Commission delays South Park Drive decision after public outcry; asks staff for parking alternatives and cost/impact data

The Park and Playground Commission postponed action on a proposed redesign of South Park Drive, instructing staff to return with additional analysis of parking alternatives after extensive public comment and a split vote on a staff-recommended option.

Public Works engineering staff presented two design alternatives: Option 1 would widen portions of South Park Drive to add a separated bi‑directional multi‑use path while retaining vehicular access and formalizing parking (the staff presentation estimated a net gain of parking spaces in the plan’s current form). Option 2 would fully close South Park Drive to vehicles and rely on new or reconfigured parking access points from Woodland Avenue and at Sycamore Field. Staff stressed that Option 2 was added at the direction of the city council to explore a full-closure scenario; staff also said council-directed funds exist to support the project and that construction sequencing is linked to Peterson Memorial Drive rehabilitation.

Numerous Woodland Avenue and nearby residents told commissioners that both options would materially increase traffic, noise and parking pressure on Woodland Avenue, would harm the historic character of the residential corridor and could complicate emergency access. Speakers raised concerns about: shifting longtime park traffic patterns onto narrow residential streets; loss of green buffers between houses and the park; the visual impact and headlights from new angled parking proposed on South Park Drive’s south side; and the potential for increased neighborhood enforcement and pavement wear. Several residents suggested alternatives including using the horseshoe-pit area for additional parking and improving existing parking lots rather than adding a new long parking strip that backs up to neighborhood homes.

Commissioners debated the merits of both alternatives. One motion to recommend Option 1 as presented (including the proposed south-side angled parking) failed on a roll call 4-2 after commissioners said they needed more information on parking counts, sight lines, emergency access, and cost estimates. After discussion the commission voted 6-0 to postpone action and asked staff to return at the May meeting with a refined package that: (1) analyzes a variant of Option 1 that minimizes the visual impact of any new south-side parking (through reduced stall counts, landscape berming or alternate layouts such as back‑in parking), (2) provides parking‑stall counts for any space eliminated on the north side and the number of additional spaces that could be created at Horseshoe Pit and Sycamore Field, (3) supplies estimated construction costs for alternatives and (4) provides available data on historical vehicle–pedestrian/bicycle incidents in the park.

Staff noted the project is scheduled to proceed through design and environmental review so that construction could take place in 2026, and that delaying final direction past the next commission meeting would compress engineering timelines. Commissioners asked staff to include conceptual renderings, estimated cost differences between options and an explicit assessment of emergency access (response time implications) when the item returns.

Votes and procedural actions recorded during the item: - An initial motion to recommend Option 1 as presented was defeated on a 4-2 roll call. Commissioners voting yes: Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Shearer. Commissioners voting no or abstaining: Commissioner Nava (no), Commissioner Paiva (no), Vice Chair Blaschley (no), Chair Willis (no). The motion failed. - A motion to postpone the item and return with the refined package and parking/cost/incident data passed on a 6-0 roll call. Commissioners voting yes: Commissioner Nava, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Paiva, Commissioner Shearer, Vice Chair Blaschley and Chair Willis.

Staff attending the presentation included Bridal Adeboni (Public Works Engineering director), project manager Mike Cook and a consultant from GHD. Resident speakers included more than a dozen Woodland Avenue and neighborhood residents who opposed either option in its current form and urged alternatives to reduce neighborhood impacts.