools, for example, are typically shown as 10 acre sites and parks for discussion purposes, average 5 acres. While they may in most cases show some degree of proximity or adjacency to one another, they are not generally configured to permit the functional integration of design, cons*-nuct'on, public utilization, or, maintenance. Further, the present design fails to permit recognition of the key feature of joint utilization . . . that is, cost reduction while simultaneously improving joint opportunity. For example, under the current proposal, a 10 acre school site will have to be purchased, developed and maintained by the School District. Of that 10 acres, approximately 7 acres will be available for outdoor education and recess. A 5 acre park separate and apart from the school will provide 5 acres of recreational opportunities at a cost of maintenance for the 5 acres. ® on the other han,"., prcperly matching a 6 acre park site with a 6 acre school site, as is the case with the Etiwanda District, will result in lowered site accrjisition, development and ongoing maintenance costs for the District while increasing available playfield area from 7 to 9 acres. The public recreation space will increase from 5 acres to 9 acres with a maintenance cost for 6 acres. -- - Similarly, the Central School District coupling a 7 acme school site with a 6 acre park will show an increase from 7 acres of playfield to 10 acres. Public recreation space will increase from 5 acres to 10 acres with a 6 acre maintenance factor. As for Junior High Schools, Etiwanda awns a twenty acre site on Rochester which may potentially have use as a Junior High. Locating a five acre park site adjacent to that site would lend itself to the benefits of joint use also. The current proposal conforms with that i<Iea, and little change is required. The Junior High School in the Central District, to the western side of the project, does not however present this same opportunity. The park is shown on the west side of the loop and the school on the east. The park should be located adjacent to the school in a 5 acre park, 15 acre school configuration. a� -3- Specific Recormwnda`:Exon on Joint Use 1. Elementary school/park sites within the Etiwanda School District shmsld be designated in a 6 acre school and 6 acre park configuration, without separation by roadway, greenway, or trail to facilitate economy of resources, improved design potential and increased public opportunity. o This requires that the most northerly Elementary School site in the Etiwanda District be reduced from 9.2 acres by 3.2 acres and the adjacent 5.0 acre park be increased by 1.0 acre, and reconfigured as a single use 12.0 acre site. o This requires that the ziost southerly elementary school site be reduced from 10.0 acres by 4.0 acres and the greenway park located on the north side of greenway be shi-=ed to the south side adjacent to the school, and reconfigured as a single use 12.0 acre site. o The park site adjacent to the 20 acre Rochester parcel owned currently by the Etiwanda District, is located. and configured properly, however is to be reduced from 6.5 acres to 5.0 acres. 2. Elementary school/park sites within the Central School District should be designated in a 7 acre school and 6 acrp park con- figuration without separation by roa& ay, greenway, or trail, to facilitate economy of resources, improved design potential and increased public opportunity. o 11"nis reauires that the most northerly elementary school site in the Central District be reduced from 9.8 acres by 2.8 acres and the 5.0 acre park on the north side of the loop be relocated to the south side of the loop adjacent to the school and increased by 1.0 acre. The site shold then be reconfigured as a single use 13 acre site. o This requires that the most southerly elementary school site be reduced from 10. 1 acres by 3.1 acres, and the greenway park located on the north side of oreenway be shifted to the south side adjacent to the school, and that the noncontiguous park site located approxi- mately 500 feet to the south of the school be shifted north to to included in the joint use system. The site should then be reconfigured as a single use 13 acre site. o This requires that the Junior High school site be reduced from 20.0 acres by 5.0 acres and the 9.8 acre park site located on the west side of the loop road be shifted to the east side adjacent to the school 1! -4- and reduced £resn 9.8 acres to 5.0 acres. The .site should then be reconfigured as a single use 20 acre site. Sunzrary of Joint Use Acreage School Sites, Etiwanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..32 acres Park Sites, Etiwanda. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .17 acres School Sites, Central. . . . .. ..29 acres Park Sites, Central. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 acres Total School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6' acres Total Park in Joint Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 acres i s` SECTION 2. PARK/P.ETENTION BASINS The Terra Vista Plan proposes to utilize park facilities as retention/detention basins. This prectice is questionable from several aspects. Let us examine the statements in the E.I.R. prepared by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. about Park Retention/Detention Basins. Page 3-29 - . .These basins create a potential maintenance and liability problem for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. After use of these park areas, there can be debris left on site. Further, the retained water provides an attractive nuisance for children in which they can harm themselves. . ." Maintenance problems and user safety. ..can these negative factors be mitigated? P.B.R., Inc., offer these mitigation measures: Page 3-35 - (The above may be mitigated by) ". . .During the periods (1 to 10 hours) when water is in the park/ retention basins, the public should be kept away. Two standard measures used in other areas to accomplish this are: Post a guard at each basin when more than two feet of water is present or fence the park/retention basin area and lock it when water is present. . ." The mitigation measures as proposed, and after choosing my words carefully, are "somewhat less than satisfactory." To elaborate on the problems in developing parks within retention/detention basins, you encounter: --` - 1. Desicr. Problems. Basin must be sloped toward a central drainage relief point for expeditious evacuation of accu- mulated water. This does not, as the plan illustrates, lend itself to implementation as a ball diamond. It can be done, yes, but why do that when you have a joint use school/park complex with ball diamonds and soccer fields within 600 feet? In other words, why create design pro- blems which are not necessary to create? 2. Maintenance Problems. When you have water flowing or bubbling into a tur ed park area you will receive some siltace and sedimentation deposit. You will also receive scm. e degree of percolation. Together, these two factors will create a soggy, mushy surface which will be easily subject to damage long after the basis has cleared a.ne the users return. Consider how much wear and tear occurs on a "healthy" park or school site from: day long soccer usage. Then consider the impact of that same usage on a soggy mushy surface. -b- Ongoing repair and maintenance will be heavier in this situation than-would be nc -► i. '�Nhy create additional maintenance problems when c' ,e1' are not necessary to create? 3. Safety Problem. Self explanatory. The -rents insist that the-se prebl%=.s listed above are not . sed on their research, We do not agree. The .cents maintain that the occurrencas in which water would enter the basin are irft-equent. Perhaps. ..but why invite such .rsecessazy expos•,-e at all, %d ether it occurs only cmce every two years, twenty years or 100 years? Specific Recommendation on Park Retention/Detentin Basins 1. That park retention/detention basin con=ep't n^t be employed in any park/school joint use project. 2. That the MillikeniChurch Street park retention/detention basir. be reduced in size from 14.9 to 8.9 acres, and that it be passive in design, and that it receive 50% credit towards meeting project park requirements. or. . . That the Milliken/Church Street park be eliminated entirely and replaced by a standard retention basin. i J I •rya .. SECTION 3. TEP.RA VISTA GREENWAY AND TRAIL SYSTEM. The Greenway and Trail as proposed is a definite asset to Terra Vista and Une future residents of the project. Several adjustments need to be made for improved community viability and implementation of the preceding area covered within this report. Specific Reccm , ndations on Greenway and Trails. I. That approximately 6 acres of the 22.6 aces claimed along the riajo: greenway for parks be removed from the total. This is due to location shirting and incorporation of the parks into the joint use concept. In reality, the green- way will still enjoy the passive benefits of rhese areas as proposed, only in a different location. 2. That a pedestrian bridge be constructed across Deer Creek Channel as a continuation of the trail into the triangular section south of Baseline. This would tie the "out" sec- tion to the balance of the project, mitigating addition: need for parks and eliminate the need for school busing. 3. That a pedestrian bridge be constructed across Deer Creek Channel from the section north of Baseline into Deer. Creek Park, mitigating need for a larger park in that section. Summary of Greenwav and Trail Acreage: Greenway. . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.6 acres Trails. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .13.9 acres Total. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .30.5 acres i I 1 SECTION 4, TERRA VISTA AND DEER CREEK PARK j Deer Creek Park, is called out as a site specif .c location within the General Plan. This park will well serve the fature pcpu=lation of Terra Vista. SPeci£i^_ Recommendation on Deer Creek Park 1. That Terra Vista be required to dedicate land within Jeer Creek Park in an undeveloped state tc the City of Ra.nch� Cucamonga in girder to fulfill its park dedication requirements as outlined in Or< .inan. e 105. The dedication of this land in an andevelvVed state nets one half the requirement of Oxdinano! 105 per acre. As you recall, the Ordinance requi -es that the value for the requirement is establisxed at a level for a dedicated and developed acre Df land. The price of land on tFis piece is directLy equivalent to park development costs. Therefore, tha park development credit for the dedication is Listed at 35.75 acres of compliance for dedication :)f 71.5 acres of undeveloped la.-: 1 i I I I SECTION 5. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE Lewis Development Company can apply for up to 50% credit on private open space, per Ordinance 105, toward meeting their park requirements. They indicate it is their intent to do so. The figure they propose is 36 acres of private open space, netting a credit oZ 1S acres toward their requirement. I frankly am uncomfortable with this. Not with the credit being available, that's the law, but with being unable to see when_ and where it's qoina to be implemented. For example, is it going to be applied evenly over appropriate land uses, or is it going to be held till t2:e end for application? This seems like a "trust me" situation without specifics to delineate the program more clearly. Unfortunately, because the project is of such a long time duration, and the cost of characters now involved is very likely to change before the last improvement is finalized, "trust me" situations are very undesirable. Specific Recommendations on Private Open Space I. That through the Planning Cosmission, up to 50% credit for private open :pace be available based upon the specific private recreational amenities proposed and calculated upon. the standards in Ordinance 105. For example, when a higher density development occurs which gerarates, say, 250 individual residents, this indicates Chat an equivalent value of 1.25 acres of developed park- land be available for their use. One recre?tion hail with a pool table does not meet that requi_e:rent and therefore would not qualif;, for the full 50% credit. 2 . That the Terra Vista text show a method for implementing the private cpcn space plan, be it a percentage, a unit cc�_nt triggering device, or whatever manner which would be acceptable to the Planting Cormissior.. -10- S'_rrW-RY AND CONCLUSION The Terra Vista Plan presents a fire "opportunity" for a quality development in the heart of our City. What we have presented in the preceding pages are c=cept-s on several areas relating to ,ark and recreation amenities and our judgement as to how those i•nprovements could be best addressed. A recap would show the following: PUBLIC PARK SPACE CREDIT SUMMARY Deer Creek Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .35.75 acres Greenway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16.6 a :res Trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .13.p acres Joint Use Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34.0 acres Park Retentic-i/Detention Basin. . . .. . . . , 4.45 acres Private Open Space*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .18.0 acres Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .1.3 acres TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124.0 acres *Lewis Development indicates it will provide 35 acres of private open space which may be credited up to 50% per Crdinance 105. ® The 124.0 acres shown above meets Terr.- Vistas legal requirements. What we have not discussed durinc, this concept presentation, as it would be premature, are details on implementation. Past experience has shown us that this must be addressed in the text for a clear understanding by all parties involved of what, when, how and *y — whom, the features of Terra Vista will become reality. Once the Planning Commission has approved a "concept plan", but prior to final approval of the entire plan, direction should be given to staff to prepare implementation details. If I can answer any questions left unanswered, please feel free to give me a call at your convenience. -li- , CL 3 {yam} = O U U a c.) O+ lui ip�p!Y t JIL e — - � e {, � 1 li J J ' 1. m o {y } v. - uj 4=F�< C e13 i 2 { I' a ' g O 1! 21 o m E4 10 Ls AIo } nV a J J — O i r r d M- -� 0i OCL co o rl J J I $ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A STAFF REPORT DATE: May 3, 1482 Z Z TO: Members of the Planning Commission i977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Shir;tu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Terra Vista Project - _Flood Control and Drainage Analysis TOPIC: Flooa Control Terra Vista project site is located along the divide of two major drainage systems - Deer Creek, which traverses the northwest portion of the project and Day Creek, which is situated approximately 1200 feet east of the project. The site is in a flood zone and during the 1969 major storm, the site was flooded from the overflow of Deer Creek and from the failure of the Day C-reek levee. An exhibit to show the 1969 flood overflow area in relation to the project site is shown below for your review. 1969 FLOOD OVERFLOW MAP p ' Since that time, the Day creek levee has been strengthened and as a part of Army Corps of Engineer's Cucamonga Creek Pr-oject, the construction of Deer Creek Channel improvements from Cucamonga Creek to the foothills of the aountains and strengtheng of the west side of the levee is scheduled to be complete, by the end of this year. With the completion of these improvement:, the principal source of flooding to the site will be eliminated. In the E.I.F, analysis for flood protection mitigation measures , it is stated that some protection may be needed for the development to the eastern area of the site due to the absence of improvement in Day creek channel . In our cpinion, any flood hazard to the easterly area will not originate from the Day Creek channel . Any further breakage of the levee may create some flood hazard to the T ® continued.. . 'r i Planning Commission Staff Report Terra Vista - Flood Control/Drainage Anaiysis Page 2 easterly portion which is very unlikely after the strergthing of the levee. However, as stated in the E.I.R. , flood protection needs will be further reviewed at the time of the development plan preparation. RECOMMENDATION: Since the Army Corps of Engineers ' project to improve the Deer Creek Channel and the portion of the Day Creek levee will eliminate the major source of flood hazard to the site, Staff's only recommendation relative to flood protection is that no occupancy permit to any building in the project shall be issued until such time as the aforementioned improvements are compelted. ACTION: TOPIC: Drainage The present drainage runoff of the site is tributary to both the Deer Creek and Day Creek channels, proposed Milliken Avenue being the drainage divide between those twu creeks. The Developer's Engineer has prepared a :Waster plan of drainage for the project site in consultation with the Staff, Army Corps of Engineers and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. A copy of the master plan is attached for your review. The master plan provides for draining the site by means of the internal street systems, underground pipes and a series of detention basins. Due to the limited capacity of Day Creek and potential flooding problem at the downstream End in Riverside County, the master plan proposes to drain all of the project runoff to Deer Creek except for 126 acres located east of future Milliken Avenue. Deer Creek channel has been designed to accept runoff from Terra Vista area on the assumption that the site will remain undeveloped and the Army Corps of Engineers is limiting the inflow to the channel and is ailoting a flow of 430 cfs from Terra Vista site. With the improvements and diversion of drainage area from Day Creek, maximum peak flow that will be generated from Terra Vista for a 100 year frequency storm is calculated to be 575 cfs, and will necessitate the need to detain the excess runoff. The engineer is proposing to utilize the proposed three parksites as detension basins to reduce the peak flow to Deer Creek. A conceptual pian for the park/detention basin is attached for your review. The concept design utilizes an underground flow through pipe across the parksite with a bubbler structure located at a corner. When the peak inflow from the site will exceed the alioted outflow to Deer Creek, basin inflow will occur through the bubbler structure. As the peakflow in Deer Creek subsides, outflow from the basin continued. . . Planning Commission Staff Report Terra Vista - Flood Control/Drainage Analysis Page 3 will occur. For a smaller storm and for nuisance water, detention in the parksite will not be required, but will ba required in severe high intensity R storms. With proper grading, small retention of storm water may be localized to a certain area. Maximum storage that may be required on the site will have a depth of 4 feet for a duration of 10 hn:rs. Percolation of water in the basin is not considered in calcuiating the duration of storage on the site. Utilization of the parksite for detention basin is a policy decision that needs to be addressed by the Commissioners in conjunction with the recommendation and analysis by the Community Services Department. The concept of utilizing parksites for stormwater detention is being used in several municipalities. However, this system has certain disadvantages in relation to maintenance cost and public safety. Collection of sedimentation and debris, especially during the development stages will limit the use of the parksite, will damage landscaping, thereby increasing the cost of maintenance and restoration of the parksite. To provide for public safety during the time water is present in the basin, the E.I.R. has stated that a guard be posted at each basin or fences be installed. Desirability of fencing will be addressed by the Community Services Department. Cost and the feasibility of posting guards is the factor the Commissioners need to consider in evaluating the merit of using parksite for detention purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Since the design of the storm drainage utilizes the park area for its proper function, we recommend that in the event of a change in the location and/or the size of the parksites , additional detention basins be provided, whether ir a park or not. ACTION: Respectfully submitted, Lloyd B. Hubbs s City Engineer By: Shintu Bose Associate Civil Engineer TAC3 OI m PrY r_ p m ' 9 -rm.K-- III/CIt11E11lIHttttltlllrlllllgillllir�i IIEgiC11r111itClrltl2i 1 Itf111CIL 10 _ m mroerrm'Jar Mr S �+ _ P na v I m= 21, 9F CO umnnln�iutcm _ •�trIIIIIl1t1,2jturM . .1 �t _ P \ � r I •' ' V .......... :n lumilf rn i I O 3 r- y m0 00 Sm 00 Z = as 00 � X m +' � 2 9 s y c t: 3 OR z 0 u ca 96 NVI-MW - jO O O O O Uj v f o z C2LLJ h z � z ! O e O I Adilk 3Atl t�)aT ; 1