Baldwin Park council hears conceptual sports-park plan; study to produce 10- and 20‑acre design options

Baldwin Park City Council on March 5 received a presentation on a conceptual sports-park study and outreach plan from landscape architects David Vole’s Design, who described options for 10- to 20-acre sports-park sites and next steps for community engagement.

The study responds to the city’s low park acreage per resident: the consultants said Baldwin Park has about 0.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents versus 3.3 acres per 1,000 in Los Angeles County, and that roughly 22% of residents live within a half‑mile of a park. The study team plans public workshops this spring to collect preferences and produce rendered concept plans and a preliminary budget estimate for the council.

Gary Vasquez, director of design for David Vole’s Design, presented the firm’s approach and findings. Vasquez said the consultants will prepare multiple concept options sized for roughly 10 acres and combined 20-acre scenarios. "We plan on generating 4 separate concepts for a approximately a 10 acre site 10 to 20 acre site," Vasquez said, describing product types the firm typically delivers: community workshop input, several preliminary concept layouts, refined plans and rendered graphics with budget ranges.

Luis Pedraza, who leads outreach for the firm, described the community‑engagement sequence: an initial collaborative meeting with city and school‑district representatives, three public workshops to test program priorities (fields, courts, aquatics, indoor space, parking and spectator needs), virtual and paper surveys and a project website to gather broader input. "We are kind of in the abstract in a way for this project," Pedraza said, noting the design work will be driven by what communities say they need.

The presentation reviewed existing city parks and illustrative examples visited by the stakeholder committee. Consultants noted Barnes Park is about 6.5 acres and is undergoing renovation; Walnut Creek Nature Park about 4.5 acres; Oregon Park about 8 acres; Shire Park under 1 acre; Hilda Solis Park about 0.5 acres. Stakeholders visited larger regional sports complexes to calibrate scale and amenities: Big League Dreams in West Covina (about 34.5 acres), Chino Hills Community Park (about 33 acres) and the Shuey Family YMCA in Upland (presented as a ~2-acre example that illustrates indoor aquatic and gym uses).

Design concepts the consultants showed illustrate tradeoffs common to sports complexes: doubling fields for multiple uses (baseball fields overlaid with youth soccer), central greens, parking and circulation needs (examples ranged from roughly 40 to 100 parking stalls in the firm’s schematics), lighting and spectator shade. Vasquez emphasized that indoor buildings substantially increase cost: "The buildings, that's probably the most expensive thing that you can put on a site." The firm also noted synthetic turf is an option the city could consider.

Council members and staff focused discussion on two implementation constraints: (1) land availability and (2) the school district’s potential future closures. City staff said four school sites are already closed and that the district may consider additional closures over the next two years; the consultants said Jones Middle School, if closed, would be roughly 14–15 acres and would change the design assumptions. Council members and staff repeatedly said the conceptual study is useful even if a final site is not yet secured because it will provide programming, cost ranges and rendered concepts that can accelerate a future project.

City staff described a tentative schedule: a collaborative meeting with the school district and committee in mid‑March, community outreach and workshops in April–May, preliminary concept presentations in May–June and delivery of refined, rendered concepts and a preliminary budget estimate in June–July. A city staff member summarized the scope as producing concepts for one 20‑acre site and two 10‑acre sites so the city would have options if one or more school parcels become available.

The council emphasized the study is planning‑level work, not a commitment to build immediately. Several members noted that any construction timeline would depend on securing a site and formal agreement with the school district. The consultants and council agreed the next step is the collaborative meeting with district representatives and the stakeholder committee, followed by public workshops to collect community priorities.

Action and next steps: the council accepted the presentation and the consultants will proceed with the outreach and concept‑development schedule described. The firm will return with concept graphics and budget guidance later this summer; whether and when construction can begin depends on land availability and formal agreements with the school district.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting were limited. Early in the meeting the council voted to excuse Councilmember Lozano from the meeting; the motion carried 4–0.