Berk Consulting Inc. 1/5/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

4"7 South Everett Forest Preserve, Final Master Plan PARKS AND September, 2015 RECREATION • Reduce Potable Water Usage— Do not provide access to potable water for the South Everett Forest Preserve. • Plantings—Allow for opportunities to control invasive plants by partnering with stewardship organizations, preserve existing vegetation/significant trees, and identify opportunities for the ecological restoration of existing native vegetation through stewardship organization partnerships and volunteers. • Lighting— Make the South Everett Forest Preserve a "day use"facility to preclude the need for lighting. • Finishes— Use materials with natural and no/low volatile organic compounds (VOC). • Minimize Heat Island Effect— Preserve shade trees. • Minimize Runoff— Minimize paved areas. • Effective Stormwater Treatment— Use dispersion to promote infiltration, and allow for natural management of stormwater within and adjacent to trail surfaces for the minimal amount of runoff generated. • Minimize Pollutant Sources—Control selection of material and finishes, minimize use of chemical for maintenance, and create no pollutant generating surfaces. • Building sustainability opportunities, such as: o Local Materials— Locally sourced and recycled/reused materials. o Green Carpentry— Use Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) lumber and engineered lumber in lieu of milled timbers, and re-use existing lumber when available. South Everett Forest Preserve Accessibility Goal It is the city's goal to provide a trail experience that is accessible to all park customers in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) are incorporated into the park design including the pathway alignment and materials, choice of surfacing, and design of site furnishings to provide a similar park experience for all customers. South Everett Forest Preserve Life Cycle Cost A Life Cycle Cost Analysis was performed concurrent with the master plan design to assist the city in meeting its goal of creating a cost-effective park design using the most sustainable materials. Options were selected by the city and alternatives were evaluated for comparative performance and cost during a 50-year park life span, including initial costs, operation and maintenance costs, and disposal and/or replacement costs. Lifecycle costs were considered in forming decisions about park materials and the design and placement of materials. Page 8