Commission backs sand volleyball court design at Ocean View Park; narrows path width and adds asphalt—6-0 recommendation to council

The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Ocean View Park sand volleyball court design to the City Council after extensive public comment and commissioner discussion about tree impacts, drainage, ADA access and parking.

Project details presented by Andre Sterling, project manager in Public Works, included a sand court built on the footprint of the existing casual grass court, new poles and pole pads, four benches, a dual‑sided information board, and subsurface drainage tied into an existing inlet near the community garden. Sterling said the playing area would be about 30 by 60 feet with a 4‑foot sand border, and that the design sought to minimize impacts on the adjacent redwood grove by keeping the border as small as practicable.

“We want to delineate the spaces there, of the community garden and the volleyball court… this court will be constructed on the footprint of the existing casual grass court. So this will not impact the trees around the perimeter of this court,” Sterling said in his presentation. He also described an expanded asphalt path in front of the community garden to provide ADA‑compliant access and listed a schedule that could award a contract in November and start construction in early winter, with closeout early next year.

Urban Forester John Hawkerage told commissioners there would be an impact to the redwood grove from increased use and construction in the area but said the grove is already heavily used and stressed. “There’ll be impact. How much impact is the question? There’s already impact there in that grove,” he said, adding that design choices can reduce—but not fully eliminate—stress to roots and canopy.

Public comment split largely along two lines. Neighbors, gardeners and environmental commenters urged the commission to preserve the park’s small redwood grove and open lawn; they raised concerns about root compaction, runoff into a nearby creek, cat waste in sand, insufficient parking and crowding of an already busy park. Key comments included:

- Sharon, a long‑term community gardener, said the neighborhood’s limited green space and nearby recreational facilities make the grass area more valuable as an open lawn than as a single‑use court.

- Sulai, a community gardener, warned that excavation, daily impacts and drainage could eventually harm the redwoods’ shallow root systems.

Opponents also questioned whether enough sand would be needed and whether drainage would keep the court playable; one commenter cited typical construction practice requiring substantial excavation, drainage pipes and hundreds of tons of sand.

Supporters, including several parents and local players, said the city lacks accessible volleyball facilities and that a nearby sand court would particularly benefit girls and young women who otherwise travel outside Albany to practice. Aaron Frank, a longtime resident, said the court would provide local, walkable access for players and noted coexistence between sand courts and redwoods in other communities.

Commissioners debated several design tradeoffs: whether to preserve the current width of an asphalt path in the area (roughly 9–10 feet in places), narrow it to conserve tree roots, or replace it with a 4– to 5‑foot ADA path. Staff presented options ranging from keeping the existing width to narrowing to a 4–5‑foot path and also flagged an alternate material (Granitecrete) and asphalt for the UC Village (west) path.

After discussion the commission recommended the project proceed to council with two explicit preferences: a compromise path width near 7 feet on the main path to balance root protection and access, and replacing the broken decomposed‑granite path on the UC Village (west) side with asphalt for durability and ADA consistency. The commission recorded a unanimous 6–0 recommendation (Commissioners Chang, Chang Frank, Kent, Martin, Trinkle and Abbott voted yes). The motion was moved and seconded on the record; staff noted the commission’s recommendation will go to City Council and that additional design refinements may follow.

The commission did not authorize any tree removals as part of its recommendation; commissioners and staff discussed pruning and selective thinning as mitigation and emphasized phased removals if any are required. Staff also said the proposed drainage would connect to an existing low point and that the apparent risk of chlorinated discharges should be managed to avoid creek impacts.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the commission’s feedback into the Council submittal, refine design details about the path material and width, post the project to Council for review and continue coordination with urban forestry to limit root impacts. The project timeline presented to the commission showed the earliest possible contract award this fall and construction beginning in early winter, subject to Council approval and any design changes.