Larry Moore Park Improvements: Meeting #2

The city held a 2nd Larry Moore Park Design Open House Meeting on May 8, 2025.

I arrived minutes after the meeting start and there was already a good crowd in attendance, and attended for just short of an hour.

Here are some rough notes I took of my thoughts of that meeting:

It was a casual event with diagrams and photos representing 2 design options. The consultant and assistant were in attendance for questions. The design work looked impressive, though after it all--I found myself with more questions than answers.

My comment card submitted at the meeting was brief and limited to simply: liking option (1) most because of how the parking spaces were placed; i.e., the parking did not intrude as deep into the park, and therefore seemed to cause less conflicts with pedestrians (vs. option (2)). I also requested a traffic study of the area related to the use of baseball/soccer fields.

Now my feelings are that the consultants really should have given the audience a brief presentation of their concepts. Maybe just a 5-10 minute overview, repeated every 30 or 40 minutes as people came and went. Despite having an opportunity to ask one or two questions of the consulting company reps, I never felt I had a good grasp of what they were trying to accomplish--or to understand the differences in the two options. A top level overview to discuss their design approach, how it responded to the comments they received at the last meeting at the park, and then digging down into the different options and the features in each would have been a big help.

The lack of obvious continuity between the last meeting and this meeting was a problem.

It's disappointing the consultant did not show a direct connection from the comments they received at the last meeting to these designs--providing an acknowledgement that they heard the comments and had answers in response.

The concept diagrams for each option seemed very 'busy'. It was impossible for me to understand the details or function of some of the areas and features. And I thought maybe that they were trying to push too much into a limited space--as I couldn't get a feel for the size and space of things and really what it would look like if walking through the parks. Some of the features (with numbers) I couldn't even find on the option illustrations. Again, it would have been beneficial if the consultant had walked thru each option describing the features and their location.

I liked the idea that the ball fields weren't to be completely fenced and locked--like fields at other park. I believe these are smaller sized fields--and did not seem to overwhelm the park.

Added traffic from the park and ballparks of course is a major concern for people in this area. I heard no acknowledgement of that or if the city or consultant had studied the potential traffic situation at all.

The homeless situation too was a major concern of neighbors at the last meeting, and I heard many comments about that from attendees of the open house. Later during my attendance, I realized that the city's new homeless response manager was in attendance. I wish I'd realized that sooner as I did not get a chance to meet or speak with her about this project. I believe it would have been good if she also introduced herself at intro sessions with the consultant to show that attention was being paid to the homeless aspect of these park designs. While running for district 2 council, one thing (of many) I learned about was how the homeless situation around Larry Moore is different than the situation in more central or visible parts of the city. This would have been a good opportunity for the city to acknowledge that too.

Another aspect of the design that I'm curious about--is how it fits into an overall Salinas River city trail system. Can a trail system be maintained thru Larry Moore and then on north and south--or are there any interruptions? The trail system within the park was not emphasized by these Larry Moore proposals from what I could tell. Would dogs, bicycles, ebikes, etc on the trail be routed thru or around the park? --- I've always had the idea that one should be able to walk, ride, etc on a Salinas Trail from one end of city limits to the other, into downtown and other shopping areas. And then possibly even into Templeton/Atascadero to the south or San Miguel to the north. That would just fit with my experiences in other cities.

Before making solid decisions on designs, I hope cost estimates would be presented and considered in those decisions. How does the cost/benefit of one feature compare to another? For example--Personally, I like areas for adult exercise. There is some of that at Centennial Park. The proposals did include a couple of options for that--with one looking much more expensive than the other. Unfortunately, I'm often told (in other cities) that these features aren't always popular or used efficiently--and they often end up being poorly maintained. --- Other features shown in the options too seemed like they would have higher costs than others.

I would also like to see long term maintenance costs considered when making choices. The lack of these considerations is a peeve of mine with past city projects. It would be great if these maintenance plans and costs would be discussed and considered during the decision process.