HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-23 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04
� O
Planning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, February 23, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBN090aWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09
Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their
successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken
care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their
sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Approval of Minutes
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6181)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB220126 draft (PDF)
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Administrative Reports
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6164)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 211812022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022
Division Work Plan
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
5. Public Hearings
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6166)
2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan Public Hearing
Background/History
The 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan development has been ongoing since
January of last year in preparation for Council review and approval consideration next month.
Since January 7, 2022, the preliminary draft of the PROS Plan has been available for review and
comments by the Edmonds residents, community partners and other city departments.
(Attachment #1) Since then, community emailed comments were collected, compiled, and are
included in this agenda packet (Attachment #2) for Board review and consideration.
Although a Planning Board Public Hearing was conducted on January 261h for the draft Plan. Due
to technical issues, another Public Hearing needs to be conducted and that Hearing is scheduled
for February 23rd
The presentation associated with this Public Hearing includes an overview of the Plan
(Attachment #3 - Presentation) and a review of the related PROS capital program (Attachment
#4 - Presentation and #5 - Memo). Also attached is a table summarizing and illustrating
recommendations for Plan changes as identified by the Planning Board, staff and consultant
based on public comment since the January 7th release (Attachment #6 Memo and Table). The
Planning Board has the ability to recommend the draft Plan with all or portions of the
suggested revisions as well as having the option to add any additional changes to the Plan.
Staff Recommendation
Staff requests following the Public Hearing, the Planning Board recommend to the City Council
for consideration of approval the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan with their
collective suggestions for revisions.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Edmonds_PROS_v4-010622 (PDF)
• Draft PROS Plan Emails from Public from 2022-01-07 through 02-17 (PDF)
• PBB_Hearing_Feb2022_PROS PRESENTATION (PDF)
• 2022-02-23 Planning Board PH PROS Plan CIP-CFP(PDF)
• Planning Board PROS Plan Capital Plan Memo 2022-02-23 (PDF)
• PB PROS Revsion Suggestions Memo and Table (PDF)
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 211812022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022
6. Audience Comments
7. Unfinished Business
8. New Business
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6180)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
• February 23, 2022 Extended Agenda (PDF)
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 211812022
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/23/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes
Narrative
January 26th meeting minutes attached
Attachments:
PB220126 draft
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
January 26, 2022
Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors
the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with
the land and water.
c
Board Members Present
Staff Present
°
Alicia Crank, Chair
Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director
c
Roger Pence, Vice Chair
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
a
Judi Gladstone
Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Dep. Director
Q
Richard Kuehn
Eric Engmann, Senior Planner
$
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Steve Duh, Conservation Technix (Consultant for Parks)
N
Board Members Absent
o
Matt Cheung (excused)
N
Todd Cloutier (excused)
a
Mike Rosen (excused)
E
READING/ ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Crank read the agenda and proposed moving the Chair's Comments to after the Board Member
Comments.
Vice Chair Pence noted the minutes were not listed on the agenda, presumably because they were not ready in
time. He suggested that there be a note on the agenda when that happens. It was noted the Board had previously
requested the item be removed from the agenda if the minutes are not available.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Seitz stated she has two open records requests which she hoped would shed light on the draft PROS
(Parks, Recreation, & Open Space) Plan. At least one of which has exceeded the 5-business-day RCW
requirement for a response. She will be unable to provide feedback on several items tonight because she does
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2022 Pagel of 4
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
not have that information. She will not be able to comment on why the acreage for Mathay-Ballinger Park more
than tripled in size from the 2016 to this Draft PROS Plan. She will also be unable to provide feedback on the
$26,500 for canopy shade trees identified for Pine Street Park. She stated that the effect of the City's existing
tree ordinance would be for money to be harvested from the removal of privately maintained trees in areas
outside of downtown to pay for publicly maintained trees in the downtown area. Pine Street Park is in the
downtown area and will likely get publicly maintained trees. She is still waiting for the list of properties that
have paid into the tree fund in order to demonstrate this. She agrees that publicly maintained trees should be a
city priority to address climate change; however, she is concerned about the Washington environmental health
disparities and stormwater quality in south Edmonds and SR 99 areas and the fact that those resources are likely
being taken from these areas to be provided elsewhere. She would also be unable to provide feedback to the
Planning Board on how the $3.89 million of proposed investments in the SR 99 area compares to the Park
impact fees that were paid by GRE Apartments, 192 residential units, or fees that may be paid by the pending
developments in the SR 99 corridor that have residential densities that exceed zoning. How much of the $3.89
million is actually investment above growth? She believes these are relevant concerns that could inform the
PROS process, and she is sorry the City did not respond in time for her to provide feedback on these items
during the public hearing. She thanked the Board for their time and consideration of these topics.
Jim Trask commented that it seems the Edmonds Underwater Park is referred to as the park that nobody sees.
He thinks this image should be improved. He also noted he did not see the Special Use Parks, especially the
Edmonds Underwater Park, on any of the 11x17 pages in the packet.
Herb Alban commented that the Edmonds Underwater Park is an under -appreciated resource. Anybody is
welcome to take a tour. He highlighted that the park is listed on the Pacific Coast in the same category as
Channel Islands and Monterrey. He stressed that the incredible biodiversity of the park which has been enhanced
by volunteers over the past 30 years or so has attracted a lot of other users, including divers, swimmers, walkers,
and birdwatchers.
Annie Crawley echoed the comments regarding the Underwater Park. She offered her services to help the City
understand what a destination park the Edmonds Underwater Park is, as well as the Bruce Higgins Trail which
connects the Underwater Park to Brackett's Landing North and to the waterfront all the way to the dog park.
This area is used by visitors from all over the region, the nation, and the world. She also believes the Underwater
Park is under -represented in the PROS Plan. She spoke on behalf of Terry Keffler, the owner of Edmonds
Underwater Sports, and other dive centers in the region. She stated that the positive economic impact of this
one area of the city parks does not seem to have been considered.
Logan Warren expressed his appreciation for the Underwater Park for picnicking, paddleboarding, and scuba
diving. He commented on how it is a major draw for out-of-town people who also spend money at local
businesses when they are in town. He also noted how he has frequently witnessed locals picking up litter from
the beach to maintain it. He spoke to the importance of maintaining and supporting this area for enviromnental
reasons, as well as people's mental health. He encouraged the preservation and funding of the Underwater Park.
Monica, a resident of Utah, stated she comes to Washington to scuba dive. She has travelled to Edmonds every
year for the past five years because of the Underwater Park. She spoke to the incredible biodiversity of the park
and the world class diving available there.
Q
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2022 Page 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Curtis Johnson, Bellevue, is also a diver and agrees with previous comments. He added he is a surveyor for
some non-profit organizations which seek to track abundance of various marine organisms and marine life. He
noted that they depend on regular citizen divers taking marine surveys. There are only a few places in
Washington State where regular citizens enjoy going and doing the dives to get the survey information. He
spoke to the importance of protecting the critically important preserves of the Underwater Park, appreciating
the active diving community, and encouraging access to the water.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Introduction and Discussion with Planning Board
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin introduced herself and discussed some of the key priorities
she sees for Development Services. These include filling the Planning Manager vacancy; setting up an equitable
engagement framework; Highway 99 corridor; the Comprehensive Plan update — especially housing solutions;
climate action; and a creating a new vision for public space (a shared initiative with Public Works to look at
street space by taking a holistic approach to right-of-way allocation).
r
c
Comments and Questions:
0
Chair Crank reported that she and Vice Chair Pence had a brief meeting with Ms. McLaughlin, Parks Director
Feser, and other members of the Development staff to get to know each other and get a better understanding of 0-
what everyone's roles are. She found this meeting very informative and has requested that it be duplicated at Q
the upcoming Planning Board retreat with the entire Planning Board so they all have the information.
Board Member Kuehn welcomed Ms. McLaughlin.
Board Member Gladstone welcomed Ms. McLaughlin. She asked where she sees the value of the Planning
Board. Ms. McLaughlin explained that the alignment of the Comprehensive Plan with growth targets to 2044
will be a primary focus. She sees the Planning Board as being the firsthand resource as they work through
thinking and channeling ideas to the City Council. She expects the Planning Board will also provide input and
support for ways to move the equitable engagement framework forward.
Chair Crank asked Ms. Feser about her value of the Planning Board. Ms. Feser commented that she would like
to be more involved with the Planning Board. She intends to be in front of the Planning Board more frequently
with a smaller scope of work in the future. In other roles she has had, she has used groups like the Parks Board
to provide input related to policy development, park development, and programming. She wants to develop a
stronger relationship with the Board and utilize that as much as possible. She is looking forward to outlining
this more at the retreat in March.
Vice Chair Pence expressed appreciation for both directors being at the meeting. He commented that historically
the Planning Board's purpose was limited to ruling on Comprehensive Plan changes, code changes, and zoning
map changes. He thinks that the scope should be broader. He then referred to Ms. McLaughlin's desire to map
communities. He recommended that the census data be put on maps to get a better sense of what the geographic
distribution is of people, ethnicity, income level, housing situation, etc. Ms. McLaughlin agreed with Vice Chair
Pence's comments.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2022 Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Student Representative Distelhorst commented on the lack of multifamily housing in Edmonds and asked how
the City can move towards more multifamily housing. Ms. McLaughlin commented that the combination of
high land value and low height restrictions does not lend itself to yielding good multifamily outcomes, except
in some select areas in the city which are zoned for higher height limits such as Westgate and the Highway 99
corridor. Those places are appropriate for higher density and multifamily; however, what is really needed, if
they want to focus multifamily in those areas, is to also make those areas livable, connected, green, and safe for
all mobility options. The Comprehensive Plan will be the place to really get into this topic through the lens of
equity.
Board Member Gladstone began to comment on the relationship between the Planning Board and some of the
Parks work.
** Recording stopped at 42:31 due to technical issues with Zoom recording**
Q
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2022 Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 8
4.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/23/2022
Division Work Plan
Staff Lead: Susan McLaughlin
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Development Services Director will be presenting the layout and Work Plan for the Planning
Division.
Packet Pg. 9
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/23/2022
2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan Public Hearing
Staff Lead: Angie Feser
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Angie Feser
Background/History
The 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan development has been ongoing since January of
last year in preparation for Council review and approval consideration next month. Since January 7,
2022, the preliminary draft of the PROS Plan has been available for review and comments by the
Edmonds residents, community partners and other city departments. (Attachment #1) Since then,
community emailed comments were collected, compiled, and are included in this agenda packet
(Attachment #2) for Board review and consideration.
Although a Planning Board Public Hearing was conducted on January 26t" for the draft Plan. Due to
technical issues, another Public Hearing needs to be conducted and that Hearing is scheduled for
February 23ra
The presentation associated with this Public Hearing includes an overview of the Plan (Attachment #3 -
Presentation) and a review of the related PROS capital program (Attachment #4 - Presentation and #5 -
Memo). Also attached is a table summarizing and illustrating recommendations for Plan changes as
identified by the Planning Board, staff and consultant based on public comment since the January 7tn
release (Attachment #6 Memo and Table). The Planning Board has the ability to recommend the draft
Plan with all or portions of the suggested revisions as well as having the option to add any additional
changes to the Plan.
Staff Recommendation
Staff requests following the Public Hearing, the Planning Board recommend to the City Council for
consideration of approval the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan with their collective
suggestions for revisions.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds has been working to update its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The
PROS Plan is a six -year plan that anticipates the programming and capital infrastructure investments
necessary to meet the community's need for parks, recreation, open space, trails, and arts and culture.
The Plan serves as a blueprint for the management, enhancement and growth of the City of Edmonds
parks and recreation system. It assists in guiding decisions related to planning, developing and
maintaining parks, open space and recreational facilities. This Plan also identifies priorities for recreation
programs, special events and arts and culture activities.
Packet Pg. 10
5.A
The PROS Plan process included a substantial community engagement program, with the intent to hear
from a broad range of community voices and to focus on diversity and inclusion through engagement in
Chinese, Korean and Spanish. Thus far, the formulation of the PROS plan has included the following
community engagement opportunities:
1. Community Survey, which received 1,958 responses (available in Chinese, English, Korean and
Spanish)
2. Two Virtual Public Meetings - with simultaneous translation in Chinese, Korean and Spanish
3. Stakeholder group discussions & one-on-one interviews
4. Tabling and outreach at community events
5. Presentations at three Planning Board meetings
6. Ongoing social media and email feedback
The PROS Plan contains a community profile, a parks and recreation facilities inventory, a needs
assessment, a capital projects plan, and considerations for financing and implementation. An updated
PROS Plan will allow Edmonds to retain eligibility for state grants through the Washington State
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), which administers various grant programs for outdoor
recreation and conservation efforts.
The key recommendations from the 2022 PROS Plan include -
1. Acquisition to Fill Park System Gaps - Secure additional parkland in south and southeast
Edmonds
2. Open Space & Conservation Acquisitions - Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or
conserve unique natural areas (e.g., wetlands, forests, stream corridors)
3. Park Development & Enhancements Complete renovation of Civic Center Playfield; playground
replacements at Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park and Yost Memorial Park; and add amenities to
Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park & Pine Street Park
4. Yost Pool Replacement - Refine options for the replacement of Yost Pool
5. Trail Connections - Acquire easements and rights -of -way for trail connections; and coordinate
with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan regarding bicycle and pedestrian system
improvements
6. ADA & Other Accessibility Enhancements -Remove barriers and improve universal access to
and within parks, natural areas and trails
7. User Convenience Improvements Upgrade or replace restrooms and improve signage and
wayfinding
8. Municipal Code Update - Review and update City's code in relation to parks and facility usage
Next steps
Following the Public Hearing, the PROS Plan version will be revised to reflect the Planning Boards'
recommendations in preparation for City Council review and consideration for approval. Along with the
next version, there will be a compilation of draft Plan public comments, Planning Board comments and
Packet Pg. 11
5.A
documentation of Plan changes. Council is scheduled to conduct a Public Hearing in March as part of
their approval process. In addition, the City Council Parks & Public Works Committee will have a
presentation of the Plan's proposed Capital Program.
Attachments:
Edmonds_PROS_v4-010622
Draft PROS Plan Emails from Public from 2022-01-07 through 02-17
PBB_Hearing_Feb2022_PROS PRESENTATION
2022-02-23 Planning Board PH PROS Plan CIP-CFP
Planning Board PROS Plan Capital Plan Memo 2022-02-23
PB PROS Revsion Suggestions Memo and Table
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Edmonds PROS Pan
PLACEHOLDER COVER PAGE
a+
Q
DRAFT Packet Pg. 13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City Council
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Position #1
Will Chen, Position #2
Neil Tibbott, Position #3
Diane Buckshnis, Position #4
Vivian Olson, Position #5
Susan Paine, Position #6
Laura Johnson, Position #7
Planning Board
Alicia Crank, Chair, Position #6
Roger Pence, Vice Chair, Position #2
Mike Rosen, Position #1
Matt Cheung, Position #3
Richard Kuehn, Position #4
Judi Gladstone, Position #5
Todd Cloutier, Position #7
City Staff
Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation,
Cultural Arts & Human Services
Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks,
Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human
Services
Rich Lindsay, Parks Manager
Frances Chapin, Arts & Cultural Services
Manager
Todd Cort, Recreation Supervisor
Carrie Haslam, Executive Assistant
Consultant Team
Conservation Technix, Inc.
PRR, Inc.
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOTOR
PENDING
Angie Feser, Director
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Department
DRAFT Packet Pg. 15
You'll find expansive views of the Olympic Mountains,
postcard -perfect sunsets, ferry traffic, and kiteboar-
ders sailing through the air. Everywhere you turn in this
ION
VIM
14
1: YS y
Packet Pg
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
CHAPTER 1
PARKS & RECREATION
PLANNING , ORWARD
PLAN PURPOSE
the City of Edmonds 2022 Parks,
Recreation & Open Space Plan
(PROS Plan) is an update to the
2016 Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Plan that builds on the
previously completed planning
work and incorporates the feedback
from an extensive community
engagement process conducted in
2021. This Plan creates a vision
for an innovative, inclusive and
interconnected system of parks,
trails and open space that promotes
recreation, health, environmental
conservation and fiscal
responsibility as integral elements
of a thriving, livable Edmonds.
The PROS Plan serves as a
blueprint for the management,
enhancement and growth of
the City of Edmonds parks
and recreation system. It assists
in guiding decisions related
to planning, developing and
maintaining parks, open space and
recreational facilities. This Plan also
identifies priorities for recreation
programs, special events and arts
and culture activities.
The 2022 PROS Plan provides
updated system inventories,
Providing Edmonds
citizens with a balanced
system of open space,
parks, recreation and
cultural arts to ensure
a healthy and active
quality of life.
community profile, needs analyses
and a comprehensive capital
project list. The Plan identifies
parks and recreation goals and
establishes a long-range plan for
the Edmonds parks and recreation
system, including action items
and strategies for implementation
over the next six to ten years. The
recommendations in this Plan
are based on community input,
evaluations of the existing park
system, operating conditions and
fiscal considerations.
the PROS Plan is part of the City's
broader Comprehensive Plan and
is consistent with the guidelines
established by the Growth
Management Act. The PROS Plan,
updated approximately every six
years, allows Edmonds to remain
current with community interests
and retain eligibility for state
grants through the Washington
State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO), which administers
various grant programs for outdoor
recreation and conservation efforts.
this plan has been regularly
updated (1996, 2001, 2008 and
2016) to remain relevant to
Edmonds as the city evolves and
changes.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 17
DRAFT
PLANNING PROCESS
This PROS Plan represents the culmination of a
year -long planning effort and reflects the community's
interests and needs for parks, open space, trails and
programming. The planning process, which included
a variety of public outreach activities, encouraged
public engagement to inform the development of the
priorities and future direction of Edmonds' park and
recreation system. Community members expressed
their interests through surveys, public meetings,
stakeholder discussions, online outreach, tabling and
direct outreach and Planning Board meetings.
In addition to community engagement, the actions
identified in this Plan are based on:
■ An inventory and assessment of the City's existing park
and recreation facilities to establish the system's current
performance and to identify needed maintenance and
capital repair and replacement projects,
■ Service level and walkability assessments to quantify the
system's ability to serve current and future residents.
The Plan's capital facilities section and accompanying
implementation and funding strategies are intended to
sustain and enhance, preserve and steward the City's
critical parks and recreation infrastructure.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human
Services Department serves as the community's key
resource for providing parks, trails and open spaces,
recreation, cultural arts, aquatic facilities and programs
and supports tourism and economic development, as
well as providing an enhanced quality of life for its
citizens. Thousands of participants and visitors join
the many programs offered each year. There are 47
city -owned park sites totaling 230 acres, 20,000 square
feet of flowerbeds and about one mile of waterfront
shoreline in the Edmonds park system.
Also, in 2021, the Department expanded to include
the Human Services Division, which is intended to
serve Edmonds residents in need of assistance, provide
guidance and help residents find resources across a
variety of issues for the wide demographic spectrum
that comprises the city. Since the COVID-19 outbreak
the Human Services Division has had a particular
focus on helping connect those individuals and families
that are financially or housing -stressed with local and
regional resources that can help.
The Department maintains active community
partnerships with the Edmonds School District,
Edmonds Boys and Girls Club, Edmonds College,
Edmonds Historic Museum, Edmonds Arts Festival
Foundation, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Port of
Edmonds, Sno-King Youth Club, Edmonds Chamber
of Commerce, both Edmonds Rotary Clubs, Edmonds
Floretum Garden Club, Edmonds in Bloom, several
Environmental Stewards groups, the Dale Turner
YMCA, neighboring cities of Mountlake Terrace and
Lynnwood, as well as Snohomish County, among other
organizations.
The Department has 24 full-time employees in five
primary areas of focus including Parks Maintenance,
Recreation Services, Cultural Arts Services, Human
Services and Administration.
Parks Maintenance maintains six waterfront
beach parks, a fishing pier, and 41 community,
neighborhood, special use and open space parks.
The division also maintains the Veterans Plaza
located at Public Safety complex, Dayton Street
Plaza, Frances Anderson Center Bandshell and
Hazel Miller Plaza, in addition to Yost Pool and
City Park Spray Park. The division is responsible
for preserving, maintaining and upgrading all
playground structures and equipment as needed.
The Parks Maintenance crew maintains the street
trees, street landscape beds including downtown
corner parks and hanging flower baskets and all
City -owned sport fields, as well as assists with
numerous City events.
Recreation Services creates and implements
recreational programs and environmental education
and stewardship programs along with arts, tourism
and cultural opportunities for city residents. Staff
supervise community recreation, adult enrichment,
athletics, aquatics, wellness, outdoor recreation,
urban agriculture, nature and ranger/naturalist
activities and a preschool. Staff supervise recreation
program registration, facility rentals and athletic
field rentals. The division also oversees the Frances
Anderson Center, Meadowdale Community
Clubhouse, the Plaza Room, programming in the
Edmonds Waterfront Center weekday evenings and
is responsible for the concessionaire agreements,
02
Packet Pg. 18
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
which includes the Yost Pool agreement, two
outdoor preschool agreements and various
recreation programs.
The Cultural Services division offers programs
that highlight the scope of the arts in Edmonds,
from a Community Cultural Plan for the city, a
Public Art collection and concerts in the parks,
to rotating visual art exhibits and a nationally
recognized writers conference. The division works
with the Edmonds Arts Commission to update
and implement the Community Cultural Plan,
an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Cultural
Services works with the Economic Development
Department on cultural tourism and support
for the Washington State -certified Downtown
Edmonds Creative District.
The Human Services division oversees an allocated
contracted full-time dedicated social worker,
provides resource navigation, assists in securing
shelter for residents as needed and supports the
distribution of grants for individuals in need
of assistance. In collaboration with Snohomish
County, neighboring local jurisdictions, non-profit
and faith -based organizations, the Human Services
Division works to support the increase of affordable
housing while remaining focused on homelessness
prevention.
Administration focuses on long-range planning,
acquisition and development of park facilities,
the development of park site master plans, and
pursuing and administering grants. Administration
provides overall support for the Department
in areas of budgeting, communications,
customer service, contracts and capital projects
administration, among others.
COMMISSIONS &, BOARDS
The Department plays a vital role in many aspects of
community life, with staff support to the Edmonds
Memorial Cemetery Board, Planning Board, Edmonds
Youth Commission, Edmonds Arts Commission, Tree
Board, Creative District Advisory Committee, and
Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee.
Planning Board
The Planning Board serves in an advisory capacity to
the City in regional and local planning and assists in
the development of the comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinances. The board also advises the Mayor and
City Council on the development of all city parks and
recreation facilities.
Arts Commission
Founded in 1975, the City of Edmonds Arts
Commission (EAC) ensures the arts are a vital part
of our community's quality of life, economic vitality
and central identity. The commission is comprised
of seven appointed members who advise and make
recommendations to the Mayor, City Council or other
City commissions or boards on matters pertaining to
the arts and the aesthetic of the public realm.
Youth Commission
The Edmonds Youth Commission is a youth -led
commission whose mission is to protect, preserve and
enhance the quality of life for Edmonds youth by
advising City Council and the public on issues relating
to youth policies, programs and opportunities.
Tree Board
The Department's mission statement provides a The Tree Board is a seven -member committee that
framework for future planning and guided the encourages the planting, protecting, and maintaining of
development of goals and project recommendations for trees for long-term community benefit.
this PROS Plan:
Creative District Advisory Committee
To provide Edmonds citizens with a balanced system The advisory committee, appointed by the mayor and
of open space, parks, recreation and cultural arts to
ensure a healthy and active quality of life. City Council, provides recommendations related to
the five-year work plan established when the Creative
District was certified in late 2018.
N
N
m
0
0
le
>�
co
O
W
a
i
c
0
E
w
c
m
t
Q
DRAFT Packet Pg. 19
DRAFT
Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
This advisory group, appointed by the Mayor, provides
recommendations related to community stewardship
actions in Edmonds to conserve wildlife habitat, and
enhance healthy air, land and water.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE 2016
The 2016 PROS Plan guided City officials,
management and staff in making decisions about
planning, operating and implementing various parks
and recreation services. The following represents a short
list of the major accomplishments realized following
the adoption of the previous Plan:
■ Renovated Waterfront Walkway, removed creosote
bulkhead to restore shoreline habitat and installed artwork
on south end of the Waterfront Walkway
■ Updated Seaview Park with inclusive playground
■ Installed Veterans plaza and memorial
■ Prepared Urban Forestry Management Plan
■ Purchased the land, master planned, secured funding and
initiated redevelopment of Civic Center Playfield
■ Completed the Fishing Pier Renovation
■ Completed the Dayton Street Plaza
■ Developed 30% design for Marina Beach Park
■ Conducted citywide tree inventory and map and hired a
full time arborist
■ Accepted donation of Shirley Johnson property
The Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human
Services Department also faced multiple challenges
since the 2016 PROS Plan was adopted. The
COVID-19 pandemic considerably impacted
the Department. The Frances Anderson Center,
Meadowdale Clubhouse and Yost Pool were closed in
March 2020 and all recreation and cultural programs,
special events and facility rentals were canceled,
which eliminated a critical funding source for the
Department. Athletic field reservations and picnic
shelter/area reservations were also canceled, but
resumed on a limited basis in the summer of 2020.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated health
mandates for social distancing have transformed
the way municipalities plan for and conduct
public engagement. To develop this Plan, the City
implemented a sound public process that was
compliant with health mandates by using a range of
online tools for communications, engagement and
community feedback.
Health mandates related to the pandemic also had
dramatic impacts on the City's recreation programming
and operations, requiring the temporary closure of
some facilities, capacity and use restrictions, and the
cancellation of recreation programming. However,
with a better understanding of transmission and
prevention, Edmonds has begun to offer limited in -
person recreation programs and community events.
In addition, the increase in use of parks and opens
space had a significant impact on parks maintenance
operations in both safety measures, increased demand
for routine maintenance such as litter and garbage,
restroom cleaning, and vandalism repair.
Equity, Inclusivity & Accessibility:
Maintaining and enhancing social equity across
recreational opportunities and facilities should be a
core function of municipal park and recreation systems.
Through this PROS Plan, the City of Edmonds
made a concerted effort to reach out to, connect
with and engage its historically underrepresented
communities, and the City also invested in and
committed to outreach in the four major languages of
the community: Chinese, English, Korean and Spanish.
Also, with substantial past investments in downtown,
the City is re-examining the distribution of park and
recreation resource investments in other areas of the
city, with the goal to advance equity across Edmonds.
Further, portions of the City's parks, trails and
open space system were developed before the
1999 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was
implemented. The conditions assessment identified
several deficiencies related to ADA compliance. The
City must continue to find ways to provide safe and
equitable access to parks, trails, open space areas,
facilities, recreation programs and other services.
04
Packet Pg. 20
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Asset Management & Aging Infrastructure
The City of Edmonds' parks, trails and open space
system is facing numerous challenges related to aging
infrastructure. Deferred maintenance and changing
demands translate to the need for up-to-date
assessments of the condition, function and quality of
park system assets, in addition to understanding where
deficiencies may exist. Park aesthetics and amenities are
important to usage patterns. Also, a user's perception of
personal safety is a determining factor in how one uses
and feels in and around parks, trails and open spaces.
The conditions assessment of the Edmonds parks, trails
and open space areas included in this PROS Plan (see
Appendix A) provided a baseline of current conditions
to inform the development of the capital project list
and implementation strategies. The fiscal needs of the
parks system are substantial and long-term funding
strategies are needed.
Research on recreation also provides information on
how park distribution, park proximity, park facilities
and conditions have an impact on people's desire to
engage in physical activity. It may be valuable to re-
evaluate current park designs and maintenance policies
to ensure barrier -free, engaging park environments
and operational efficiencies. The City will continue to
play a major role in enabling healthy lifestyles for the
Edmonds community and should continue to enhance
the park system and recreation program offerings.
Active Older Adults
The City of Edmonds' relatively older population,
low rates of disability among residents over 65, and
high rates of participation among residents of all ages,
indicate a potential local need for active recreation
opportunities for active older adults. Nationwide, active
seniors are often looking at retirement age differently,
and many are transitioning to new careers, finding ways
to engage with their community, and focusing on their
health and fitness. To meet the needs of active older
residents, the City will need to consider how the City's
park and recreation facilities, partnership with the
Senior Center, and programming can meet the needs of
this growing group.
Balancing Passive & Active Uses
Edmonds residents have worked to preserve and
maintain the City's greenspaces over many decades.
The park system currently includes nearly 76 acres of
open space. These areas serve a critical environmental
purpose, including sustaining a robust tree canopy,
supporting wildlife, clean air and reducing pollutants
in stormwater runoff. Some open space areas include
passive use trails and provide much -needed natural
respite, while other open space areas (e.g., wetlands)
function as conservation or wildlife viewing areas.
From accessible playgrounds to splash pads to natural
play areas, the range of play experiences offered by
the City will change and diversify over time, and the
population of Edmonds has increased over time. The
demand for new amenities must be balanced against
preserving and maintaining open space and natural
areas. New amenities may require the use or re -use of
existing parkland, or more parkland may be required to
support the community's future needs.
GUIDING DOCUMENTS
This PROS Plan is one of several documents that
comprise Edmonds' long-range planning and policy
framework. Past community plans and other relevant
documents were reviewed for policy direction and goals
as they relate to parks, open space, trails, recreation and
arts and culture opportunities across Edmonds.
■ Aquatic Feasibility Study (2009)
■ Community Cultural Plan (2014)
■ Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2015)
■ Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (2016)
■ City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (2017)
■ Highway 99 Subarea Plan (2017)
■ Urban Forestry Management Plan (2019)
■ Streetscape Plan (2006)
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 21
DRAFT
CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY
PROFILE
Located along the shores of Puget Sound, the City
of Edmonds lies about 15 miles north of Seattle.
Incorporated in 1890, Edmonds is now home to 4Z470
residents. Edmonds' walkable downtown features a
variety of restaurants, art venues, and shopping all
within an easy walk to shorefront parks.
Surrounding downtown are
neighborhoods of family homes
interspersed with forested green
spaces. the city's primary general
commercial areas are concentrated
along Highway 99 on the eastern
edge of the city. Edmonds is
bordered to the north and west by
Puget Sound and the community
of Woodway, to the east by the
cities of Mountlake Terrace and
Lynnwood, and to the south by
the City of Shoreline.lhe city also
surrounds the smaller residential
community of Esperance in
unincorporated Snohomish County.
the City of Edmonds provides a
wide range of government services
and is dedicated to maintaining
the community's unique cultural,
recreational, and environmental
assets, while supporting sustainable,
locally -focused economic growth.
The city's parks, open spaces, trails,
and recreational opportunities are
highly valued for recreation, respite,
and their ecosystem attributes.
N
N
to
0
F
le
>1
co
O
a
0
E
V
w
m
E
V
F- 1
10lio
Packet Pg. 22
MA
xcia /
DRAFT
5.A.a
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Edmonds is home to just under
42,500 residents is the third largest
city in Snohomish County by
population. The city is comprised of
many older adults and relatively less
families with children as compared
to nearby communities, see Figure
1.1he city's residents are generally
very well educated and have
higher incomes than other county
residents. Many residents are
employed in the education, health
care, professional, or retail trade
sectors, including at the Edmonds
School District, Premera Blue
Cross, the Swedish Medical Center,
Providence Regional Medical
Center, and major retail chains.
Residents also commute to other
areas of the Seattle metropolitan
region for work.
Population & Anticipated Growth
the City of Edmonds incorporated
in 1890 as primarily a logging and
mill town. By 1960, the city had
grown to just over 8,000 residents.
Major annexations in the 1960s,
particularly the annexation of
areas northeast of downtown
in 1963, dramatically increased
the city's population to nearly
24,000 residents, see Figure 2.
In the coming decades, the city's
population grew at a modest 1-1.5%
rate per year, before seeing more
rapid growth in the 1990s.
Figure 1. Population Characteristics: Edmonds, Snohomish County, and Washington
Population (2020) 42,470 827,957 7,705,281
Population (2010)
39,709
713,335
6,724,540
Population (2000)
39,515
606,204
5,894,121
Percent Change (2000-20)
7.5%
37.0%
31.0%
Persons w/ Disabilities (%)
Household Characteristics
Households
11.2%
17,761
11.8%
293,823
12.7%
3,202,241
Percent with children
24.8%
33.7%
30.6%
Median Household Income
$89,229
$86,891
$73,775
Average Household Size
2.35
2.68
2.55
Average Family Size
2.92
3.16
3.09
Owner Occupancy Rate
Median Age
70.7%
45.9
67.1%
38
63.0%
37.7
Population < 5 years of age
4.6%
6.3%
6.1%
Population < 18 years of age
17.9%
22.7%
22.2%
Population 18 - 64 years of age
60.3%
64.2%
62.7%
Population > 65 years of age
21.8%
13.1%
15.1%
Sources: Washington Office of Financial Management Population Estimates, 2020
U.S. Census, 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Over the past twenty years,
Edmonds has returned to a slow
growth trend, which is expected
to continue over the next two
decades.lhe Puget Sound Regional
Council, which completes land
use and population forecasts for
regional cities, anticipates that
the city will grow to about 47,790
residents by 2040, an increase of
about 13% from 2020.
In 2020, Edmonds was home to
17,761 households with an average
size of 2.35 people, smaller than
the average for the county (2.68)
and state (2.55). One in four
households (25%) were families
with children under 18 and 23%
were individuals living alone.
Re size of a community and its
anticipated growth over time are
key indicators of whether existing
park and recreation facilities
will be sufficient to meet future
needs. Population growth can
also result in increased residential
density and/or the development
of currently vacant land within a
08
Packet Pg. 24
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
city, potentially increasing the need
for away -from -home recreation
opportunities while simultaneously
reducing potential locations for
park and open space acquisition.
Advance planning for parks and
recreation facilities can help ensure
residents can enjoy sufficient,
conveniently located parks, open
space, and recreation facilities while
the community grows and evolves.
Figure 2. Population of Edmonds - Actual and Projected:1960-2040
50,000
40,000
30,744
30,000 26,679 _
23,684
20,000
10,000 8,016
Environmental education program walk
39,515
44,416 45,714
46,738 47,790
1 F
2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Taste Edmonds
N
PV
Allo
l
,i + 'I
1 Co
Owl 0
r' E
E
i
ci
� Q
DRAFT Packet Pg. 25
DRAFT
Age Group Distribution
Edmond's residents have a median age of nearly
46 years (2019), which is significantly higher than
that of the county and state (both approximately 38
years). The city also has a relatively low number of
families with children (25% of all households). These
demographics have important implications for park
and recreation needs. Adults between 45 to 64 years
old make up the city's largest 20-year population group,
comprising 33% of the overall population in 2019, see
Figure 3.
■ Adults ages 25 to 34 years are users of adult programs.
Approximately 10% of residents are in this age category.
These residents may be entering long-term relationships
and establishing families.
■ Adults between 35 and 54 years of age represent users
of a wide range of adult programs and park facilities.
Their characteristics extend from having children using
preschool and youth programs to becoming empty nesters.
This age group makes up 29% of the city's population.
■ Older adults and seniors, ages 55 and older, make up
approximately 35% of Edmonds's population. One in
seven residents is over the age of 70. This broad age group
Figure 3. Age Group Distributions: 2010 & 2019
Under 5 years
5 to 14 years 10%
15 to 24 years 11%
25 to 34 years 10%
35 to 44 years 12%
45 to 54 years 17%
55 to 64 years 16%
65 to 74 years 10%
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
represents users of adult and senior programs. These
residents may be approaching retirement or already retired
and may be spending time with grandchildren. This group
also ranges from very healthy, active seniors to more
physically inactive seniors.
While nearly three in four residents are age 25 or older,
26% of residents are children and young adults.
■ Youth under 5 years of age make up 4% of Edmonds's
population, see Figure 3. This group represents users of
preschool and tot programs and facilities, and are often
trails and open space users, frequently in strollers. These
individuals are the future participants in youth activities.
■ Children ages 5 to 14 years make up current youth
program, whole -family program, and event participants.
Approximately 10% of the city's population falls into this
age range.
■ Teens and young adults, age 15 to 24 years, are in
transition from youth programs to adult programs and
participate in teen/young adult programs where available.
Members of this age group are often seasonal employment
seekers. About 11% of city residents are teens and young
adults.
■ 2010 ■ 2019
4% 5%
9%
12%
12%
12%
15%
14%
12%
6% 6%
3% - 3%
10
Packet Pg. 26
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Race and Ethnicity
According to the 2019 American
Community Survey, Edmonds
residents identified as 80% White,
8% Asian, 6% as two or more
races, 2% as Black or African
American, and less than 1% as
American Indian or Alaskan
Native, Pacific Islander, or another
race. Approximately 8% of people
identified as Hispanic or Latino of
any race. Edmonds is less racially
diverse than Snohomish County or
Washington State as a whole, where
75% of residents identify as White.
The population of Edmonds has
become only modestly more diverse
over the past decade, see Figure 4.
Figure 4. Changes in Racial Composition - 2000 to 2019
w ri ne
Asian
Two or more races
651.470
7.1%
4.1%
Some other race
1.8%
Black or African American
2.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native
0.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
0.3%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
5.3%
80.1%
8.0 %
5.6 %
3.5 %
1.6%
0.3 %
0.8 %
7.9%
As
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 27
DRAFT
In 2019, approximately 17% of Edmonds's residents
spoke a language other than English at home; Asian
and Pacific Island languages and other Indo-European
languages comprise the largest non-English language
groups. Just over 5% of residents speak English `less
than very well'. Edmonds has a smaller percentage of
people who speak a language other than English at
home than compared to Snohomish County as a whole
(21%).
Nationally, the design and marketing of municipal
recreation programs have historically been biased
against serving these communities. In addition,
residents who speak languages other than English may
face barriers in finding, accessing, and participating in
park and recreation facilities and programs. The City
of Edmonds should consider how it could best provide
recreational opportunities, programs, and information
that are accessible and relevant to, and meet the needs
of, all community members.
Persons with Disabilities
The 2019 American Community Survey reported
11% (4,676 persons) of Edmonds's residents ages 5
years and older have a disability that interferes with
daily life activities. This is lower than rates in the
county (12%) and state (13%). Approximately 7%
of residents between 18 and 64 live with a disability.
Among residents 65 and older, the percentage rises to
31%, which is lower than the percentage found in the
general senior population of Washington State (35%).
Planning, designing, and operating a park system that
facilitates participation by residents of all abilities will
help ensure compliance with Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition to ADA,
there are other accommodations that people with
disabilities may need to access parks and participate
in recreation programs. Edmonds should consider
community needs for inclusive and accessible parks,
recreational facilities, programs, marketing, and
communications.
Employment & Education
According to the 2019 American Community Survey,
85% of residents (35,696 people) are age 16 years and
older and considered part of the work force population.
Of this work force aged population, 65% is in the labor
force, 2% is unemployed, and 35% is not in the labor
force. About one in four employed residents work in
the education or health care industries, while another
16% work in the professional/management industries.
The retail trade sector also employs a large percentage
of local workers (approximately 13%).
Approximately 48% of Edmonds residents over age
25 have a bachelor's degree or higher, and 80% have at
least some college education. This level of education
attainment is higher than that of Snohomish County
and the state (in which 69% of residents have some
college). Additionally, 92% of city residents have a
high school degree or higher, on par with the statewide
average.
Higher levels of employment and educational
attainment positively correlate with both the income
and health status of a community — both of which
have further impacts on the use and need for park
and recreation facilities, as described in the next two
sections.
Income & Poverty
A community's level of household income can impact
the types of recreational services prioritized by
community members, as well as their willingness and
ability to pay for recreational services. Perhaps more
importantly, household income is closely linked with
levels of physical activity. Low-income households
are three times more likely to live a sedentary lifestyle
than middle and upper -income households, according
to an analysis of national data by the Active Living by
Design organization.
In 2019, the median household income in Edmonds
was $89,229, slightly higher than the median income
for Snohomish County ($86,691). Median household
income in Edmonds is over 20% higher than the
average for all Washington households ($73,775).
12
Packet Pg. 28
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Higher income households have an increased
ability and willingness to pay for recreation and
leisure services, and they often face fewer barriers to
participation. The average household in Edmonds is
relatively wealthy — about 44% of city household have
incomes in the higher income brackets ($100,000 and
greater), which is significantly more than across the
state (36%).
At the lower end of the household income scale,
approximately 7% percent of Edmonds households
earn less than $25,000 annually, significantly fewer
than households in Snohomish County (11%), the
State of Washington (15%), and across the United
States (23%). In 2019, about 2% of the city's families
were living below the poverty level, set at an income of
$25,750 for a family of four. This percentage is lower
than the countywide (approximately 5%) and statewide
(7%) levels. Poverty affects 4% of both youth under 18
and adults 65 and older.
Lower -income residents face many barriers to
physical activity, including reduced access to parks and
recreational facilities, a lack of transportation options,
a lack of time, and poor health. Low-income residents
may also be less financially able to afford recreational
service fees or to pay for services, such as childcare,
that can make physical activity possible.
Health Status
The overall health of a community's residents can
impact their ability to participate in recreation and
other physical activity and may also reflect, in part, the
locality's level of access to appropriate and convenient
green spaces, recreation opportunities, and active
transportation facilities.
In 2016, Snohomish County completed a profile of
the health of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and West
Lynnwood residents. In general, residents of these
communities have higher life expectancy (82.3 years)
and the average resident of the county (80.3 years)
and face lower rates of premature mortality. According
to the County Health Rankings, Snohomish County
ranks in the highest quartile of Washington counties
for health outcomes, including length and quality of
life.
Snohomish County residents also rank as some
of the healthiest residents in Washington (high
middle quartile) when it comes to health behaviors.
Approximately 17% of Snohomish County adults ages
20 and older report getting no leisure -time physical
activity — on par than the statewide average and better
than most counties nationwide. This may be due,
in part, to the large number of places to participate
in physical activity, including parks and public or
private community centers, gyms, or other recreational
facilities. Over 86% of residents in Snohomish County
have access to adequate physical activity opportunities,
equivalent to the average for all Washington residents.
Approximately 30% of Snohomish County adults are
overweight or obese, compared to 29% of Washington
adults.
DRAFT
13
Packet Pg. 29
DRAFT
CHAPTER 3
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
EDMOD PARKs,
RECREATION E TJR.Ft!RA.I.'i'' V-,ES
Engaging the Whole Community
Cea consed maximet
essedi dolor quatium
es re, consequid quo il. Community engagement played
an essential role in developing
the 2022 PROS Plan. Although
the planning process occurred
during the COVID-19 pandemic,
substantial effort was made to
connect with the full Edmonds
community, seek their input and
provide information about the
project. Intentional, direct and
on -going outreach to non-English
speaking communities was a major
tenet of the City's engagement
strategy. Public outreach methods
were varied and extensive,
including:
■ Random -sample mail survey with
English, Chinese, Korean and
Spanish options
■ Online community -wide survey
in English, Chinese, Korean and
Spanish
■ Online public meetings with
simultaneous translation in Chinese,
Korean and Spanish
14
Packet Pg. 30
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
2021 @ 7 R 22 El, XRA®
F# 6:30 - lipt 8:30
sues nap: /iea.iviramooa:Pxosmrg
An:.izss-z,s.,,ez
r��.�. a�. ■a;�xa"aff����
.rdsR — Lo��€fi79§#tL(sail( Si 'mi61
Anderson Centerl'0-5;€iL,
MWARIV&E(Edmonds)2 Fa
(Edmonds)AfARP AEffi€?
IMMMET (City of Edmonds)
�it�`��##&�t�YJS46ffB9
�Z& &S:,X TFE S!n (PROS) if
Pilo 3YP7iB1o#tE4+t9>8G[��ffi
ifJy.£9i4�4�fy�rSr�(�A9�
YtAk1i7��oA�l�i2)gaRo
Sample July Meeting Flyer
■ Stakeholder group discussions &
one-on-one interviews
■ Tabling and outreach at community
events, to include a presence at
the Uptown Evening Market near
HWY 99 and coordination with
other on -going City planning
efforts
■ Meetings with the Planning Board
and City Council
■ Edmonds city website with
plan information and feedback
opportunities
■ Multiple social media postings, city
newsletter articles and email blasts
through the Recreation database
and Edmonds School District
parent distribution portal
COMMUNITY SURVEY
A community -wide, online survey
was conducted to assess the
recreational needs and priorities
of Edmonds residents. The City
i1,958
."wes a
y57 T. r
Acomphfienos en una reunion virtual
--
Para mas informacibn,
+ comunclueseIr con
,_
SP1. a n...
®ems
Sample October Meeting Flyer
mailed 2,500 surveys to randomly
chosen households in Edmonds on
May 29, 2021, of which 501 surveys
were completed and returned (20%
response rate). Online versions of
the survey in English, Chinese,
Korean and Spanish were posted to
the City's website on June 4, 2021.
An additional 1,449 surveys in
English were completed from the
general, community -wide online
surveys. In addition, two Chinese,
five Korean and one Spanish
surveys were completed. In all,
1,958 surveys were collected.
Information about the survey was
provided on the City's Parks and
Recreation website and on the
PROS Plan project subpage. It was
promoted via multiple in -language
social media postings and city email
blasts. Printed flyers with QR code
links in four languages were made
available for distribution by staff
of Edmonds Parks! w®F1O1 - =
We want to
hear from you!
2022 City of Edmonds PROS Plan
Wenaw�wma
ram:c-1
What is the Edmonds PROS Plan? per' 1y1tlinon°e°RO5"�
�,.a�.w" wmma msaa
=d, p,
� °�„reams"a=Paos-.o
0 0 „
v a�"asoaos:p
Learn more about the plan, including upcoming events
mo da ,1: 1...e I oaoew@a=:aso `®o
Sample Survey Flyer
for direct outreach to non-English
community groups. Also, significant
effort was made to promote the
survey to all language groups during
community events, pop -ups and
flyer distribution through cultural
based community organizations
throughout the summer months.
The survey was closed on August
31, 2021.
The survey measured current levels
of satisfaction and which facilities
were primarily being used by
residents. Residents were asked
about future improvements and the
types of recreational amenities they
would like to see considered for the
park system. Survey respondents
were asked about:
■ Performance and quality of
programs and parks
■ Usage of city parks and recreation
facilities
N
N
to
0
0
�I
to
O
W
IL
NI
c
0
E
w
r
c
m
E
z
1°
Q
DRAFT Packet Pg. 31
DRAFT
■ Overall satisfaction with the value of services being
delivered by the city
■ Opinions about the need for various park, recreation, and
trail improvements
■ Priorities for future park and recreation services and
facilities
Significant survey findings are noted below, and a
more detailed discussion of results can be found in the
needs assessment chapters covering parks, open space,
recreation, and trails (Chapters 6 - 8).
Major Survey Findings:
■ Livability: Nearly all respondents (99%) feel that public
parks and recreation opportunities are important or
essential to the quality of life on Edmonds.
■ Usage: Park visitation is high, with 88% of respondents
visiting parks or recreation facilities at least once a month.
The most popular activities are beach and waterfront
(83%), walking or running (76%), followed by relaxation
(61%), playgrounds (41%) and fitness (40%).
■ Park Amenity Priorities: Respondents indicated that the
highest unmet need is for pedestrian and bike trails (84%)
and an aquatic facility or pool (65%). A plurality of survey
respondents think that Edmonds does not have enough
walking and biking trails (61%). Respondents to both the
mail and online survey ranked improving existing parks,
completing the Waterfront Walkway near Ebb Tide
Condos, and acquiring additional land for conservation
and open space as their top priorities.
■ Recreation Facilities & Programming: Respondents
expressed a greater need for community events (56%) and
program and activities geared toward youth. In particular,
respondents had a higher interest in outdoor programs
such as environmental education (46%), youth day camps
(41%) and youth sport programs (40%).
The complete survey summary is provided in Appendix
B.
VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING #1
The City hosted the first community meeting for the
PROS Plan update using Zoom on July 22, 2021
(Thursday). Edmonds staff promoted the meeting
through City communication channels, email and
social media. Meeting information was provided in
simplified Chinese, English, Korean and Spanish. The
City also promoted the event through community -
based partners. In all, 20 community members
participated in the meeting. Real-time, interactive
polling questions and question -and -answer functions
of Zoom were used to solicit community feedback —
all with real-time verbal translation and poll question
answers in Chinese, Korean and Spanish.
Online Public Meeting #1 Findings:
■ Attendees identified three city parks that should receive
additional focus for improvements: Mathay Ballinger, Yost
and Marina Beach Parks.
■ Stronger interest was noted for acquiring additional lands
that conserve saltwater beaches/waterfront and wetland
areas.
■ Attendees favored smaller, more intimate events, such as
outdoor movies, uptown evening market and Hazel Miller
Plaza summer concerts.
■ It was suggested that the City add more parks, services
and facilities in the Hwy 99 corridor and the south end of
the city.
■ It was also suggested to acquire forested areas threatened
by development, add open space throughout the city and
manage/control invasive species.
A summary of responses to the online public meeting
is provided in Appendix C.
VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING #2
On October 16, 2021 (Saturday), the City hosted a
second virtual public meeting from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30
p.m. on Zoom. The virtual meeting was structured in
a manner similar to the first virtual public meeting
and included an introductory presentation, live polling
and a question -and -answer period. The online public
meeting was promoted in multiple languages via social
media posts, email blasts, school district email and
public meeting announcements. Real-time translation
and polling answers in Chinese, Korean and Spanish
was also a main feature of this meeting. Attendance
included 40 public attendees, two elected officials and
project team members.
Online Public Meeting #2 Findings:
■ Attendees favored a local -scale pool (indoor or outdoor)
over a larger, regional -scale pool if Yost Pool is replaced.
■ A strong majority of attendees favored prioritizing
additional park and open space investments in southeast
Edmonds and along the Highway 99 corridor.
16
Packet Pg. 32
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
join IFS for a
carnetunity meeting
juky 22. 2Q2 S
6.34 FIM - 9.30 PM
bit ry(E-d ondsPR63mq
U10L kc F 125..21 S 782
meHIC¢ I1r. N 6 6A59 55{A
Pasueft 6q+W16
FaAhb"f a An &Aura Irereaq
Nwidonn w Vmfth
Sample Social Media Posts
■ Attendees reiterated the preference for smaller
neighborhood events like concerts in local parks.
■ Pluralities of attendees indicated interest in building
additional trails in existing parks, as well as acquiring and
building additional trail corridors.
A summary of responses to the online public meeting
is provided in Appendix D.
STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS
COVID-sensitive, online focus group discussions
and individual interviews with external stakeholders
were conducted to more broadly assess local needs
and opportunities for partnership and coordination.
Stakeholders were identified by city staff based on their
past coordination their involvement or interest in the
future of recreation, park, athletic or trail facilities.
Many recommended the addition or renovation of
recreation facilities, such as playgrounds, sports fields
and trails. Participants also made several comments
about park and recreation deficiencies for those living
along Hwy 99 or in the south/southeast portion of
Edmonds. Also, many suggested ideas about trail
connectivity and safety, open space conservation
and partnering with other organizations. Specific
SW+4�4��*�s41
[ETYOrERM04 ;
,V
E l "r "~
■aawxixaan Mcu
Sample Project Webpage Content
recommendations are incorporated in the needs
assessment sections (Chapters 6 — 8), and a full
summary is provided in Appendix E.
COMMUNITY EVENT TABLING
n
there were scheduled a series of City staff led tabling
events at local markets and community gathering areas
Tabling occurred between July and September to build
awareness of the PROS Plan and share information
about the project. Tabling was held at the following
venues:
■ Uptown Market
■ Farmers Market (tabling cancelled due to surge in Delta
variant safety precautions)
Approximately 50 people were engaged during the
event. Community comments ranged from concerns
about the need for city investments closer to Hwy 99,
to interest in an expanded trail network, to specific park
improvements and enhanced communications from the
city.
N
N
to
0
0
>
co
O
W
IL
I
c
0
w
c
m
E
z
0
Q
DRAFT Packet Pg. 33
DRAFT
MEETING -IN -A -BOX
The Meeting -in -a -Box element compiled a variety of
materials that allowed for City staff to easily prepare
for meetings with community -based organizations
and the diversity of communities within Edmonds.
The tool -kit served meeting facilitators, so anyone on
the project team can easily communicate information
in a way that was uniform, but adaptable. The tool -kit
included an event guide for meeting facilitation and
logistics, a content template for introductory email
blasts, templates for a meeting agenda and sign -in
sheet. Materials were compiled and prepared in four
languages: English, Chinese, Korean and Spanish.
PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS
The Planning Board provided feedback on the
development of the PROS Plan during three regularly
scheduled public sessions. The first session occurred
on May 26th, shortly after the planning project was
initiated. The Board discussed the update and provided
their perspectives on a vision for the system, specific
challenges, opportunities and ideas about parks, trails
and programs. Subsequent sessions in November
and January were used to review public feedback and
solicit direction from the Board on priorities and
recommendations for the new PROS Plan.
0
OTHER OUTREACH
In addition to the direct outreach opportunities
described above, the Edmonds community was
informed about the planning process through a variety
of media platforms. The following methods were used
to share information about the project and provide
opportunities to participate and offer their comments:
■ Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services website
■ PROS Plan project webpage
■ Email blasts to the Parks and Recreation participants and
distribution list
■ Email blast to parents of all Edmonds Schools in the
Edmonds School District
■ Social media: Facebook & Instagram
■ Media releases
■ Postcard mailed to all homes in Edmonds
■ Announcements at Council and Planning Board public
meetings
■ Announcements at Stakeholder Focus Group meetings
Sample Social Media Post
E
11 K. IMi ,- R1, I
{
•aa•JMy�4•F..iafr�
_
w•M �++�r�rr�R�4w�. 4�. „�*�
�
��r.•w Mrwti• t�4'��
rl n} n�.•
• ti. rr raa
� _ -
hiYd Ml�
18
Packet Pg. 34
BENEFITS
OF PARKS,
RECREATION
& OPEN
SPACE
A number of organizations and non -profits have documented the
overall health and wellness benefits provided by parks, open space and
trails. The Trust for Public Land published a report called 'Ihe Benefits
of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space. This
report makes the following observations about the health, economic,
environmental and social benefits of parks and open space:
■ Physical activity makes people healthier.
■ Physical activity increases with access to parks.
■ Contact with the natural world improves physical and
psychological health.
■ Value is added to community and economic development
sustainability.
■ Benefits of tourism are enhanced.
■ Trees are effective in improving air quality and assisting with
stormwater control.
■ Recreational opportunities for all ages are provided.
Physical Activity Benefits Community Benefits Economic Benefits
Residents in communities with increased
access to parks, recreation, natural
areas and trails have more opportunities
for physical activity, both through
recreation and active transportation.
By participating in physical activity,
residents can reduce their risk of being or
becoming overweight or obese, decrease
their likelihood of suffering from chronic
diseases, such as heart disease and
type-2 diabetes, and improve their levels
of stress and anxiety. Nearby access to
parks has been shown to increase levels
of physical activity. According to studies
cited in a 2010 report by the National
Park and Recreation Association, the
majority of people of all ages who visit
parks are physically active during their
visit. Also, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) reports that greater
access to parks leads to 25% more people
exercising three or more days per week.
Park and recreation facilities provide
opportunities to engage with family,
friends, and neighbors, thereby increasing
social capital and community cohesion,
which can improve residents' mental
health and overall well-being. People
who feel that they are connected to their
community and those who participate
in recreational, community and other
activities are more likely to have better
mental and physical health and to
live longer lives. Access to parks and
recreational facilities has also been
linked to reductions in crime, particularly
juvenile delinquency
Parks and recreation facilities can bring
positive economic impacts through
increased property values, increased
attractiveness for businesses and workers
(quality of life), and through direct
increases in employment opportunities.
In Washington, outdoor recreation
generates $26.2 billion in consumer
spending annually, $7.6 billion in wages
and salaries and $2.3 billion in state and
local tax revenue. Preserving access to
outdoor recreation protects the economy,
the businesses, the communities and
the people who depend on the ability to
play outside. According to the Outdoor
Recreation Economy Report published
by the Outdoor Industry Association,
outdoor recreation can grow jobs and
drive the economy through management
and investment in parks, waters and trails
as an interconnected system designed to
sustain economic dividends for citizens.
1AFT
5.A.a
The goals and objectives described
in this chapter define the recreation
and park services that Edmonds
aims to provide. These goals and
objectives were derived from
input received throughout the
planning process, from city staff,
the Planning Board and community
members.
The Growth Management Act
(GMA) adopted by the Washington
State Legislature in 1990 provided
a foundation for land use planning
in selected cities and counties
throughout the state, including
Snohomish County and the City of
Edmonds. It identifies 14 planning
goals to guide the development
of comprehensive plans and
development regulations. Four
of these goals directly affect the
development and implementation
of this plan.
■ "Encourage the retention of
open space and development of
recreational opportunities, conserve
fish and wildlife habitat, increase
access to natural resource lands and
water, and develop parks." RCW
36.70A.020(9)
■ "Protect the environment and
enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air and water quality,
and the availability of water." RCW
36.70A.020(10)
■ "Identify and encourage the
preservation of lands, sites, and
NO
structures, that have historical or
archaeological significance." RCW
36.70A.020(13)
"Carry -out the goals of the
Shoreline Management Act with
regards to shorelines and critical
areas." RCW 36.70A.020(14)
Also, the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan, the previous PROS Plan and
other city planning policies provide
a framework for this PROS Plan.
A goal is a general statement that
describes the overarching direction
for the parks and recreation system.
Objectives are more specific and
describe an outcome or a means to
achieve the stated goals. Key project
recommendations are specific
actions intended to implement and
achieve the goals and objectives
and are contained in the needs
assessment and capital planning
chapters of the PROS Plan.
20
Packet Pg. 36
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
ENGAGEMENT
Goal 1: Encourage and facilitate meaningful public involvement in park and recreation planning.
Objectives:
1.1 Involve residents and stakeholders in park and recreation facility planning, design and recreation program
development to solicit community input, facilitate project understanding and build public support.
1.2 Advance diversity, equity, inclusion in, and access to the City's system of parks, natural areas and programs
through continued outreach and communications.
1.3 Pursue the formation of a City Council appointed Parks and Recreation Board as a forum for public discussion
of ongoing park and recreation issues and policies.
1.4 Encourage local business, non -profits and community partners involvement in providing and supporting
cultural, recreational and athletic opportunities for all ages and abilities.
DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION
Goal2: Decrease barriers and increase opportunities for participation of underrepresented, diverse
populations to reflect the demographics of Edmonds.
Objectives:
2.1 Address accessibility barriers (socio-economic, language, physical, geographic, transportation) to parks and
programs and allocate resources to address known gaps.
2.2 Explore and pursue opportunities for alternative outreach and education to diverse groups, such as group walks
and day hikes with minority communities, promotional materials through schools and faith groups, and youth
mentorship or ambassador programs.
2.3 Identify appropriate locations within parks and public spaces for the installation of public art, interpretive signs
or cultural displays, and collaborate with diverse groups to ensure incorporation of any art, history, and culture in
parks is done from a diversity, equity and inclusion lens.
2.4 Provide DEI training opportunities for staff.
DRAFT Packet Pg. 37
DRAFT
PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE
Goal 3: Provide an interconnected park system that offers a wide variety of year-round recreation
opportunities and experiences which support and enhance Edmonds' cultural identity and the
natural environment.
Objectives:
3.1 Acquire or secure parkland identified within this Plan to provide geographically accessible and equitable
distribution of community and neighborhood parks
3.2 Provide a distributed park and open space system, such that all residents live within a lh-mile access of a park,
trail or open space.
3.3 Prioritize facility development based on demonstrated demand, population served, regional appeal, fiscal
opportunity and revenue -generating potential.
3.4 Pursue options to expand trails and coordinate with Public Works to increase connectivity for pedestrians and
bicyclists throughout Edmonds, especially to parks, schools, and shopping or business areas.
3.5 Expand the system of off-street recreational trails by utilizing parks, linear open spaces, utility corridors and
sensitive areas, as appropriate.
3.6 Provide trailhead accommodations, as appropriate, to include parking, wayfinding signage, benches, restrooms
and other amenities.
3.7 Develop City -owned or maintained park and open space sites based on master plans, management plans or
other adopted strategies to ensure parks reflect local needs, community input, recreational and conservation goals
and available financial resources.
3.8 Design, upgrade and maintain parks and facilities to offer universal accessibility for residents of all physical
capabilities, skill levels and age, as appropriate, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Standards for Accessible Design.
3.9 Develop a wider variety of opportunities for exercise and enjoyment to expand the use of the park system
throughout the year, including all-weather activities and spaces to support emerging recreation interests.
3.10 Plan for sport fields, courts and specialized recreational facilities (e.g., pump track, off leash dog areas, etc.) with
consideration of local needs, partner support/capacity, recreational trends and availability of similar facilities
within the City and region.
22
Packet Pg. 38
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
WATERFRONT USE & ACCESS
Goal 4: Preserve and pursue opportunities to expand public access and enjoyment of Edmonds'
waterfront.
Objectives:
4.1 Develop and maintain the Edmonds shoreline as a unique regional recreational, educational and environmental
resource that is key to community identity.
4.2 Increase connections and public access, including visual access, to freshwater and marine waterfront areas,
including but not limited to the shorelines, tidelands, beaches, lakes, creeks and overlooks.
4.3 Whenever possible and as funding allows, acquire additional waterfront property to enhance the existing public
access.
4.4 Improve existing publicly -owned water access sites to address safety and accessibility issues.
4.5 Improve and upgrade developed and undeveloped street ends or rights -of -way, where appropriate, to provide
physical or visual access to waterfronts.
4.6 Pursue and maintain community partnerships that support waterfront access, protection and usage.
DRAFT Packet Pg. 39
DRAFT
Photo credit:
NATURAL RESOURCE & HABITAT CONSERVATION Chris Walton
Goal 5: Conserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation,
and environmental education.
Objectives:
5.1 Preserve and protect areas with critical habitat or unique natural features, including but not limited to wetlands,
stream corridors, tidelands, estuaries, beaches, forests and the Underwater Park.
5.2 Work cooperatively with property owners and developers to preserve habitat and native vegetation, especially
when these provide visual or physical linkages to publicly -owned natural resource lands.
5.3 Support the implementation of the Urban Forestry Management Plan.
5.4 Pursue opportunities to provide appropriate public access (e.g. trails, viewpoints and wildlife viewing areas)
within open spaces to support passive recreation and environmental education.
5.5 Provide environmental educational opportunities in natural areas with interpretive signage, nature trails and
related experiences.
5.6 Cooperate with the County, neighboring jurisdictions and other organizations to identify and conserve open
space of mutual benefit, and pursue funding through grants and the Snohomish County Conservation Futures
program.
24
Packet Pg. 40
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
RECREATION PROGRAMS & FACILITIES
Goal 6: Provide a varied and inclusive suite of recreation opportunities and experiences to promote
health and wellness, year-round activity and social engagement.
Objectives:
6.1 Enhance the diversity of recreation programs offered, focusing on programs that are in high demand, serve a
wide range of users and utilize the City's unique indoor and outdoor assets.
6.2 Form and maintain partnerships with other public, non-profit and private recreation providers to deliver
recreation and cultural services and secure access to existing facilities for community recreation.
6.3 Strategically expand recreation programs that complement services of other providers, as facilities, staffing levels
and partner opportunities allow.
6.4 Examine options to replace Yost Pool, along with the financing and funding requirements for capital and
operations.
6.5 Maintain and enhance program scholarships and other mechanisms to support recreation access for low-income
residents.
6.6 Periodically review and update the fee policy for programs, indoor facility uses and rental rates that supports
operational requirements.
6.7 Establish cost recovery goals for recreation programs and facilities.
6.8 Conduct periodic evaluations of program offerings in terms of persons served, equitable geographic distribution
and access to programs and facilities, customer satisfaction, cost/subsidy, cost recovery, local and regional
recreation trends, and availability of similar programs via other providers.
DRAFT Packet Pg. 41
DRAFT O
CULTURAL SERVICES
Goal 7: Provide arts and cultural opportunities and experiences to promote an engaged and vibrant
community.
Objectives:
7.1 Utilize the Edmonds Arts Commission as the forum for public discussion of arts and culture issues, and update
and support the goals and initiatives of the Community Cultural Plan.
7.2 Work with the community and local organizations to foster a greater variety of cultural, heritage and arts events
that reflect the cultural diversity of Edmonds.
7.3 Continue to offer, facilitate and promote community events, such movies, concerts, festivals and markets, to
provide opportunities for social engagement and bring families and neighbors together.
7.4 Foster partnerships and collaborations to incubate new cultural programs, activities and offerings.
7.5 Support and advocate for Edmonds' public art, artistic resources, its unique cultural events, and its attraction as a
cultural destination —a key element of economic development.
26
Packet Pg. 42
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
PARK OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION
Goal 8: Maintain and operate a modern, efficient park system that provides a high level of user
comfort, safety and aesthetic quality, and protects capital investments.
Objectives:
8.1 Maintain parks, recreation and open space facilities according to best practice in a manner that keeps them in
safe and attractive condition and promotes community pride.
8.2 Develop, maintain and update asset management plans for major assets to support improved stewardship, reduce
costs, and increase maintenance and replacement efficiency.
8.3 Incorporate sustainability and low impact development into design, development and maintenance of the park
system and be a leader in sustainable building practices.
8.4 Utilize, as appropriate, native and lower -resource requiring vegetation for landscaping in parks and city owned
properties to minimize maintenance requirements, and control invasive vegetation through removal and other
environmentally responsible means.
8.5 Allocate adequate funding for maintenance, staffing and asset preservation.
8.6 Pursue alternative funding options and dedicated revenues, such as private donations, sponsorships, partnerships,
and grants, along with support through partnerships with service organizations, volunteer groups, businesses and
other agencies.
8.7 Encourage and promote volunteerism from a variety of individuals, service clubs, local watershed councils,
steward groups, faith organizations and businesses to enhance community ownership and stewardship of parks,
trails and open space.
8.8 Promote professional development opportunities that strengthen the core skills and commitment from staff,
Board members and key volunteers, to include trainings, materials and/or affiliation with relevant national and
regional associations.
8.9 Update City codes related to park regulations and usage to keep parks, trails, waterfronts and open space safe,
protect flora and fauna, and communicate user expectations.
8.10 Periodically review and update the Park Impact Fee rates and methodology and utilize impact fees to
accommodate growth through the expansion of the recreation system.
8.11 Periodically update the capital facilities plan to address facility improvement needs.
8.12 Update the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan periodically and approximately every six years to ensure
facilities and services meet current and future community needs and maintain eligibility for State grants.
DRAFT Packet Pg. 43
DRAFT
CHAPTER 5
CLASSIFICATIONS &
INVENTORY
The City of Edmonds manages over 240 acres of parks and
open space, providing nearly a mile of public waterfront
access, active recreational facilities for team sports,
playgrounds at 14 parks, more than 13 miles of walking
paths and trails, and about 80 acres of open space.
PARKLAND
CLASSIFICATIONS
Parkland is classified to assist in
planning for the community's
recreational needs. The
classifications also reflect standards
that inform development decisions
during site planning, in addition
to operations and maintenance
expectations for the level of
developed facilities or natural
lands. The Edmonds park system
is composed of a hierarchy of
various park types, each offering
recreational opportunities and
natural environmental functions.
Collectively, the park system is
intended to serve the full range of
community needs.
Each park classification defines
the site's function and expected
amenities and recreational uses. The
classification characteristics serve
as general guidelines addressing the
size and use of each park type. The
following six classifications are used
in Edmonds' park system:
■ Neighborhood Parks
■ Community Parks
■ Waterfront Parks
■ Special Use Areas
■ Open Space
■ Beautification Areas
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks are smaller
sites between one and six acres in
size that serve nearby residents,
generally within walking distance
(1/a-mile). These parks are designed
primarily for non -supervised,
informal recreation activities and
provide basic recreational amenities
such as places to play, walk or
bike and can also offer fields and/
or courts to practice sports. These
28
Packet Pg. 44
Places to Be Active...
Places to Find Quiet...
The City's neighborhood and community parks offer The open spaces in Edmonds provide acres of wood -
ample options to get out and play. These types of land and wetlands to showcase Edmonds' natural
parks include playgrounds, sport fields and other beauty. Take a walk, watch wildlife or find respite.
amenities for active lifestyles.
parks support neighborhood and
family gatherings and provide
access to natural amenities. Some
of the more popular neighborhood
parks may include restroom
facilities.
Community Parks
Community parks are larger
sites intended to serve multiple
neighborhoods or the entire city,
within walking, biking or short
driving distance from most users
These parks are usually between
20 to 50 acres in size and offer
a range of recreational features
to provide for the community's
different interests. Community
parks provide places to play, walk
and bike, and to participate in
organized sports, large gatherings
and community events. Since
community parks generally include
facilities that attract a large number
of people from a wide geographic
area, these sites include typically
off-street parking and restrooms.
Community parks can also serve as
local neighborhood parks for their
immediate areas, and they may
be connected to schools or other
community facilities.
Places to Enjoy...
The City of Edmonds takes pride in its efforts to
beautify business districts and the waterfront.
Waterfront Parks
Waterfront parks are sites that
provide access to the water and
are intended to serve residents and
visitors. These sites provide scenic
views of freshwater and marine
waterfront areas, as well as public
access for shoreline walking and
boating. Waterfront parks typically
provide permanent or portable
restrooms.
Special Use Areas
Special use areas are miscellaneous
parklands, landscaped gateways
or stand-alone recreation sites
designed to support a specific,
DRAFT 29
Packet Pg. 45
DRAFT
specialized use. Special use areas
provide a unique benefit to users
not commonly found in other
parks. Some of the facilities in this
classification are public plazas,
viewpoints, community centers,
community gardens, aquatic centers,
historic sites or sites occupied by
buildings.
Open Space
Open space includes wetlands and
shoreline habitat, water bodies,
inland forests, shrublands and
grass lands. These spaces are left
more or less in a natural state with
recreation use as a primary or
secondary objective. These areas can
provide opportunities for passive
and active outdoor recreation,
such as walking, jogging, wildlife
Figure 5. City -owned Parks & Open Space
viewing and nature photography.
Open space promotes health and
wellness by providing a natural
physical and mental refuge from
the urbanized, built environment,
but not all open spaces may provide
public access. In some cases, these
are environmentally -sensitive areas
and can include wildlife habitats, or
unique and/or sensitive species.
Beautification Areas
Beautification areas include
landscaped features located along
street right-of-ways, intersections
and medians, plazas, the Frances
Anderson Center and other City -
owned facilities and buildings.
Hanging flower baskets are also
included in beautification areas. The
importance of beautification areas,
Centennial Plaza
Special Use Park
0.08
Dayton Street Plaza
Special Use Park
0.10
Dayton Street Plaza - WWTC
Special Use Park
0.35
Edmonds Library & Plaza
Special Use Park
1.29
Edmonds Memorial Cemetery
Special Use Park
6.63
Frances Anderson Center
Special Use Park
1.62
Hazel Miller Plaza
Special Use Park
0.09
Interurban Trail
Special Use Park
3.97
Lake Ballinger Access
Special Use Park
0.19
Lynndale Skate Park
Special Use Park
2.39
Meadowdale Clubhouse
Special Use Park
1.11
Ocean Ave Viewpoint
Special Use Park
0.20
Richard F. Anway Park
Special Use Park
0.17
Stamm Overlook
Special Use Park
0.36
Sunset Ave
Special Use Park
1.14
Underwater Dive Park
Special Use Park
27.00
Veterans Plaza
Special Use Park
0.15
Subtotal 46.83
Elm St Park
Neighborhood Park
1.85
Frances Anderson Center Field
Neighborhood Park
1.94
Haines Wharf
Neighborhood Park
0.69
Hickman Park
Neighborhood Park
5.61
Hummingbird Hill Park
Neighborhood Park
1.22
Mathay Ballinger Park
Neighborhood Park
1.82
Pine St Park
Neighborhood Park
1.47
Seaview Park
Neighborhood Park
6.05
Sierra Park
Neighborhood Park
5.52
Subtotal
26.17
their contribution to creating a
pedestrian friendly community and
the opportunities for integration of
public art elements is also addressed
in the Streetscape Plan and in the
Community Cultural Plan.
Non -City Park & Recreation
Sites
There are lands owned by other
private and public entities that
contribute to the recreational and
cultural opportunities in and around
Edmonds. These lands include
property owned by the Edmonds
School District, Snohomish
County, Edmonds Public Facilities
District, City of Lynnwood, and
State and Federal agencies.
City Park
Community Park
13.96
Civic Center Playfield
Community Park
7.92
Meadowdale Playfields
Community Park
12.05
Yost Memorial Park
Community Park
45.27
Subtotal
79.20
144 Railroad Ave Tidelands
Waterfront Park
0.90
Brackett's Landing North
Waterfront Park
5.06
Brackett's Landing South
Waterfront Park
2.22
Waterfront Center Park
Waterfront Park
1.94
Marina Beach Park
Waterfront Park
3.37
Olympic Beach
Waterfront Park
2.85
Subtotal
16.35
Edmonds Marsh
Haines Tidelands
Open Space
Open Space
24.21
0.44
H.O. Hutt Park
Open Space
4.53
Maplewood Hill Park
Open Space
13.27
Meadowdale Natural Areas
Open Space
1.07
Olympic View Open Space
Open Space
0.49
Pine Ridge Ext (SW)
Open Space
1.14
Pine Ridge Park
Open Space
25.33
Seaview Reservoir
Open Space
1.31
Shell Creek Open Space
Open Space
1.42
Wharf Street
Willow Creek Park
Open Space
Open Space
Subtotal
0.12
2.25
75.58
TOTAL ACREAGE 244.12
30
Packet Pg. 46
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
sss�Jsus
L
e--oll,I
IW�" 2 GTH ST SW
Map 1: Existing Parks & Open Spaces
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 48
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
CITY FACILITIES
Yost Pool
Yost Pool is located within Yost Park and was built by the City in 1972.1he
facility is an outdoor pool with a 25 meter x 25 yard pool and spa. The City
recently decided to keep the pool open year-round to extend the outdoor
aquatics season.
Frances Anderson Center
The Frances Anderson Center is the "home" of the majority of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services programming. The Center has
classroom spaces, a drop -in weight room, a gymnasium and dedicated
gymnastics space. The Frances Anderson Center also houses six tenants
who provide a wide range of activities that augment and enhance the
Department's mission, including a ballet school, youth sports club,
Montessori preschool, daycare, sculpting studio space and art gallery.
Boys & Girls Club
The Edmonds Boys and Girls Club is located at 310 6th Avenue North. The
land and the building are owned by the City, and the facility is leased to the
Boys and Girls Club. The Club provides youth between the ages of 5 and
18 a safe, positive and fun environment with a variety of activities. The Club
offers before and after -school programs for children and youth between the
ages of 5 and 18 at its main location, adjacent to the Civic Center Playfields,
in addition to summer camps, sports and drop -in programs.
Meadowdale Clubhouse
This rustic banquet hall is located in North Edmonds at 6801 North
Meadowdale Road. The clubhouse is available for rent, and it serves as the
location for the City's Meadowdale Preschool program. Amenities include
kitchen, fireplace, parking, restrooms and an outdoor fenced playground.
Olympic Beach Visitor Station
The Olympic Beach Visitor Station is located at the base of the Edmonds
Fishing Pier, and it is staffed by Ranger -Naturalists and Volunteer Beach
Docents. The Visitor Station typically is open weekends noon-5:00 pm,
from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Beach Docents work side -by -side
with ranger -naturalists to educate the public about the Edmonds Marine
Sanctuary and help monitor the 75-gallon marine touch tank at the station.
Plaza Room
The Edmonds Plaza Room is located above the Edmonds Library at 650
Main Street, Edmonds. Amenities include an uncovered outdoor patio, free
wifi, tables, chairs and kitchen. The Plaza Room is in walking distance to
coffee shops, restaurants and boutiques.
Frances Anderson Center
Meadowdale Clubhouse
Olympic Beach Visitor Station
N
N
m
0
0
le
>I
co
0
W
IL
NI
c
0
w
cc
Q
DRAFT Packet Pg. 49
DRAFT
OTHER NEARBY RECREATION
FACILITIES
Waterfront Center
the new Edmonds Waterfront Center / Senior Center
is a modern, LEED Gold, all -electric, 26,000 square
foot regional community center and replaced the old
Edmonds Senior Center building. The Waterfront
Center provides program space, banquet rooms, bistro
and cafe. Activities include over 70 programs, trips,
entertainment, music and arts for seniors, among
others. Event space is available for rent. The City
provides programs at the Center weekday evenings for
all ages.
Lynnwood Recreation Center and Pool
The Recreation Center and Pool in neighboring
Lynnwood offers over 20,000 square feet of indoor
aquatic play. The recreation pool includes water slides,
a lazy river, water playground and family hot tub. The
lap pool area includes a sauna, adult hot tub and warm
water therapy pool. The center also includes a cardio/
weight room, fitness studio, racquetball courts and
multi -purpose classrooms.
Lynnwood Senior Center
The Lynnwood Senior Center is a community center
serving all people 62 years of age and older with a
variety of services, activities and special events. The
4,200-square foot center is a gathering place for active
adults and offers activities for the mind and body.
Older adults can participate in a number of activities,
including exercise classes, yoga, Zumba, dance,
computer training, and much more. In addition to a
wide range of exercise and physical activity classes, the
center offers outdoor recreation programs that include
hikes, bicycle excursions and trips throughout the
Pacific Northwest. The center also has a community
garden where participants can grow flowers and
vegetables.
Mountlake Terrace Recreation Pavilion
The Recreation Pavilion is a multi -purpose facility with
an indoor 25-yard swimming pool that has a leisure
pool with zero -depth entry, spray toys, lazy river with
current, teach pool area with a submerged bench, deep
area, easy access with a wheelchair ramp, a therapy
pool with a dedicated lift, dry sauna, fitness room,
racquetball courts, dance studios, preschool room, and
interchangeable multi -purpose rooms for programs or
rentals, and an indoor playground. The lobby features
vending machines, a barista stand and a retail area to
purchase swim wear.
Mountlake Terrace Community Senior Center
The Mountlake Terrace Community Senior Center
seeks to improve the quality of life for aging adults
in the community by providing an enlivened,
friendly environment promoting health and wellness.
Established in 1997 as the Mountlake Terrace Senior
Group, the organization agreed to a partnership
with the City of Mountlake Terrace and relocated to
the 7,000 square foot Mickey Corso Clubhouse in
Ballinger Park. The City owns the building, and room
rentals are operated by the Senior Group.
Dale Turner YMCA
The Dale Turner Family Branch of the YMCA
of Greater Seattle serves north King and south
Snohomish Counties, including the cities of Shoreline,
Lynnwood, and Edmonds, as well as the Lake Forest
Park and Woodway neighborhoods of Seattle. On -site
and outreach programs include free meals, support
for homeless and transitional members, child care
and school readiness, youth development, family
activities, chronic disease prevention, and summer
meal programs, among others. Facilities include a pool,
weight room and gymnasium.
34
Packet Pg. 50
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
OTHER FACILITIES
Along with City -sponsored facilities, other
organizations, neighboring communities and public
schools expand the number of park and recreation
related benefits available to Edmonds residents.
ARTS & CULTURE
Edmonds Center for the Arts
Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) is a 700-seat
performing arts venue located on the campus of the
original Edmonds High School. Originally constructed
in 1939, this historic facility was renovated and
reopened in 2006 as a state-of-the-art performance
hall. ECA, a non-profit organization hired by the City
of Edmonds Public Facilities District, manages the
facility. ECA presents an array of performing artists
from around the world, provides space, production
management and technical expertise for community
partners and rental clients, includes a gymnasium, and
serves more than 75,000 patrons who enjoy the facility
annually.
ArtWrks
ArtWorks is a joint project of Edmonds Arts
Festival Foundation and the Edmonds Arts Festival
Association and is the headquarters for each of these
organizations. Housed in a City -owned building,
this facility provides space for arts workshops, special
exhibits and meetings. Artworks provides an on-
going schedule of classes, workshops, exhibits, art
shows, special events and arts organization meetings
throughout the year.
Wade James Theater
Located on City property, the 219-seat theater was
built and is operated by the nonprofit Edmonds
Driftwood Players. Originally built in 1968 as The
Driftwood Theatre, it was renamed during the 1970s in
memory of its architect and founding member, Wade
James.
Graphite
The Graphite building in downtown Edmonds is a
new, privately -funded arts facility that will be the home
of studio spaces and open session workshops for artists.
The facility includes a gallery, dark room, art book
collection and a flex space. Graphite is also the home
of the non-profit Art Start Northwest, which is the
funding organization for programs held at Graphite.
Edmonds Historical Museum
Housed in the historic Carnegie Library, the museum
building has two floors. The facility features an exhibit
gallery, administrative office, work rooms, a local
history library and an extensive photography archive.
The building is owned by the City of Edmonds and
operated by the Edmonds South -Snohomish County
Historical Society.
Log Cabin Visitors Center
Operated by the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
and owned by the City, the Log Cabin Visitors Center
provides information on Snohomish County area
attractions, sights and accommodations for guests and
travelers. It also offers Edmonds maps and navigational
resources, information on Edmonds tours, and other
useful resources for visitors.
SCHOOLS
Edmonds School District provides a range of
recreational opportunities for students and the public.
The district offers sports fields, playgrounds, outdoor
basketball courts and gymnasiums. Public access is
limited to times when school is not in session and
when there are no competing demands from school -
related activities. In past years, the City has developed
neighborhood or community park elements in
partnership with the District at several school sites.
YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS
Sno-King Youth Club provides a variety of youth
sports, activities and camps at locations in Edmonds
and Lynnwood. The organization offers recreational
sports including soccer, flag football, T-ball and
basketball. Sno-King also provides a local competitive
option for soccer players seeking advanced training and
competitive opportunities through a premier league.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 51
5.A.a
NEARBY MUNICIPAL PARK SYSTEMS
Mountlake Terrace
the City of Mountlake Terrace manages 193 acres of park land, including
opportunities for both active and passive recreation. The City's recreation
system consists of diverse amenities that include playgrounds, sport fields,
tennis courts, disc golf, a boat launch, fishing and beach access and miles of
soft -surfaced and paved trails for walking, biking and hiking.
Program Coordination
Historically, the Cities of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace produce a
joint recreation program guide (the Craze) that highlights recreation
programs offered in both communities and the recreation facilities that
are available nearby. These nearby facilities provide opportunities for
aquatics, athletics/fitness, gymnastics, sports, general recreation, facility
rentals and special events.
Lynnwood
The City of Lynnwood has over 350 acres of park land,100 acres of open
space, an 18-hole public golf course,14 miles of trails, a recreation center,
senior center, Heritage Park and two athletic complexes. Lynnwood's parks
offer a wide range of active and passive recreation opportunities, including
innovative playgrounds, spray pools, a skate park, hiking trails, forests,
streams, wetlands and wildlife habitat. The City of Edmonds maintains an
interlocal agreement with the City of Lynnwood for use of Meadowdale
Athletic Complex and Lynndale Skate Park.
Snohomish County
Snohomish County owns and manages Esperance Park, located within a
small unincorporated area within the city limits of Edmonds. Esperance
Park is a 9.6-acre county park with athletic fields, accessible walking
paths, off -leash dog area, playground, zipline and sport court. Athletic
fields include a little league baseball diamond and two practice areas for
field sports. In addition, Southwest Olympic View County Park, located
in northern Edmonds, is a 120-acre park with two nature trails. The site
encompasses a series of forested ravines and Perrinville Creek, which flow
through the eastern portion of the Park to Brown's Bay on Puget Sound.
Olympic View Drive winds through the site on its way from Lynnwood to
Edmonds.
36
Packet Pg. 52
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Hickman Park
A gracious cherry tree is the
centerpiece at Hickman Park.
Photo credit: Chris Walton
w.' al
s. o
x
# #� LV
C
N
E
t
M
r
t Q
Packet Pg. 53
CHAPTER 6
PARKS &
A OPEN SPACE
The PROS planning process assesses recreational needs
and priorities for parks and open space in Edmonds. The
park assessment included a discussion of specific local
needs with consideration given to the City's broader
parks system. Public input and information on park
inventory conditions were also heavily relied upon in the
planning process.
By considering the location, size,
and the number of park facilities by
type and use, along with community
interests and priorities, the PROS
Plan evaluates the existing and
future demand for park and
recreation amenities and provides
recommendations for future
initiatives. The six -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP),
which identifies and prioritizes
crucial upgrades, improvements,
and expansions, is based on
the needs assessment and the
recreational interests expressed by
the community.
NATIONAL TRENDS
A variety of resources have been
assembled and summarized to
offer a comprehensive overview of
current trends, market demands and
agency comparisons in the provision
of parks and recreation. This
information provides perspectives
that are helpful when balancing
with local insights and feedback
from the community to identify the
demands and establish public needs
during the planning process.
The following national and state
data highlights some of the
5.A.a
--�- -Mq
Packet Pg. 54
%13
jj
�JF 4IJ
Ilk o
"LandIng
'CitYQF Edn-jond
r.
T
Packet Pa- -5-5
I�Ilqlllllil Ill Jill
DRAFT O
current trends in recreation and may frame future
considerations in Edmonds' park system. Examining
current recreation trends can help inform potential
park and recreation improvements and opportunities
that may create a more vibrant parks system as it moves
into the future. Additional trend data and summaries
are provided in Appendix F.
■ Nationwide, 82% of U.S. adults believe that parks and
recreation are essential according to the American
Engagement with Parks Survey from 2020. (l)
■ Seventy-seven percent of survey respondents indicate that
having a high -quality park, playground, public open space,
or a recreation center nearby is an important factor in
deciding where they want to live. (l)
Playground Trends
Reported in Landscape Architect magazine, the top
five playground industry trends for 2021 were compiled
from data and feedback from parks professionals,
landscape architects and educators.
1. Inclusive Playgrounds, increasingly popular over the
last few years, have been evolving beyond meeting
basic ADA guidelines. Designers are seeking to expand
accessible playground equipment, consider multi -
generational play, and leverage inclusive play to help
overcome societal barriers.
2.
■ Just over half of Americans ages six and older participated
in outdoor recreation at least once in 2019, the highest
participation rate in five years. However, the number of
outings per participant declined — resulting in fewer total
recreational outings. (2) 3.
■ Running, jogging, and trail running are the most popular
outdoor activities across the nation, based on levels of
participation, followed by fishing, hiking, biking, and
camping. (2)
■ Walking ranked as the top activity by participation rate
(94%) in Washington State. (4)
■ Trail running, day hiking, and recreational kayaking are
rapidly increasing in popularity — participation in each
increased more than 5% per year between 2014 and
2019. (s)
■ Walking, running, hiking, and cycling saw significant
increases in participation in the early months of the
COVID-19 pandemic (March to June 2020). (2)
■ People of all ages and income levels are interested in
outdoor activities like fishing, camping, hiking, biking,
and swimming. Younger people are more interested in
participating in team sports, such as soccer, basketball,
and volleyball. Older adults are more likely to aspire to
individual activities like swimming for fitness, bird and
nature viewing, and canoeing. (s)
Sources:
(1) 2020 American Engagement with Parks Survey
(2) 2020 Outdoor Participation Report
(3) 2020 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Topline Participation
Report
(4) 2018-2022 Recreation and Conservation Plan for Washington
State (also known as the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recre-
ation Plan, or SCORP)
4.
Rope -based Playgrounds, climbers and playground
nets provide a technique for working around natural
environments and unusual topography. Their flexibility
in placement offers more options for connecting with
the landscape rather than working around difficult
topography.
Outdoor Fitness has increased importance during the
COVID-19 pandemic as many gyms and indoor fitness
centers closed and forced more people to seek outdoor
options. Outdoor fitness spaces are being increasingly
integrated into park and trail designs to encourage
health and physical fitness for all ages.
Outdoor Learning has been implemented during the
pandemic to replace or supplement indoor classrooms.
Outdoor classrooms can encourage activity in children
to counteract the reduction in recess time due to hybrid
class schedules and remote learning. Seating, tables,
shelters, hand sanitizer stations and other outdoor
products are helping create outdoor classrooms.
Human -powered Play engages users to provide physical
energy to "power -up" the activity, such as turning a
handle, pressing foot pedals, rotating wheels. These
products often relate to sensory experiences like lights
and music, story -telling or social games.
Spurred on by the social distancing of the pandemic,
these five trends in playground design and development
point to more human -to -human interactions that
reinforce the value of social connections, even in a
physically distanced environment.
40
Packet Pg. 56
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Operational & Service Challenges Due to
COVID-19
A statewide survey of Washington park and recreation
agencies was conducted in the second half of 2020,
with a focus on service demand and operational
challenges, both preceding and as a result of
COVID-19. City, county and parks and recreation
district leaders were asked to complete the survey, and
the survey was sent to 227 agencies - 109 cities, 39
counties, 79 Special Purpose Park Districts with 73
responses. The project was a collaboration between
the Washington Recreation & Park Association,
the Washington State Association of Counties, the
Association of Washington Cities, and Metro Parks
Tacoma.
In a question that asked the agency about how stable
its outlook for 2020 pre- and during COVID-19, the
percentage of agencies that stated their outlook as very
strong and stable decreased by 25 points, with 27.8%
indicating as very stable at the beginning of the year
LOCAL INTERESTS & NEEDS
EDMONDS COMMUNITY
SURVEY
The community -wide surveys
(mailed and on-line) conducted
from May to August, 2021
identified why residents visit
Edmonds' parks. Respondents
indicated that they visit local
parks and recreation facilities for a
variety of reasons. The most popular
activities are visiting the beach
and waterfront (83%), walking
or running (76%), followed by
relaxation (61%), playgrounds (41%)
and fitness (40%). Approximately
one in three respondents visited for
community events/concerts (37%),
wildlife viewing (36%), dog walking
(35%), or family gatherings (34%).
to 2.8% indicating as very stable by August 1, 2020.
Similarly, agencies that felt moderately or significantly
underfunded and unstable rose from 5.5% to 50% by
August 1, 2020.
Also, significant majorities of agencies indicated service
delivery impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic in
the following ways:
■ Reduced ability to manage, maintain, operate and secure
passive parks to safety standards and control access (87%).
■ Cancellation of special events and tourism campaigns that
support local employment and drives the local economy
(87%).
■ Inability to operate critical community programs, pools,
attractions and facilities, including services for vulnerable
populations (81%).
■ Lack of ability to hire/maintain seasonal employees &
offer programs/services allowable under Safe Start' (74%).
■ Addressing public use and behaviors that put the
community at risk, such as tearing down caution tape,
using fields (85%).
1 - Safe Start is Washington's phased ap-
proach to recovery and reopening the state.
Figure 6. Main Reasons for Visiting Local Parks in Edmonds
Beach / waterfront 82.9%
Walking or running 77.5%
Relaxation 60.8%
Playgrounds 40.6%
Fitness 39.5%
Community events / concerts
36.6%
Wildlife viewing
!
36.1%
Dog walking
34.7%
Family gatherings /picnicking
34.4%
Recreation programs, classes or camps 1111ft. 26.4%
Swimmingf5.3%
20.1%
Bike riding19.3%
Youth sport programs, including summer sport...19.1%
Outdoor sport courts18.1%
Sport fields18.1%
Watersports / canoeing / kayaking0.5%
Other%
Fishing at the pier%
Indoor sport courts
Underwater Dive Park 3.7%
N/A - I didn't use any Edmonds facilities 1 1.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DRAFT Packet Pg. 57
DRAFT
Survey questions explored the needs for a number of park priorities for future consideration in Edmonds park
and recreation provision. Respondents feel there are not enough trails, pools and conservation areas. Walking and
pedestrian trails were clearly the most needed.
Figure 7. Needs expressed for parks, trails and recreation facilities
Walking / pedestrian trails 1 31.5%
Pools i 30.0%
Park conservation areas & open space 5.3%
Community events (such as the Concerts in the Park) %
Picnic areas & shelters
Bike trails in parks ®�
Indoor gymnasium space
Sport fields & sport courts
Recreation programs (camps & classes)
Developed parks with playgrounds
0% 20%
46.6%
22.8% M
27.1% �.6%
44.8 %
37.1% ,.
11
60.0%
40% 60% 80% 100%
■ Not enough _ About the right number ■ More than enough ■ Don't Know
Respondents were asked to rate the condition of a
variety of park and recreation facilities on a scale from
poor to excellent. Respondents gave overwhelming
high marks to the condition of the City's waterfront
parks in downtown Edmonds.
the survey inquired about specific amenities that
participants felt were needed for park and recreation
Hickman Park
.+W
facilities. Of the specific list of amenities provided,
respondents indicated that the highest unmet need
is for pedestrian and bike trails (84%) and an aquatic
facility or pool (65%). Levels of needs for different
amenities varied somewhat across the City and based
on demographics groups. The complete list ranking
(below) provides a summary of expressed needs.
Figure 8. Park and recreation amenities that have not been met locally
Pedestrian & bike trails in parks
1-
Aquatic facility / pool
i
Indoor fitness & exercise facilities
Community gardens
Upgraded or renovated playgrounds
Outdoor fitness equipment
Off -leash dog areas (dog parks)
Additional picnic shelters for group gatherings
Additional tennis & pickleball courts ®'
Lighted, all-weather turf sport fields
Additional fields for soccer, football & lacrosse
All -abilities, inclusive playgrounds
Additional basketball courts
Additional fields for baseball / softball
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
42
Packet Pg. 58
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
When tied to the cost of investments, the most
important improvement was focused on existing
parkland. When examining park and recreation
experiences that may be limited or not available in
Edmonds, respondents top two choices were buying
additional parks for conservation and open space and
building an aquatic center.
Figure 9. Support for funding new amenities in Edmonds
Buy additional parks for conservation & open
space
Build an aquatic center
Install all-weather sport fields
Develop a bike skills course / pump track
Provide off -leash dog park(s)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
■ Increase Taxes ■ Not in Edmonds
OTHER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Tabling Events
The City conducted "pop-up" tabling in August at
the Uptown Market to solicit community feedback
on some park and recreation priorities. Participants
were given sticky dots to use on a display board that
presented six different target areas. The dots could
be placed within boxes marked as "most important",
"important", or "less important". Ranked in order, the
resulting most important focus areas were as follows:
■ Natural open space acquisition
■ New parkland acquisition
■ Park maintenance
■ Picnic shelters & restrooms
■ Trail connections
■ All-weather sports fields & lighting
■ Recreation programs
Virtual Public Meeting #1
the first virtual public meeting occurred on July 22,
2022, which introduced the PROS Plan, highlighted
community survey results and provided opportunities
for public feedback through a series of polling
questions and online question and answer periods.
One of the polling questions aimed to build on the
responses from the community survey and asked
participants to select their top three parks for needed
improvements from a list of five choices. Attendees
identified Mathay Ballinger Park as the top choice and
in tied results selected Yost Memorial Park and Marina
Beach Park as second choice.
Participants were also asked about interest in the
City acquiring more conservation lands and open
space. In another polling question, a plurality of
respondents (42%) indicated interest in acquiring
additional saltwater beaches and waterfront, followed
by additional wetlands and marshlands (28%).
Other comments for park improvements included:
■ Add more parks, services, and facilities in the SR 99
corridor and the south end of the City.
■ Improve Hummingbird Park.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 59
DRAFT
■ Provide better access to the waterfront, specifically
near the Ebb Tide condominiums, and make it ADA
accessible.
■ Include bicycle features and access at parks.
■ Build skate parks in other areas of the City outside of the
"bowl."
Virtual Public Meeting #2
The second virtual community meeting was conducted
on October 16, 2021 to report on progress of the
planning effort, results of surveys and online feedback
and ask a series of questions to gauge areas of interest,
priorities for additional parks, ideas on improving
existing parks and potential additional community
events. The virtual meeting provided polling questions
to facilitate inputs by participants.
Figure 10. Top Park Improvements
Picnic
Bike skills area or
shelters/tables for
pump track
gathering
3%
13%
Improved
maintenance/exist
ing parks
17%
Playground
upgrades &
replacement
17%
The future direction of the Yost Pool facility was
explored in a polling question that asked what the
focus/scale should be if the City were to replace
Yost Pool with a new aquatics facility. Given the
choices of local or regional and indoor or outdoor, the
overwhelming majority chose local -scale (76%) with
those poll responses split between indoor (39%) and
outdoor (36%) pool options.
The final polling question focused on targeting
the most important options for improving trails in
The first polling question asked where the City should
prioritize additional park and open space investments.
Participants were allows to select up to three areas
within the City. Southeast Edmonds (85% of
respondents) and the Highway 99 Corridor (81%) were
polled as the highest priority with North Edmonds
(54%) polled by approximately half the respondents.
Southwest Edmonds (42%) and Downtown (12%)
were not polled as high priorities.
Participants were asked to choose one option among
a list of potential park improvements. Improved,
permanent restrooms (20%) and additional community
gardens (30%) got the most responses in the poll with
playground upgrades (17%) or improved maintenance
(17%) chosen by one third of the respondents.
Additional
Community
Garden
30%
Improved,
permanent
restrooms
20%
Edmonds. Five types of trail improvements were listed
along with a sixth choice that included all options.
While over 30% of respondents chose all the options,
the strongest two directions focused on building
connections within existing parks and open spaces and
acquiring and building new connections through land
purchase or easements.
44
Packet Pg. 60
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
STAKEHOLDERS INSIGHTS
A number of focused interviews were conducted with
identified stakeholders considers as leaders in various
community efforts and activities. Representatives from
local business, the Edmonds School District, the Port
of Edmonds, the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary,
the Korean Community Services Center, Boys and
Girls Club, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, Arts
Commission, and advocates for Yost Pool and South
Edmonds were included in the interviews to discuss
park and recreation issues, opportunities and needs for
future improvements.
Representatives from agencies that already had
working partnerships with City Parks and Recreation
valued the relationship and recognized its importance
to the community. Organizations without existing
partnerships with Parks and Recreation look forward
to working more collaboratively for both broader and
targeted outcomes. Participants recognized how well
parks were maintained but cited the need for more
aggressive invasive species control.
Trail connections and new bike/pedestrian pathways
were advocated for, including specific projects for
creating an east/west connection, paving the spur
trail to Mathay Ballinger Park, creating safe routes to
parks/schools, and enhanced walkability throughout
the community. Extending the off -road shared -use
Interurban Trail was desired.
The concern for an equitable park system was voiced
to raise the issue of needed investment in the SR 99
corridor, South Edmonds and southeast Edmonds.
Mathay Ballinger Park needs further improvements
to help support local recreation activities. Additional
neighborhood parks are needed in the identified
"gap" areas. The value of locating a small community
center along SR 99 for better access to recreation
programming and social services was promoted.
Better physical access to parks was promoted through
acquisition of new parklands in underserved areas
and creating full ADA compliance in existing parks.
Better access to recreation was promoted through
multi-lingual communications and programming made
available to South Edmonds and SR 99 communities.
Stakeholders identified a number of improvements
needed in the park system including Yost Pool
upgrades, the need for additional permanent restrooms
in parks, and more amenities in Mathay Ballinger
Park. The need for recreational opportunities for older
children and teens beyond the existing skate park was
discussed and ideas such as zip -lines, big swings, BMX
tracks and other more engaging park amenities were
suggested.
The support for more open space and conserved
parklands with native tree canopies and native
vegetation reinforced the desire for conservation of
more open space. The need for restoration efforts,
more access to nature and controlling invasive plant
species were cited across the different stakeholders.
An emphasis on native plants for pollinators and "re -
wilding" in parks was recommended.
A more active and intentional program for including
public art into parks was suggested. A more formalized
volunteer program, especially for trail maintenance, was
encouraged. Collaboration and communications across
various agencies and throughout the community was
supported.
City Park gazebo
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 61
DRAFT
CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
The condition of park infrastructure and amenities is a measure of park adequacy and a required assurance
of public safety. General park infrastructure may include walkways, parking lots, park furniture, drainage and
irrigation, lighting systems and vegetation. Deferred maintenance over a long period can result in unusable
amenities when perceived as unsafe or undesirable by park patrons.
The existing conditions within parks were assessed to identify issues and concerns and opportunities for future
improvements. The condition assessment matrix shown on the following page summarizes the results of these
assessments and can be used to help prioritize needed park improvements. The matrix uses a rating system that
ranks the condition of the park element based on the following scale:
1— Good Condition: In general, amenities in good condition offer full functionality and do not need repairs. Good
facilities have playable sports surfaces and equipment, working fixtures, and fully intact safety features (railings, fences,
etc.). Good facilities may have minor cosmetic defects. Good facilities encourage area residents to use the park.
2 — Fair: In general, amenities in fair condition are largely functional but need minor or moderate repairs. Fair facilities
have play surfaces, equipment, fixtures, and safety features that are operational and allow play, but have deficiencies or
time periods where they are unusable. Fair facilities remain important amenities for the neighborhood but may slightly
discourage use of the park by residents.
3 — Poor: In general, amenities in poor condition are largely or completely unusable. They need major repairs to be
functional. Poor facilities are park features that have deteriorated to the point where they are barely usable. Fields are
too uneven for ball games, safety features are irreparably broken, buildings need structural retrofitting, etc. Poor facilities
discourage residents from using the park.
Generally a feature with a rating of "3" should have higher priority for resolution through maintenance, capital
repairs or as a new capital project. Park amenity conditions were also averaged across park elements to indicate
which types of elements are in greater need for significant upgrades, renovations or overall improvements. Based
on this assessment, the City's park system is in need of playground upgrades, sports field improvements, and
better ADA compliance.
In mid -July 2021, the consultant landscape architect conducted site assessments of the outdoor recreation
facilities owned and operated by the City to discern the level of care and need for improvements by visually
observing the conditions in the park system. The conditions matrix offers a quick look at the ratings across
the system to help discern where the most immediate needs might be for repairs or improvements. Additional
information and observations from site assessments are provided in Appendix A.
Affik i ` .
Sierra Park play equipment
46
Packet Pg. 62
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
,aouelldwoo
M
seajy Iein1eN
spas padeospue�
ri
Saail Aced
}Inl
rl
dweb / Blood leog
MIMS o!uold
swowlsaa
ti
N
ri
96eubig
ri
3IV o!Ignd
(N/)) 6ullgbl1
r z r
r
r r
r
z
z
z
.....
zz
z z r
z
r
r
z
r
r
r
z
z
r
z
z
z
z
r
r
s6u!gs!wng al!S
uawa13 oeb JeleM/Iood
v
E
w
O
o
goeasAuaJJaleM
a
eaiv gsea�-gp
c
n
N N
sllejl / sleMgled
Plaid IleglloS / Ilegaseg
N
ti
O
c
spla!d Ja000S
0
U
N
G
O
IlegAellon pueS
�
sluual :spnoo paned
o
0
a
G
O
glaNseg :synod paned
N
spuna6,(eld
N
N .--I c-I N
M
O N
N
ei
N rl
rl •i
•i
n
!9
M
ei
n
!9
n
!i
M
a-1
ei
!i
M
"1
I
e1
e-I
ei
_
rl
_
_
_
_
!i
•'1
•i
•i
e-I
a
d
m
>
Y
Y
Y
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
E
w
a
o
C
`t
C
`t
C
`t
C
`t
C
`t
L
`t
J
E
J
E
C
J
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
d
L
d
L
d
F
Y
O
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
ate+
ate+
sue+
E
E
E
Op
Op
by
by
M
LN
bD
bD
bD
?i
p`
a
3
3
3
3
3
3
u
u
u
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
m
o
a
m
o0
1D
0'.
oo
v
m
m
io
io
ry
w
n
v
o
in
m
o
o
N
�c
�c
m
o
�
o
m
�c
w
�p
a0
v
O
I�
O
ill
lD
V1
O
6
Ci
tG
O
G
O
O
O
G
N
ei
E
J
y
W
L
E
w
V
`
a
E
o
?
o
0
o
n
>
c
o.
v
_
>
E
o>
°�
a
o
u
n
v
"O
H
L
y
J
Ul
V
0
N
~
Y
a+
C
A'1
w
0
N
w
E
a
a
a
L
3
\
a
'�
_
En
a
0
Y
o
�n
m
m
�e
E
w
v¢
3
c
m
e
m
>
°'
a
a
LL
>
�m
v
v
o
'n
a
.0.
cvi
w
E
E
'^
w
o
0
0
0
°'
m
v°
E
w
3
z
a
m
m
E>
l>Ll
Y
E
m
5
m
>>
E
E
n
0
u
i7
i
2
2
x2
a
>
3
DRAFT Packet Pg. 63
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 64
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
In addition to the matrix, the following narrative
summarizes the overall considerations resulting from
the visual observations. The individual park facility
conditions assessments and this summary were also
reviewed by parks staff.
General Appearance & Perception of Care
Overall, the Edmonds park system hosts extensive use
by residents and visitors alike. Some parks contained
much older infrastructure and recreational amenities
that were in need of upgrades, replacements or repairs.
Many parks had recently added some new features
or replaced playgrounds and there was clear evidence
of good stewardship by the parks maintenance staff.
Efforts should continue to renovate, update and
enhance existing park infrastructure and recreational
offerings throughout the park system.
Playgrounds & Playground Access Barriers
the park system has a variety of play equipment
from newly installed to 20+ years in age. Some older
equipment is showing evidence for the need to be
replaced from worn surface coating, rust, missing
Figure 12. Playground Equipment Ages and Predicted Replacement Schedule
pieces or just the lack of play attraction. A record of
each playground's installation date is kept by park staff
as a helpful tool in predicting the future replacement
schedule for each park's playground amenities. lhat
information helps inform and reinforce the need for
play equipment upgrades and replacements.
Sierra Park, Yost Park and Maplewood Hill Park all
have older playground equipment (more than 20+
years) that is due for replacement.
Many playground areas have constructed edges to
retain the wood fiber fall safety surfacing. Edging
needs to have an opening that does not create an ADA
barrier to easy access. Paved ramps or pathways into
play areas may be warranted once barriers are removed.
At least one park (Sierra Park) still used coarse sand
as a safety fall surfacing. While not prohibitive, coarse
sand should be replaced by engineered wood fibers or
some other more updated convention play surfacing. At
Sierra Park, the entire playground should be replaced
with more offerings rather than just improving the
safety surfacing.
Elm Street Park N/A N/A N/A -
Frances Anderson Center Field 2018 3 Heavy •
Haines Wharf
2010 11 Medium
•
Hickman Park
Hummingbird Hill Park
2009
2007
12
14
Heavy •
Medium
Mathay Ballinger Park
2013
8
Medium •
Pine Street Park
2006
15
Med-heavy •
Seaview Park 2019 2 Med-heavy •
Sierra Park 1996 25 Light •
City Park 2014 7 Heavy •
Yost Memorial Park & Pool 1995 26 Medium •
Civic Center Playfields 2022 0 Med-heavy
Marina Beach Park
2016
5
Heavy
Maplewood Hill Park
1985
36
Very light
F-ecial Use Parks
Meadowdale Community Clubhouse
2017
4
Medium
* NOTE: Replacement schedule based on combination of age, amount of usage and predicted wear and tear.
•
•
•
4
DRAFT Packet Pg. 65
DRAFT
Paths & Pavement Management
Edmonds trail system includes the Interurban Trail,
a shared use paved pathway in the southeastern
section of the City, a natural -tread trail network in
Yost Memorial Park, and a number of paved pathways
connecting a series of waterfront parks. While not
an extensive trail system extending across the entire
City, each trail offers outdoor recreation opportunities
and physical activity for residents and visitors. Paved
pathways, especially asphalt surfaced, did have
locations where cracks have formed at edges and where
tree root upheavals have generated pavement cracks.
Invasive Himalayan blackberries should be removed
and replaced with more suitable native plantings to
reduce the repetitive need to hack back the thorns from
intruding on the trail.
The Interurban Trail was in good condition with its
paved surfacing and at its road crossing on 76th. Trash
collection was regular and amenities were clean. The
City also maintains the SR 104 trail and 8th Avenue
trail from the Anderson Center to the Cemetery.
In Yost Memorial Park, the trail network showed
signs of regular vegetation control to keep the trails
open. Trail surfaces were generally navigable. A few
rustic "trail" signs were evident. The boardwalks and
bridges appear to be aging and will predictably need
replacement in the coming years. Where boardwalks
had steps the wear was more evident and some steps
were uneven. As repairs are made, it may be advisable
to extend the boardwalk section into ramps to remove
the need for any steps and increase the access for those
with mobility limitations.
Interurban Trail
The paved pathways in Marina Beach Park, through
the Port promenade and across the waterfront/beach
parks were generally in good condition. The paved
pathway along the Edmonds Marsh did show some
spots with asphalt pavement cracking or gaps between
pavement and wood decking of observation viewpoints
Root upheavals and pavement cracks persist on paved
pathways that have large trees nearby. Some parking
areas showed evidence of cracking or buckling.
Olympic Beach parking area has pavement cracking
and significant uplifting in need of repair. Resurfacing
or complete renovation should be explored. Cracks
and gaps where different surfaces meet raised concerns
about ADA-compliance, particularly where asphalt
pavements met observation platforms (Edmonds
Marsh).
Restroom Upgrades
Older restroom facilities (built before 2010) may
not provide adequate universal access to people
with disabilities. All public park restroom facilities
(including portable toilets) should provide compliant
ADA access for park users. Many older restrooms
also did not contain ADA-compliant signage for
designating gender identities for entries. The restroom
at the entrance to the fishing pier (Olympic Beach
Park) could benefit from better lighting. A record
of restroom construction dates could help prioritize
building replacements to help upgrade the park system
and add new permanent restrooms where needed.
Trail at Yost Memorial Park
50
Packet Pg. 66
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Bleachers at Pine Street Park
Sports Field Amenities
Parks Maintenance staff
Many of the existing ballfields could benefit from
field renovation to encourage better grass coverage
and field playability. Whether the need is for better
irrigation, field drainage, soil chemistry or over -seeding
for improved grass species, some upgrades could be
considered for ballfields.
According to the International Building Code any
bleachers with more than one tier must have side and
back safety railing. Several parks with ballfields have
3- and 5-tiered bleachers with no safety railing. Modify
existing bleachers by adding railings or replace with
newer bleachers fully railed.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Compliance
Architectural barriers, designated parking areas, entry
access designs, playground entries and surfacing, play
equipment, benches, picnic tables and pathways in
older park facilities provides challenges to complying
with the guidelines for ADA standards for places of
public accommodation. Parks that did not provide
some paved pathway to access all the park amenities
were not likely to provide accessible benches, picnic
tables or grills. Several playgrounds presented obstacles
to universal access into the play area. The City does not
have an ADA Transition Plan for park facilities, and
one should be completed.
Maintenance & Operations
Despite a challenging mix of older infrastructure and
newer facilities, there was clear evidence of active and
engaged maintenance practices with little or no signs
of neglect or disrepair. However, facilities that are
managed by volunteers like the Willow Creek Fish
Hatchery may need re-evaluation to avoid having
facilities appear to be neglected or disrepair and reflect
poorly on the City parks system. Older parks may
have residual structures like the swing support pole in
Hummingbird Hill Park or the ATM kiosk in Richard
Anway Park. Remnant pieces that are no longer serving
any function should be removed to help convey the
perspective of active care in the park system.
Trash collection is greatly accelerated during the
busy summer months. Some parks could use more
regular pick times or additional trash receptacles as
weekend use can overwhelm existing capacity of trash
receptacles in popular parks. Consider adding more
receptacles in heavily used areas to help cover litter
control over busy weekends.
Invasive Plant Species Control
Blackberries and English ivy appear to be two of
the most common invasive plant species established
in several natural areas. Along active pathways,
blackberries are a hazard when not kept fully in check.
Natural areas in Edmonds face continual challenges
N
N
m
0
0
le
>I
co
O
W
IL
I
c
0
w
c
m
Q
DRAFT 51
Packet Pg. 67
DRAFT
from persistent undesirable invasive plant species,
degrading the environment and disrupting effective
ecosystem services.
For over 30 years, the City of Edmonds Parks
Department has been committed to reducing pesticide
use in its parks, achieving a 60% reduction since 2008
by using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach
to park maintenance. Invasive plant problems are
monitored on a weekly basis. When pesticides are
used, they are applied using strict protocols and best
practices to protect people, pets, and the environment.
When necessary, pesticides are applied by Park staff
that have been trained, licensed, and certified through
the Washington State Department of Agriculture
(WSDA). Training includes requirements for safe
practices, knowledge of and adherence to labeling
instructions, compliance with state laws, and record
keeping.
Volunteers in some parks help with mechanical control
of blackberries and other vegetation that overgrows
into trail areas. Volunteers also replace invasive plants
with native plants to prevent regrowth and restore
native habitat.
Grass Lawn Areas
As a planning process, these park site conditions
assessments do not explore in-depth evaluations of
natural turfgrass conditions. Maintaining durable
grass cover for general park use is the target to support
enjoyable outdoor recreation activities for park users.
Sports fields require a higher degree of care to ensure
safe athletic play without significant gaps, disruptive
weed cover, uneven density, etc. that could trigger
injuries. Whether for sports or general use, mown
grass lawns require a continual schedule of care during
the growing season. Soil tests should be conducted
periodically to determine if soil pH or nutrient levels
are adequate for supporting optimum grass growth.
Based on each park's soil test results, fertilization
schedules can be developed to ensure the right rates,
types and frequencies of turfgrass fertilizers are applied
for to provide sufficient growth to support specific park
uses.
Irrigation is recommended for those grass areas
where mid- to late summer active use is expected. If
not already in place, the park system could have an
intentional designation for non -irrigated grass lawns
and irrigated areas. The sports field irrigation system
needed attention in Frances Anderson Center Fields
Many mown lawn areas were inundated with white
clover, potentially indicating low nitrogen levels in
the soil. Too much clover in an open grass play area
may raise concerns for the higher prevalence of bee
activity. Soil testing and resultant fertilization can
help encourage denser grass cover with less clover
dominance.
Signage & Wayfinding
Edmonds parks have multiple styles, colors, fonts and
materials used in the signs that identify the different
parks, usually at a primary entrance. Some signs use
bright colors and lists some of the main features within
the park. The new signs combine brown and black
backgrounds with white lettering. Signature waterfront
parks have a variety of engraved rocks, carved wood
and aluminum signs that identify the public park. It
would be helpful to implement the signage style guide
developed in 2010 and uniformly identify the park
and amenities using consistent styles, colors, lettering
and materials. Consistent graphics can help with
"branding" the value of the parks, trails and open space
and reminding users who the provider is. Use of the
park style guide for signage would be helpful to achieve
continuity.
For the Edmonds trail system, a unified wayfinding
program could be beneficial. Signs were lacking at the
starting points for the Edmonds Marsh, to identify the
paved pathway. While a printed Yost Park Trail Map
is available (at the Frances Anderson Center), Yost
Memorial Park's trail network has limited directional
and identification signs to let trail users know their
location and how to get to their destination. Trail
distances are vague and can only be approximately
by the map's rough scale. It would be helpful to have
a complete navigational/wayfinding sign system
that incorporates directional information and trail
identification to inform users and enhance the trail
experience.
52
Packet Pg. 68
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
PARKS DISTRIBUTION & GAP
ANALYSIS
Understanding the known gaps in the park system and
evaluating the City's existing levels of service for parks
will provide a foundation for strategic planning as a
basis for a balanced distribution of parks, trails and
recreation amenities in the future.
To better understand where acquisition efforts
should be considered, a gap analysis of the park
system was conducted to examine and assess the
current distribution of parks throughout the City. The
analysis reviewed the locations and types of existing
facilities, land use classifications, transportation/
access barriers and other factors as a means to identify
preliminary acquisition target areas. In reviewing
parkland distribution and assessing opportunities
to fill identified gaps, residentially zoned lands were
isolated, since neighborhood and community parks
primarily serve these areas. Additionally, travelsheds
were defined for neighborhood parks using a 1/a-mile
primary and 1/z-mile secondary service area with travel
distances calculated along the road network starting
from known and accessible access points at each park.
Travelsheds for community parks were derived using
1/4-mile, 1/2-mile, 1-mile and 3-mile travel distances to
acknowledge that these park types (including athletic
fields) serve a wider array of users and driving to such
sites is typical.
Maps 2 through 6 illustrate the application of the
distribution criteria from existing parks. Areas in
white do not have access to a public park within
reasonable walking distance of their home. The
illustrated `travelshed' for each existing Edmonds park
highlights that certain areas within the City do not
have the desired proximity to a local park. The highest
concentration of park opportunities currently is in the
waterfront and downtown areas.
The mapping of park distribution and `travelsheds'
helps to illustrate the underserved neighborhoods in
Edmonds. Areas of South Edmonds, eastern region of
212th Street SW, and an area in the northern section of
the City have no nearby access to public parks or open
space as indicated by white areas on Map 6. These parts
of the City should be targeted for future acquisitions to
help create more equitable access for all residents.
Striving to provide a neighborhood park within a
reasonable walking distance (e.g., 1/2-mile) will require
acquiring new park properties in currently under -
served locations, improving multi -modal transportation
connections to allow local residents to safely and
conveniently reach their local park, and evaluating
the potential use of school sites as proxies for local
neighborhood parks. As Edmonds redevelops and
acquisition opportunities are limited, the City should
consider taking advantage of acquisition opportunities
in strategic locations and as funding allows to fill gaps
and ensure an equitable distribution of park facilities.
In concert with the search for developable park
land, the City should continue to coordinate with
any proposed residential land development projects
to consider when and how a public park (or trail
connection) could be incorporated into the planning
of newly developed or redeveloped residential areas.
The development density associated with SR 99 and
its importance as a commercial zoning district present
a challenge for finding affordable land for creating a
public park. Combining a park/recreation facility with
a much -needed community center and multi -family
(affordable) housing development could be a potential
approach, as would other public -private ventures.
In an effort to examine more closely the distribution
of City parks through an equity lens, a second series
of maps were compiled that build off the conditions
assessment noted earlier in the chapter. Maps 7
through 12 apply condition assessment ratings with
the variety of recreational amenities offered to add
an additional layer of data to the travelsheds. For
example, Map 7 applies scaled ratings from the
conditions assessment to the City's neighborhood
parks, and Map 8 applies a scaled rating of amenities
provided for neighborhood parks. Map 9 creates a
composite of these two maps. One limitation to using
only travelshed mapping is that the park catchment
areas do not reflect information about the level of site
development or quality and condition of the existing
amenities. This second series of maps aims to illustrate
which parks may be underdeveloped or require
additional upkeep or enhancements, which could guide
future capital planning to bring parity to existing
developed parks. The acquisition and development of
additional sites to fill known gaps will further improve
distribution and equity to parklands across the City.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 69
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 70
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
RNAI VERSION OF
Legend LAN WILL INCLUD
CityLimitsAPS AS 11X17 FOR
_ 1/4-mile Travelshed to City Parks
_ 1/2-mileTravelshedtoCity Parks ETTER READABILITY
-City Parks Puget Sound
- Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks
- Edmonds School District
_ Water
PUGET
DR
Maplewood
Hill Park
f €
k
�OC
Civic Center
Pla_y�d
J
�
�
Pir�Pnrk Ge
WALNI ST
Marina
B..& Park
I
Woodway
3
Unincorporated
_ Snohomish Co.
7�
8 Hic_km�an�Perk
5 �Os
�m
F 9�
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Mathay
Bauinger
Park
Shoreline
t
6T ST SW
�- 180TH S -
3
Lynnwood $
188TH ST SW
3
200TH ST SW
j
�I 20CTH ST SW
208TH ST SW
I
N
N
O
O_
#III
w
O
�
_ $ _ ;
Mountlake C0
Terrace W
IL
rn
O
E
y
2
}1
236iH pL SJ!" 236TH BT SW
1
V
r
Map 2: Travelsheds for Small Parks (Neighborhood Parks to 1/2-mile)
Packet -.
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 72
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
VERSION OF
Legend LAN WILL INCLUD
O City Limits
14-m
- 1/4-mile Travelshed to City Parks APS AS 11 X17 FOR
- 1/2-mile Travelshed to City Parks BETTER READABILITY
1-mile Travelshed to City Parks Puget Sound
2-mile Travelshed to City Parks
- City Parks
Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks
- Edmonds School District
- Water /
Sea4 ark
3
J' Sie—Park
PUGET DRY —
Maplew d
Hill Park
CASPERS ST
y
Bracket 0
andi g _
�`n F Civic Center Play V , Pine Ridge
� Park
m Vost Memorial
Park
WALNU ST
t
6T sr sw
�- 180TH S —
3
Lynnwood $
188TH ST SW
3
200TH ST SW
j
204TH ST SW
208TH ST SW
Edmonds Marsh 212TH ST SW
Beach Park Cit�k > > Bp
for
00,
N H'AY
Pine � N
N
v
Park,k I to
0
Elm Street j
Park 0
I
> I
Woodwa Mountlake co
Terrace
I Unincorporated dl
s� 3 Snohomish Co. PLBW
� 3 � p � O
tL G
a *e y W
3 ■ 2 ++
8 Hickman Pa v
3 ■ 236iH pL SW��236TH BT BW W
g M.thay •
Ballinger
Park
i }I
t I
0 0.25 F 0.5 1 1.5 2
Nies Shoreline
Map 3: Travelsheds for Community Parks (2-miles)
I Packet
-.
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 74
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
RNAI VERSION OF
Legend LAN WILL INCLUD
O City Limits
14-m
- 1/4-mile Travelshed to City Parks APS AS 11 X17 FOR
- 1/2-mile Travelshed to City Parks ETTER READABILITY
1-mile Travelshed to City Parks Puget Sound
2-mile Travelshed to City Parks
3-mile Travelshed to City Parks
- City Parks
- Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks
- Edmonds School District
_ Water
f
Sea4ark
3
i s
c.
PUGET DR
Maplewo,d
Hill Park
• GASPERS ST
3
I �
Landing
CiviCenter
Pla eld Pine ri,d
� Park
-,h WALNUT ST
Edmonds Marsh ---
Marina
Beach Park
�INE ST Pine
street
Park
Elm Street
Park
7
j
Es
Woodway ark
i Unincorporated
y 6
°s� w Snohomish
9A >
■ � Balllr
l
3
8 H,.kmmaa�+Park
_ ■ MalhaY •
5 Hamnger
Park
2
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles Shoreline
t
iT6iH sT sw
�- WTH 5 9
3
Lynnwood $
I88TH ST SW
3
200TH ST SW
j
20CTHSTSW
208TH ST SW
Mountlake
Terrace
SW
W 236TH ST SW
1
Map 4: Travelsheds for Waterfront Parks (3-miles) & Special Use Areas ('h-mile)
Packet -.
N
N
to
0
O
le
>
co
V!
O
W
a
NI
O
E
V
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 76
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
VERSION OF
Legend LAN WILL INCLUD
ty
1 p /4-mLimits
- 1/4-mile Travelshed to City Parks APS AS 11 X17 FOR
- 1/2-mile Travelshed to City Parks BETTER READABILITY
-City Parks Puget Sound
- Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks
- Edmonds School District
- Water he
JK
PUGEf DR
'
m
Maplewood
I II PaM
GASPERS ST
z
Bracket
F
„LL 'd n
_
Clvi� Center
Pln 9e
Perk
•
�
Vost Memorial
Park
r a.
\
WALNUT ST
Edmonds Marsh
_
Marina
Beach Park City Pad,
r
Bo��NWAY
Pine
so-aet
<
Park
T
Woodway I s
�o Unincorporated
O 8
s w _Snohomish Co.
8 Hickme Perk
3 ■
5 Mamay •
Beu�nger
ao� Park
m
9F
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles Shoreline
t
iTsiH sT sw
�- i80THs 9W
3
Lynnwood $
188TH ST SW
3
200TH ST SW
j
�I 20CTH ST SW
208TH ST SW
N
i
N
to
0
#III
w
0
>
Mountlake C0
Terrace w
a
O
F28s. PL SW!W 288TH sT sW
1 �
V
r
Map 5: Travelsheds - All City Parks ('h-mile)
Packet -.
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 78
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
FiNAi VERSION OF
Legend
PLAN WILL INCLUD
O City Limits
MAPS AS 11 X17 FOR
14-m
- 1/4-mile Travelshed to City Parks
- 1/2-mile Travelshed to City Parks
BETTER READABILITY
- 1/4-mile Travelshed to Accessible Open Space & Non -City Parks P u g e t Sound
1/2-mile Travelshed to Accessible Open Space & Non -City Parks
- City Parks
ML Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks
- Edmonds School District
Water
- Non-residential Zoning
PUGEf OR
Maplewood
Hill Park
CASPERS ST
CIVi Center
Pla,f, ld ,
Pine Ritlge
Park
�•
Vost Memorial
Park
WALNUTST
_
tl BO
II Pine
Street
Q Park - r V
l�
'
j
30homish
Woodway �'■
8 Hickmen�erk
_ ■ Mathay
5 seining¢,
�9! Park
m
9F
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles Shoreline
I
nsTHe�sw
�-180THS 9W
3
Lynnwood $
F188THSTSW
�f
3
200TH ST SW
I
�I 200TH ST SW
208TH ST SW
I
I
Mountlake
Terrace
zsni PL sw
�L
FL
235i EL SWW238TH ST SW
rA j
Map 6: Travelsheds - Parks & Open Spaces (City & Non -City to 1/2-mile)
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 80
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
W
fiues l
s
71
3
Lynnwood $
188TH ST SW
I _
;WSW 28— ST SW
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles Shoreline
Map 7: Conditions Assessment for Neighborhood Parks (Quality; 1/2-mile)
N
N
O
O
O
Iq
>I
co
O
W
IL
I
c
0
E
w
w�
W
E
t�
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 82
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
Ranae of Amenities: Limited
3
Lynnwood $
188TH ST SW
MI20CTH ST SW
208TH ST SW
$ t
Mountlake
Terrace
SW
;WSW 28— ST SW
1
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles Shoreline
Map 8: Conditions Assessment for Neighborhood Parks (Amenities; 1/2-mile)
I Packet
-.
N
N
O
O
V—
O
Iq
>I
co
O
W
IL
I
c
0
E
w
w�
W
E
t�
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 84
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
IMM
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles Shoreline
3
Lynnwood $
-TH ST SW
I
3
$ r
Mountlake
Terrace
SW
IW�W 2 GTH ST SW
Map 9: Conditions Assessment for Neighborhood Parks (Composite; 1/2-mile)
N
N
O
O
V-
O
Iq
>I
co
O
W
IL
I
c
0
E
w
w�
W
E
t�
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 86
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
FINAI VERSION OF
Legend LAN WILL INCLUD
CityLimitsAPS AS 11X17 FOR VMS Condition Quality: Good M adowdale
Condition Quality: Fair
ETTER READABILITY Bai PaM
Condition Quality: Poor Puget Sound
- City Parks aneswean
Open Space & Special Use Areas + �
I �L
- Non -city Parks
N
- Edmonds School District _ MPIaN la e _
_ Water y�'S s`s J .2
I �
7
a
c
t a
1-STSW r
soahomlan �
Coo my Park L
/ f Q
180TH ST
V!
3 0
Se4ark > LL
€ a
Lynnwood $ m
y""19ITH STSW tO
Si rruP.. rk '^
O I i.4
fi O
V' —f[
196TH ST SW
,k K/
Maplew3
Hill Park C
200TH ST SW ilk
Brackeds �� j /ol
a ding
CIVI QCemer 20aTH ST SW Y
'PlayfeM PInPRdge / y
Yosl Memorial zOaTH ST SW a
a 11monds Marsh
BeachP_ark / Gil ly Padc I N
//j N
so-eel/0100 N
/ Park to
Elm Slreel 0
'/'///��(////�/•� P rk w 9
'
3 � $ t �I
Esperan
Woodway 11 Mountlake 0
Terrace W
F Unincorporated PLIL
26 I
Snohomish Co. SW
3
tL G
a ■ a Parka W
8 HmkmanPark 23STH PL SW�W 236TH ST SW
• ■ •
g Mathay
Ballinger
°gk Park
F 9LF I 1� I
0 0.25 o.5 1 1.5 2MIla6 $hOrellne
Map 10: Conditions Assessment for Community & Waterfront Parks
(Quality; 1/2-mile)
I Packet
-.
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 88
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
RNAI VERSION OF
Legend LAN WILL INCLUD
pCity Limits APS AS 11X17 FOR
�� Range of Amenities: Good Maad.—la
Range ofAmenities: Fair
ETTER READABILITY Bai PaM
��N Range of Amenities: Limited Puget Sound
Haines wnart
- City Parks
Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks I
- Edmonds School District MPIaN a a
- Water
I
2
1—STSW
soohoml•n
Coo n1y Park
t
180TH STSW
3
Sea4 ark >
Lynnwood#L $
ynndale Pa 988TH ST SW
Si _ Pa
i 196TH ST SW
Maplewood 3
Hill Park
\ lop MTH ST SW
j
t
Brackett, A�
Landing
CiP"yfl nter Pin200TH ST SW
e Ritlge /
� P==Id • Perk
208TH ST SW
Yost Memorial
Park \\ /
, 1, E mor&lVmrsh
Marina �` I
Be h Park City Park 000000,
01000
a�• `\\ ♦ Pine
Pir S
\W`
Elm Street
P rk
`✓K\` l $ —
3 j
3 E
Woodway 11 Mountlake
Terrace
Unincorporated
w Snohomish Co. PLSW
� 3
tL
■ SParka `�
O 9
8 Hi i,man�Park
3 � ■ � 235it{PL SW� 236TH ST SW
g Mathay •
Ballinger
�gk Park
F 9LF l � I
0 0.25 as 1 is 2
Mila6 ShOrellne
Map 11: Conditions Assessment for Community & Waterfront Parks
(Amenities; 1/2-mile)
I Packet Pg.
89
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 90
5.A.a
EdfI ONS 2022 PRO
r
6T ST SW
3
Lynnwood $
-TH ST SW
I
3
$ r
Mountlake
Terrace
SW
IW�W 2 GTH ST SW
IMM
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Map 12: Conditions Assessment for Community & Waterfront Parks
(Composite;'/2-mile)
N
N
O
O
V-
O
Iq
>I
co
O
W
IL
I
c
0
E
w
w�
W
E
t�
Q
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 92
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
LEVEL OF SERVICE ASSESSMENT
Service standards are the adopted guidelines or
benchmarks the City is trying to attain with their park
system; the level of service is a snapshot in time of how
well the City is meeting the adopted standards. A level
of service (LOS) review was conducted in addition
to and in support of the gap analysis as a means to
understand the distribution of parkland acreage by
classification and for a broader measure of how well the
City is serving its residents with access to parks, trails
and open space.
In the past, the City of Edmonds has used acreage per
capita and park distribution to define its standards and
measure its level of service for parks and recreation.
While adopted acreage standards have been a long-
standing traditional measure of park provision, current
trends in park system assessment utilize a broader
Figure 13. Acreage LOS comparisons from 2016 PROS Plan
and more customized analysis of how well parks are
benefitting their service area and where improvements
should be focused. In their 2008 PROS plan, Edmonds
adopted acreage per thousand population for the
target quantity of its park facilities. The same Plan also
proposed "aspirational" standards. The 2016 PROS
plan referenced both acreage standards and measured
the calculated needs for additional parkland based on
those acreage standards. The adopted 2008 standard
required that the City have 490 acres of parklands.
With the "aspirational" (2025) standard, the park
system would require 440 acres of parklands. These
two standards indicated a calculated deficit of over 230
acres. With slightly more than 200 acres in the current
City park system, these earlier standards are more than
aspirational. The 2016 PROS plan acknowledged that
doubling the size of the existing park system was not
realistic or attainable.
Regional 17.0 0.4 1.0 42.4 1.0 41.1 (24.1)
Community
66.0
1.5
2.4
104.1
2.0
87.0
(21.0)
Neighborhood
26.2
0.6
0.6
24.9
0.7
30.4
(4.3)
Special Use
22.2
0.5
0.6
23.6
0.7
30.4
(8.2)
Open Space
75.6
1.8
6.9
295.3
5.9
251.1
(175.5)
All parklands
207.0
4.8
11.4
490.2
10.3
440.1
(233.1)
*adopted in the 2008 PROS Plan
** "aspirational" standard from 2008 PROS Plan
The previous plan combined the acreage of other "park"
facility providers to ease the pressure of meeting the
parkland acreage standard through the City's park
system alone. Sites included County and Edmonds
School District properties and raised the existing LOS
from 4.83 acres per 1,000 population to 14.08 acres per
1,000 population - an increase of 200% in an effort to
align aggregate land holdings with the standards.
A review of metrics from national data provides
additional color to the assessment. Comparisons are
provided below based on National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) data that reflects the current levels
of service of park agencies across the country based on
a variety of factors: population size, population density,
number of full-time equivalent employees, number of
park facilities, acres of parkland and more. The NRPA
Park Metrics data are used to compare different park
and recreation providers in communities across the
country; however, the Park Metrics database relies
on self -reporting by municipalities. Some agencies
only include developed, active parks, while others
include natural lands with limited or no improvements,
amenities or access. The comparative standards in the
table on the following page should be viewed with this
variability in mind.
A few highlights from the NRPA agency comparison
provide perspectives on Edmonds' park system. When
compared with other park agencies, Edmonds' (city-
D RAFT
Packet Pg. 93
DRAFT
owned) parkland acreage (4.8 acres/1,000) falls below
the lower quartile of park providers. While parkland
acreage alone should not be the sole measure of
performance, the acquisition of additional parklands
are warranted.
Looking at the provision of recreation amenities within
the park system provides another perspective on the
adequacy of park service delivery. From the NRPA
Park Metrics data, six amenities were compared with
Figure 14. Acres of Parkland from NRPA Metrics
All Agencies Pop. 20,000 Edmonds
49,999
Acres of • 000
Median Acres/1,000 9.9 9.8 4.8
Playgrounds ■ 3,607 2,961 2,857
Baseball -youth 6,763 5,099 7,142
Softball -youth 11,287 9,891 4,761
Dog Parks 46,000 27,528 42,853
Outdoor Pools
37,569 25,402 42,853
Skate Parks 49,750 31,248 42,853
To redirect the most important efforts to creating an
equitable park system for Edmonds, an adjusted set
of parkland acreage standards is recommended.lhe
proposed adjustment to acreage standards eliminate
the acreage targets for regional and special use park
facilities. the regional classification is currently used for
waterfront sites of highly varied sizes. the classification
of regional parks from across the country typically
designates large tracts of land from 50 to hundreds
of acres in size. Since Edmonds' current use of the
regional park classification actually targets waterfront
sites, its specialized focus does not require an acreage
standard, and this Plan relabels the classification to
waterfront parks.lhe same rational applies to special
use park facilities. These sites are designated for their
specialized use which typically predetermines the
necessary acreage size for the facility.lhus, no acreage
standard is necessary or useful.
For neighborhood and community parks, an
acreage -based standard is more important and still
the median values from an aggregate of all agencies
across the country, as well as from jurisdictions with
populations in a similar range to that of Edmonds. The
comparisons indicate that Edmonds is not significantly
deficient in the recreational amenities listed. However,
several areas of Edmonds do not provide easy access to
these recreational amenities, and residents would have
to drive for access for various activities.
applicable, in addition to the application of geographic
distribution, level of park development and equity
considerations. Increasing the adopted acreage standard
for neighborhood parks from the adopted 2008 (0.58
ac/1,000) and the aspirational 2035 (0.71 ac/1,000)
standards to a more readily measurable 1 acre per
1,000 population would address the known demand
for more neighborhood parks in underserved areas.lhe
need for neighborhood park acreage would increase
from the prior standard to 16.7 acres. If the average
neighborhood park size is approximately four acres,
an additional three to five new park sites should be
targeted for acquisition.lhis quantity coincides with
the mapping analysis for existing parkland distribution.
For community parks, the acreage -based standard is
proposed as 2.25 acres per 1,000 population, resulting
in a current need for 16 acres or the equivalent of one
new community park.
78
Packet Pg. 94
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Figure 15. New Proposed Standards for Parkland Acreage
Existing
Existing LOS
2022 Proposed
Current Need
Type of Park
Inventory
(ac.)
•••
.. .
Community*
80.5 acres
1.54 acres/1,000
2.25 acres/1,000
16.0 acres
Neighborhood
26.2 acres
0.61 acres/1,000
1 acres/1,000
16.7 acres
Open Space
75.6 acres
1.76 acres/1,000
3.5 acres/1,000
74.4 acres
Totals
182.2 acres
3.91 acres/1,000
6.75 acres/1,000
107.0 acres
* Includes acreage from Lynndale Skate Park and Meadowdale Playfields, prorated at 50%
Considering the future population growth predicted
for Edmonds in 2035 (population forecast as 45,550),
the demand for community park acreage would result
in a need for 22 acres or an equivalent slightly larger
new community park. These proposed adjustments to
the acreage standards are intended to help focus future
acquisitions and development resources on the most
important park and recreation facility provision.
Figure 16. Future Park Acreage Needs using Proposed Standards
Community* 80.5 acres 2.25 acres/1,000
Neighborhood 26.2 acres 1 acres/1,000
Open Space 75.6 acres 1 3.5 acres/1,000
22.0 acres
19.4 acres
83.8 acres
Totals 182.2 acres 1 6.75 acres/1,000 1 125.3 acres
* Includes acreage from Lynndale Skate Park and Meadowdale Playfields, prorated at 50%
** 2035 population estimated as 45,550
this Plan also proposed an adjustment to the acreage -
based standard for City -owned open space from the
2008 standard (6.89 ac/1,000) to 3.5 acres per 1,000
population. This proposed adjustment reduces the
current and future acreage need to 74 acres and 84
acres, respectively. Additionally, the Snohomish County
Park (118 acres) is not included in these calculations,
but this large block of wooded open space remains
available for the Edmonds community as a natural area
contributing to local quality of life for residents and
supporting the local ecology.
the proposed acreage standards for neighborhood
and community parks and open space lands would
recalibrate the combined acreage standards from the
2008 11.44 acres per 1,000 population to a more
targeted 6.75 acres per 1,000 population. As a more
attainable and strategic acreage goal, the City could
more realistically become comparable to the nation-
wide averages measured by NRPXs data on park and
recreation agencies.
the use of numeric standards is a blunt and limited
tool to assess how well the City is delivering park and
recreation services, since the numeric values alone
neglect any recognition for the quality of the facilities
or their distribution (i.e., the ease to which residents
have reasonable, proximate access to park sites). While
public ownership of a broad range of recreation lands
is crucial to the well-being of the city, the simple use
of an overall acreage standard does not match with the
citizen input received during this planning process.
Residents were particularly interested in the availability
of trails, equitable distribution of parks within a
reasonable distance from their homes, and conservation
of open space.
DRAFT Packet Pg. 95
DRAFT
The City's park system also was assessed using the
Washington Recreation and Conservation Office
(RCO) level of service metrics provided in their
planning manual. In reviewing the park system as a
whole, Figure 18 illustrates the current levels of service
across different performance measurements. From the
community survey results, public satisfaction of the
facilities and amenities that Edmonds provides ranked
as the strongest indicator for the park system.
Figure 17. Levels of Service with RCO Metrics (System -wide)
Public Satisfaction
Condition of Local City Parks (rated as Excellent or Good) 76.1%
LOS Grade B
Condition of Trails in Parks (rated as Excellent or Good) 55.0%
LOS Grade ft D
Agency -based Assessment
Condition Assessment Rating of Existing Parks (3-point scale) 1.27
LOS Grade B
Parkland Access (within 1/2-mile travelshed)
Percent Service Area with Access to Active -Use City Parks
48.1%
LOS Grade
M D
Parkland Access (within 1/2-mile travelshed)
Percent Service Area with Access to All Parks & Open Space
69.8%
LOS Grade
C
Trail System Access (within 1/2-mile travelshed)
Percent Service Area with Access to Recreational Trails
LOS Grade
Usage / Visitation Criteria
Frequency of Park or Trail Usage
Percent Visiting Parks at Least Multiple Times per Month 88.0%
LOS Grade A
SCALE Goad Fair Umhe•
* Note: The percentage of land area covered by service area walksheds is a proxy for the population within the
residential portion of the City.
In addition to readjusting the City's adopted standards
to more focused and realistic targets, this PROS plan
also evaluated the geographic distribution of parks.
The assessment of park distribution (as in the previous
park plans) recognized that the most prevalent gaps
in individual park service areas was in the south and
east of the City. This translates to the highest need for
walkable parks to be located in South Edmonds and
along the residential proximity to the SR 99 corridor.
The gap analysis conducted for this updated PROS
park plan reinforces the findings from the 2016 plan
to direct the need for additional park acreage as well as
new park location targets.
80
Packet Pg. 96
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
PARKS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Assessing physical conditions within each park facility,
mapping distribution of existing parks, measurements
of park acreage and comparing park amenity provision
represent four methods for assessing the park system.
To refine the access and equity of a park system even
further, a look at the types and quantities of outdoor
recreation offerings generates additional considerations,
Comparing size and amenities in each park helps
weigh the need for enhancing existing park sites, in
addition to adding new parks. Each existing park
has a variety of recreational amenities and do not
offer equal values in outdoor recreation. For example,
Hickman Park at 5.6 acres (compared to Mathay
Ballinger Park with 1.82 acres) provides significantly
more amenities for play, gathering, walking and sports.
While both parks are classified as neighborhood parks,
their contribution to meeting local, neighborhood
park needs is not the same. Parks with less land and
fewer amenities should be considered as targets for
expansion through adjacent land acquisition or, at least,
enhancement with additional amenities.
Hazel Miller Plaza
Photo credit: Chris Walton
The City also should consider other factors for serving
the current and future population of Edmonds,
including:
■ Park pressure, or the potential user demand on a park:
Residents are most likely to use the park closest to
their home. This measure uses GIS analysis to assign all
households to their nearest respective park and calculates
level of service (in acres of parkland per 1,000 residents)
based on the acreage of the park and the number of
residents in the `travelshed'. Areas with lower levels of
service are more likely to be underserved by parkland and
to see higher degrees of use and wear and tear on park
amenities.
■ Availability of park amenities: Park systems should
include an equitable distribution and quantity of the
most common amenities like playgrounds, picnic shelters,
sports courts, sports fields and trails to meet local needs
and help distribute the potential usage of individual parks
Working to provide well -distributed basic park amenities,
while also offering unique outdoor experiences, will
result in a varied park system with a range of different
recreational opportunities for residents.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 97
DRAFT
OPEN SPACE
The Edmonds community is fortunate to have retained
several significant natural areas across the City.
Approximately 75 acres of open space are owned and
managed by the City, in coordination with the acreage
of developed parks. These open space properties include
forested lands, waterfronts and wetlands across 13
different sites.
The open space classification distinguishes natural
lands from parks developed for active recreation and
other highly managed landscapes. Open space may
refer to public properties that are exclusively natural
areas or portions of larger parks that are managed as
natural areas. These open space lands are managed to
preserve, restore, and conserve ecosystem functions,
native vegetation and wildlife habitat. Open space
properties are undeveloped, primarily left in its natural
form, and are managed to retain or enhance natural
or scenic resources. However, open space may include
trails or interpretive signs, along with modest support
amenities such as parking or restrooms.
Figure 18. City -owned Open Space
Edmonds Marsh
24.21
Haines Tidelands
0.44
H.O. Hutt Park
4.53
Maplewood Hill Park
13.27
Meadowdale Natural Areas
1.07
Olympic View Open Space
0.49
Pine Ridge Ext (SW)
1.14
Pine Ridge Park
25.33
Seaview Reservoir
1.31
Shell Creek Open Space
1.42
Wharf Street
0.12
Willow Creek Park
2.25
Total Open Space Acreage
75.58
Large Open Space Properties
The City manages several sizeable open space
properties. At more than 10 acres, significant habitat
for wildlife and a quiet experience for park visitors
is buffered by nature from the surrounding urban
environment. These open spaces include Maplewood
Hill Park, Edmonds Marsh and Pine Ridge Park, as
well as portions of Yost Memorial Park. These large
open space areas contain a variety of distinct habitats,
such as wetlands and creeks, adding to the diversity of
plant species they host. Some of these open spaces also
include developed trail systems, serving as recreation
opportunities and valuable pedestrian connections for
local streets and neighborhoods.
Smaller Open Space Properties
Smaller open space areas, ranging from less than
one acre to five acres, are distributed across the
City. Though small, these pockets of natural area
serve as refuges for wildlife traveling between larger
forested areas, and in some cases, provide modest trail
segments. Several of these areas have no developed site
improvements or trails and are managed exclusively
as natural area set -asides and to preserve or enhance
their ecosystem functions. Some of the small open
spaces include H.O. Hutt, Shell Creek Open Space
and Haines Tidelands. Development of these sites
for public recreational use, including the construction
of trails, may be limited, or restricted by natural
characteristics of the land, including steep slopes,
wetlands and other features.
Edmonds Marsh
82
Packet Pg. 98
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
LAND CONSERVATION
Many of the public lands that the City owns and
manages host unique, high -value landscapes. These
areas are prioritized for acquisition, conservation and
restoration activities to ensure that they continue to
thrive and provide their distinct ecosystem functions
and benefits. High -quality waterfronts, woodlands and
wetlands are all vital to preserving Edmonds' diversity
of habitats. Providing safe public access to and within
these areas needs to be carefully balanced with the
crucial goal of environmental stewardship and natural
habitat protection.
Forest Lands
The City is fortunate to have acquired and protected
several forested open spaces, such as Maplewood
Hill Park and Pine Ridge Park. Protecting existing
forested lands and restoring the native forest within
public ownership will continue to provide habitat
value, stormwater reduction services and urban heat
reduction. Ongoing monitoring and management of
these forest lands will be necessary to control invasive
vegetation, maintain native plant communities and
accommodate appropriate recreational access and
usage.
the City adopted its Urban Forestry Management
Plan in 2019 to take an active role in preserving and
enhancing the value of canopy trees on public lands.
Park operations and volunteer activities can work to
implement aspects of the forestry plan through native
tree planting, environmental education programs,
public planting and stewardship events and interpretive
signage.
Edmonds residents also benefit from an additional 140
acres of public open space within city limits provided at
Meadowdale Beach Park and the Snohomish County
Park. While these two sites are not under the City's
ownership, the ecosystem benefits and habitat values
offered by these two sites contribute to the greater
network of open space lands in Edmonds.
Waterfronts
Edmonds extensive shoreline offers unique experiences
where public waterfront provides access. This special
connection to open water expands on the concept of
open space, and Edmonds waterfront parks contribute
to the open space experience, while also providing
other park -like amenities. Acquiring additional public
access to the waterfront (marine and freshwater)
continues to be a priority for the City to capture and
protect the value of its shorelines and aquatic habitat,
while allowing more access to beachfront recreation.
Wetlands
The City code also protects and regulates wetlands
in Edmonds. the City's open spaces include several
wetland areas, such as the Edmonds Marsh and
Willow Creek Park.lhese areas continue to be a high
priority for protection and restoration efforts, and low
lying properties with prevalent wetlands can provide
valuable stormwater management and flood control
functions. Generally, they represent fragile ecosystems
that host unique plant communities and serve as a
valuable habitat for many animals, including bird and
amphibian populations. These areas should be included
in future open space management and acquisition
planning.
Riparian Conservation & Trail Corridors
Beyond the larger tracts of natural lands to be acquired
for open space, the City can look to linear corridors
along drainage ways and stream corridors as targets
for acquisition. Such riparian habitats benefit from
conservation and restoration to ensure adequate
forest canopy and can be compatible with connecting
trail alignments. Open space and trail corridors are
important components to creating the connectivity and
walkable networks being sought by residents.
SERVICE STANDARDS
One primary goal of having an open space acreage
standard is to inform the need for investments in
local natural areas; however, a City -only accounting of
open space lands underrepresents the total amount of
open space land protected within Edmonds. As noted
above,140 acres of public open space are provided at
Meadowdale Beach Park and the Snohomish County
Park, which are within city limits. If these sites were
included in the level of service calculation, the City
would have 217 acres of open space and 5.07 acres
per 1,000 population — a significant increase from
the City -only level of service of 1.76 acres per 1,000
population.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 99
DRAFT
The proposed acreage standard for open space focuses
on only City -owned properties and is adjusted to
3.5 acres per 1,000 population (from the 6.89 acres
per 1,000 from the 2016 PROS Plan). The proposed
adjustment is intended to re -align the planned
target acreage to a more attainable acreage, in terms
of potential land areas to pursue and the financial
resources to secure them. At this proposed standard,
the current need is calculated as an additional 74.4
acres of open space, which would increase to 83.8 acres
by 2035.
While numerical planning standards are common
for helping to determine a desirable number of parks
per population, they do not translate easily to natural
areas because of the uniqueness of the land base itself.
The acquisition, acceptance and inclusion of future,
protected natural areas will strengthen and expand the
broader network of public open spaces, and the priority
should be focused toward those lands that expand
ownership of adjacent City -owned properties or to
ensure sufficient property is available to accommodate
public access, water access and future trail connections.
As stated in the goals and objectives, Edmonds
should plan to cooperate with County, neighboring
jurisdictions, and organizations to identify and protect
natural lands. Engaging the Snohomoish County
Conservation Futures funding program can help
support acquisition efforts.
H.O. Hutt Park
STEWARDSHIP
With existing open space lands as well as natural
areas within developed parks, the need to plan for
the management and stewardship of these natural
environments will be ongoing. Volunteers already
contribute to some limited trail maintenance
and vegetation management in some parks and
programming. More emphasis on (or formalized)
volunteer programming could capture a stronger level
of participation in park stewardship and contribute
to needed vegetation management, trail maintenance,
park and natural area restoration planting and
environmental education programming.
The management of landscapes in City parklands,
whether formal plantings in developed parks or diverse
forest ecosystems in open spaces, requires continual
attention and an investment of significant resources
to properly steward and maintain the living landscape.
Regardless of the use of these landscapes, the desired
outcomes are the same — to sustain healthy, thriving
plant communities.
Past practices and traditional horticultural methods
to achieve this goal have become less reliable in recent
years. Changes to the Pacific Northwest climate
have increased summer heat and drought, causing
more stress for mature and establishing plants. This
change has been accompanied by a shift toward more
sustainable landscape maintenance practices, reducing
potential impacts on the surrounding environment and
its inhabitants.
Water Conservation
Despite the rainy winters, water is not an unlimited
resource in the central Puget Sound region, and
summers are expected to get hotter and drier as climate
change intensifies. It is increasingly likely that not
just voluntary, but mandatory, water conservation
measures will become necessary on occasion to preserve
supplies for the most critical uses, such as domestic
consumption.
In landscaped areas where shrubs and trees rely on
some summer water, maintenance staff have adjusted
the irrigation systems to water before sunrise to reduce
water waste and maximize plant uptake. Depending
on the landscape, watering also may need to be shifted
to a deeper and less frequent watering schedule to
reduce evaporation and encourage plants to root more
84
Packet Pg. 100
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
deeply. In addition to reducing irrigation volumes
and frequency, the City should consider shifting to
planting more drought -tolerant species and schedule
the majority of new plant installations in the early
part of the rainy season to maximize root growth and
establishment before the onset of the dry season.
Plant Selection
Selecting appropriate plants species for park landscapes
is the source of a great deal of discussion, both on
the local and regional scale. While drought -tolerant
plants will be better able to establish in the short
term, consideration is also given to how well newly
established plants will survive in the long term. In
recent years, cities across the Pacific Northwest have
seen many mature native trees decline and die in recent
years, unable to adapt quickly to the increased summer
temperatures and lack of summer moisture. Plant
selection for tree replacements or renovations that
consider the anticipated climate in 10-50 years will be
more likely to create resilient, mature landscapes that
can better transition to warmer, drier conditions.
In natural areas generally replanted with trees and
shrubs native to the immediate area, staff should begin
selecting new plants from seed zones that reflect the
greater Seattle area's projected climate. This focus on
plant provenance (the original geographic source of
seed, pollen, or propagule) will allow staff to plant the
same native species better adapted to future conditions.
In addition to considering the climate in the selection
of plants for developed parks, other factors must also
be considered, including the mature size of the tree
or shrub, any known pests or diseases that may affect
the species, and how a fully developed root system will
interact with nearby paved surfaces.
Invasive Species Management
The control of invasive species is a critical element of
the restoration process and essential in maintaining
a healthy natural landscape. Many invasive and non-
native species exhibit strong adaptability to Pacific
Northwest environments and displace native species,
especially within the disturbed landscapes proximate
to urban development. Going forward, the City will
need to expand resources to manage invasive species
and enhance partnerships to help with these efforts.
Also, while removal efforts may be ongoing, those
sites cleared of invasives will require continuous
monitoring and intervention to reduce or limit the
re-establishment of the invasive plants. Through proper
management of public open spaces and natural areas,
the City and its partners can maintain and enhance
its open space areas and the critical ecosystem and
community benefits they provide.
Stormwater Management
The Pacific Northwest region is experiencing more
severe rainstorms due to climate change, and more
of that rain is falling on impervious surfaces: roads,
parking lots and rooftops. This untreated surface
water runoff is a source of contamination along the
Puget Sound, Lake Ballinger and in other riparian
and wetland areas, impacting both people and wildlife,
especially salmon populations.
State requirements for surface water management
are becoming more stringent and costly for both
developers and the City. Runoff volumes, peak
stream flows and local flooding can be reduced by
incorporating trees into stormwater management
planning, lessening the need for expensive detention
facilities (e.g., catch basins) and the cost of treatment
to remove sediment and other pollutants such as lawn
chemicals. Green infrastructure is far more cost-
effective than grey infrastructure.
Using open space and forested landscapes to capture
stormwater runoff encourages infiltration into the
soil, prevents excessive streambed erosion and reduces
sedimentation in major waterways. In addition, a
healthy tree canopy increases carbon sequestration
potential, encourages local biodiversity and enhances
overall environmental resilience by reducing heat island
effects and offering cooler, shaded air.
DRAFT
85
Packet Pg. 101
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
the City of Edmonds Department of Parks,
Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services
provide a wide range of valued community services to
its residents. From managing the park facilities and
natural areas to programming recreational activities
and facilities and enhancing the arts in Edmonds,
the Department works to give special character to
Edmonds for its residents and visitors.
Parks operations manage and maintain 34 developed
parks within the total 47 open space, cemetery,
and park facilities in the 230+ acres of city -owned
inventory. "Ihe park maintenance division also
maintains all the seasonal hanging baskets (60+) and
the 91 individual corner flower beds in the downtown
area. Seasonal workers are trained annually to care for
these city beautification assets. Capital repairs and
amenity replacements are mostly handled in-house.
The number of facilities maintained by the Parks
Maintenance Division is well above the average for
park and recreation providers across the country (see
NRPA comparisons on following page).
On a daily basis, Parks Maintenance maintains
six waterfront beach parks, a fishing pier, and 40
community, neighborhood, special use and open space
parks. General maintenance includes trash and litter,
City restroom cleaning and sanitation, irrigation,
and vegetation maintenance including mowing,
hazard tree maintenance and removal, trimming and
landscape bed upkeep for all City owned landscapes.
Parks also maintains the Veterans Plaza located at
Public Safety complex, Dayton Street Plaza, Frances
Anderson Center Bandshell, and Hazel Miller Plaza.
Parks maintains Yost Pool and City Park Spray Park
from May thru September which is a key asset for
this community. The Park Maintenance division is
responsible for preserving, maintaining and upgrading
all playground structures and equipment as needed.
The Parks Maintenance crew maintains the Street
Trees and all City -owned baseball and soccer fields in
order to keep up with the high demand of organized
youth sports. Parks also assists with numerous City
events such as the Edmonds Arts Festival, 4th of July,
Taste Edmonds, Wenatchee Youth Circus, Concerts
in the Park, Hazel Miller Plaza concerts, Oktoberfest,
Anderson Center Egg Hunt, Downtown Christmas
Tree Lighting and many more small events. The parks
maintenance group has characteristically been well -
versed in park facility stewardship and care.
86
Packet Pg. 102
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
OPERATIONS COMPARABLES
To assess how Edmonds' park and recreation provision compares with
other agencies and jurisdictions in terms of capacity and readiness for
future growth, a series of benchmarks were evaluated with national and
regional performance metrics.
National Park & Recreation Agency Comparisons
the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) 2020 Agency
Performance Review provides some park metrics that offer perspectives on
the Edmonds park system and its operations division. Selected findings
from their benchmarking tool can help reveal any disparities with park
acreage, population size and park operations staffing levels.
An overview of NRPA agency performance metrics can reveal how
Edmonds compares as a park system to other park and recreation providers
across the nation. Edmonds' level of service (6.1 ac/1,000) falls below the
median (9.6 ac/1,000) but above the lower quartile (5.4 ac/1,000) for total
parkland acreage as the typical agency in jurisdictions with populations
ranging from 20,000-49,999 residents.
Figure 19. NRPA 2020 Agency Performance Metrics Using Edmond's City -owned Park Facilities
Number of Parks
20
34
Park Acres
437.1
129
Parks & OS Facilities (# sites)
27
47
Parks, Open Space & Non -parks Acres
530
- 262
Residents per Park
2,281
1,963 1,260
Acres Parkland/1,000 Residents
9.9
9.6 6.1
Miles of Trails
11
8.5 7.4
The typical agency has one park for every 2,281 residents. The number of
people per park rises as the population of the town, city, county or region
served by an agency increases. Within the similar population category of
20,000-49,999, Edmonds' 1,260 residents per park falls below the median
1,963 residents/park but just above the lower quartile of 1,233 residents per
park across the country.
Figure 20.2020 NRPA Agency Performance Metrics Comparison
Park & Rec FTEs*
P&R FTEs/10,000 Residents
Annual Operating Expenditures
Operating Expenditures/Capita
Operating Expenditures/Parkland Acre
41.9 27.3 27.5
8.1 8.9 6.4
$4,342,495 $2,885,847 $4,682,914
$81.19 $95.34 $109.28
$7,160 $8,522 $17,874
DRAFT 87
Packet Pg. 103
DRAFT
Looking across the spectrum of park and recreation
providers, Edmonds' 27.5 FTEs are close to the 27.3
FTE-median for jurisdictions with 20,000-49,999
residents. Note that this FTE comparison is using both
park operations and recreation facilities employees. The
2020 NRPA Agency Performance Review reported
that the typical park and recreation agency dedicates
44% of its annual operating budget to the management
and maintenance of parks and open space and 43% on
recreation programming and facilities.
ASSET MANAGEMENT & LIFE CYCLE
PLANNING
As part of park operations, the management of physical
assets requires ongoing, proactive planning to capture
cost efficiencies. Tracking repairs, maintenance tasks,
routine operations and seasonal work can help predict
the needs for future labor resources as the system
grows. This PROS Plan recommends developing a
detailed list of the assets at each park facility site and
evaluating asset conditions annually. This task creates a
framework for long-term management of the Edmonds
park system. Detailed inventories with conditions
tracking will help predict replacement needs, monitor
safe use, and assist in assigning maintenance frequency.
While Edmonds has relied on skilled professional staff
to monitor and repair many of its park assets, having
a long term predictive model can facilitate budgetary
planning for future needs.
Most built park amenities have limited lifespans.
Buildings, play equipment, pavement, etc. can be
tracked from installation dates. As repairs are needed,
those assets can have predictable replacement dates
that are added to the capital facilities program.
Life -cycle planning can help avoid extra time spent
repairing outdated amenities and foster more cost
effective labor resource use.
Beyond managing park assets to ensure a safe and
enjoyable park infrastructure, the asset management
system can be utilized to track more accurately the
labor hours required to perform the many tasks
involved in caring for park facilities. Active tracking
can much better predict the ability to reach targeted
levels of service for keeping parks clean and in good
condition.
Invasive Species Management
The control of invasive species is a critical element
in the stewardship of open space lands to ensure
their continued conservation values and ecosystem
services. An active invasive species control program is
also necessary to ensure that the City is meeting the
requirements of RCW 7.10 Noxious Weed regulations.
This may involve direct control measures for known
and identified noxious weed problems, pre -construction
prevention of noxious weed spreading, and evaluating
new parkland or conservation land noxious weed
coverage. Open space properties such as Edmonds
Marsh have some invasive plant species concerns.
Park properties with large natural areas such as Yost
Memorial Park contains invasive weed populations.
Some park perimeters abut natural areas with
significant Himalayan blackberry populations.
Capital Repairs Program
Following on a program of asset management tracking
and life -cycle planning, a regular capital repair program
should proactively address minor repairs and help
extend the life of some amenities. When existing
staffing is stretched to its limit, park agencies must rely
more heavily on outside contractors for implementing
even the small capital repair projects. Without
adequate staffing, a backlog of needed maintenance
and repairs usually exists. With a sufficient skilled
labor force, the City can capitalize on using existing
staff resources to complete the smaller capital repair
projects during off-season capacity. The Edmonds parks
maintenance division has been capable of performing
a number of in-house capital repairs for park facilities
and should continue to weigh what tasks should be
out -sourced and what is within staffing capacity.
In -House vs. Outside Contractors
Park and recreation agencies throughout the country
should continually weigh the costs of service provision
through internal staffing versus external contracts.
Full-time staffing weighed against seasonal resources
should explore the off-season workload, training time
for new part-time seasonal employees, the availability
of seasonal labor and the specialized skill sets for some
types of operations. One-time projects and specialized
repairs and renovations may require outside contractors
while some park agencies have enough trained in-
house staff to accomplish smaller capital projects.
88
Packet Pg. 104
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
STAFFING NEEDS
The assessments and comparisons of Park Maintenance
staffing indicates that Edmonds may be capable of
handling the maintenance of its park system. However,
the recommendations for Edmonds propose additional
parkland and open space acquisitions for the near
future. Additional developed park facilities are needed
in the southern areas of the City and along the SR 99
corridor. More open space would provide beneficial
ecosystem services and protect Edmonds' natural
resources. With more parkland, an increase in park
maintenance staffing will be necessary.
While an asset management tracking system could
provide the most accurate predictions that would be
specific for labor needs for the Edmonds park system,
some measurements from composite park staffing
references may shed light on approximate future
staffing needs. Compiled from a series of other park
providers, the table below offers some estimated labor
needs for several types of planned park facilities.
Figure 24. Park Performance from Park & Rec Providers
Open Space Lands 15 120 acres/year
Neighborhood Parks (average 4 acres) 150 3-4 parks/year
Community Parks (average 20 acres) 110 0.75 parks/year
Special Use Parks (highly varied) 150 size dependent
When a typical neighborhood park is fully developed
and averages about 4 acres of developed amenities,
one full-time employee could be expected to provide
adequate maintenance services for four neighborhood
parks. Tasks include litter control, mowing, landscape
maintenance, playground inspections and would
assume time for travelling to and from each park. With
predicted greater acreage and higher expected levels of
public use, a newly added community park may require
more than one FTE to provide the expected level of
service. Special use areas like the waterfront spaces and
new active sports fields generally accommodate large
and repeated numbers of users, generating more wear
and tear and triggering higher litter control needs.
These highly visible and important public spaces will
continue to need special attention from parks crews.
The six -year capital facilities plan should be
coordinated with the planning and budgeting of
future staffing resources to coordinate the growth of
Edmonds' park system.
DRAFT
89
Packet Pg. 105
CHAPTER 7
REC
The recreation facilities and services available within
the City of Edmonds are a major community asset
and support the physical, mental and social health of
community members.
More opportunities for neighborhood nature walks (small, quiet gatherings of an
educational nature) forest bathing" or forest therapy" for example, bird and plant
identification and understanding.
Virtual Public Meeting Participant
10 C
to
O
Oal W 1a
c�
a
d
a
OW
O
0
L
a
N
N
O
N �
90
Packet Pg. 106
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
RECREATION TRENDS
Various resources have been
assembled and summarized to
offer a comprehensive overview of
current recreation trends, market
demands, and agency comparisons.
The following national and state
data highlights some of the current
trends in recreation and arts and
may frame future considerations in
program and activity development.
Additional trend data is provided in
Appendix F.
■ Seventy-seven percent of
respondents to the American
Engagement with Parks Survey
indicate that having a high -quality
park, playground, public open space,
or recreation center nearby is an
essential factor in deciding where
they want to live. (l)
■ Nearly all (93%) of park and
recreation agencies provide
recreation programs and services.
The top five most commonly offered
programs include holiday or other
special events (65%), educational
programs (59%), group exercise
(59%), fitness programs (58%), and
day or summer camps (57%). (z)
■ Just over half of Americans ages 6
and older participated in outdoor
recreation at least once in 2019,
the highest participation rate in
five years. (Note: This trend may
be higher in 2020 and 2021 given
the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic.) The number of outings
per participant declined, however,
in 2019 continuing a decade -long
trend and resulting in fewer total
recreational outings. (3)
■ Youth aged 6 to 17 were active
outside far less in 2019 than in
previous years; the average number
of outings per child dropped 15%
between 2012 and 2019. (3)
■ Nearly all park and recreation
providers in the U.S. experienced
declines in revenue in 2020 due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. As
early as May 2020, most providers
had to close facilities temporarily
in accordance with health and
safety directives. Nearly half of the
providers also furloughed or laid off
staff due to the funding and facility
impacts of the pandemic. (4)
■ When it comes to costs and
revenues, the percentage of costs
recovered depends on the type
of organization. On average,
respondents to the 2020 Managed
Recreation Industry survey said
they recovered nearly 50% of
their operating costs. Only a few
facilities reported that they covered
more than 75% of their operating
costs via revenue. For public
organizations, 45% of costs are
recovered, up slightly from 42% in
2019. (4)
■ Research from the US Bureau of
Economic Analysis shows that arts
and culture drive 4.2% of the US
gross domestic product (GDP),
generating $736.6 Billion in 2015.
In Washington State, this sector
beats the national GDP, providing
7.8% of the State's GDP. Both in
Washington and nationally, arts and
culture surpass construction and
education services in contribution to
GDP. (s)
■ 28% of the nation's approximately
4,500 Local Arts Agencies
(LAAs) are government agencies,
departments, programs, facilities,
or other associations. Of those
LAAs, 80% are affiliated with
municipalities. LAAs promote,
support, and develop the arts at the
local level, ensuring a vital presence
for arts and culture throughout
America's communities. (6)
Pools, fountains, other
water features will become
increasingly essential as hotter
weather during the summer
becomes more prevalent with
climate change.
- Virtual Public Meeting Participant
■ 84% of LAAs present their own
cultural programming to their
community. These programs
include after -school arts education
programs, public art, free concerts in
the park, exhibitions, heritage and
preservation efforts, festivals, and
special events. (6)
■ People who say their neighborhood
has easy access to quality arts and
cultural activities tend to be more
satisfied, identify more with local
lifestyle and culture, and invest
more time and resources in their
communities. (')
Sources:
(1) American Engagement with Parks
Survey (Need date)
(2) 2020 NRPA Agency Performance
Review
(3) 2020 Outdoor Participation Report
(4) 2020 State of the Industry Report
(5) US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2015
(6) AFTA 2020 LAA Profile http://surveys.
americansforthearts.org/r/391676_60549
cd4741a42.54488835
(7) Knight Foundation Community Ties
survey Community-Ties-Final-pg.pdf
(knightfoundation.org). Builds off Soul of
Community Longitudinal Study (2008-
2010) conducted by the Knight Foundation
found key drivers of community attach-
ment to be social offerings, openness, and
aesthetics. https://knightfoundation.org/
sotc/overal I -findings/
DRAFT
91
Packet Pg. 107
DRAFT
According to 2020 Outdoor Participation Report
published by the Outdoor Foundation, just over half
of Americans ages 6 and older participated in outdoor
recreation at least once in 2019, translating to a total
of 10.9 billion outdoor outings — a 12% drop from
the 2012 high-water mark of 12.4 billion outings.
Participation in outdoor recreation, team sports and
indoor fitness activities vary by an individual's age.
Figure
25. 5-Year Change in Outdoor Recreation Participation by Major Activity (2020 Outdoor Participation Report)
190%
160%
130%
100%
76 %
70%
56%
52%
33%
40%
24%
20%
17%
13%
12%
°
9/1;
10%
M
=
F_�0
4%
2%
2%
1%
-20%
-1% -2%
-4%
°
-9/0
-12%
-13%
-14%
24%
-50%
tw
C
W
C
X
LL
oo
°n
U
C
K
N
on
C
oq oq
C C
u
oo
C
°n
C
ao
C
W
C
C
00
O
OD K
Y
m
L
u
C
a
E
m
N
bq
L
0
-6
-p -
w
bA
O
`t
3
N
m
t 0
v
3
v
u
a
n
a
in
C
O
o
C
>
m
V
Y
T
LL
2
L
-�
N
-6
1
O
o
N
(U
f0
Y
f0
fl_
-p
00
N
)
•-
H
u
.6
m
V
-O
Y
Goi
bo
d
C�
O
L
(Ut6
N
OC
O
R+
C
H
Y
C
@
'�
c
v
a
c
00
F
L
Y
he'fp
O
d
C
L
tlq
C
C
O
(°
O
m
v
n
i
-
Z
m
F
7
O
b0
T
U
a0
O
�
�
-
L
�
C
u
m
Recreation Management magazine's 2020 Report
on the State of the Managed Recreation Industry
summarizes information provided by a wide range of
professionals (with an average 22.3 years of experience)
working in the recreation, sports, and fitness industry.
Given the emerging COVID-19 pandemic, Recreation
Management also conducted a supplemental survey
in May 2020 to learn about both the impacts to the
industry and what mitigation steps organizations were
taking in response.
Regarding program options, respondents from
community centers, park departments and health clubs
reported that they plan to add programs over the next
few years. The ten most commonly planned program
additions include:
1. Fitness programs (24% of those who have plans to add
programs)
2. Group exercise programs (22.4%)
3. Teen programs (22%)
4. Environmental education (21.8%)
5. Day camps and summer camps (20.9%)
6. Mind -body balance programs (20.5%)
7. Programs for active older adults (18.1%)
8. Special needs programs (17.9%)
9. Holidays and other special events (17.4%)
10. Arts and crafts (17%)
Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic required
many respondents to either put programs or services
on hold (82%) or cut programs or services entirely
(34%). Additionally, many respondents have had to
rethink their programming portfolios. Two-thirds
of respondents (67%) had added online fitness and
wellness programming as of May 2020, 39% were
involved in programs to address food insecurity, and
one in four was involved in programs to provide
educational support to out -of -school children.
92
Packet Pg. 108
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
LOCAL PERSPECTIVES
Local recreation demands and needs were explored
through a variety of public engagement to gather
feedback on strengths and limitations of existing
recreation programs and resources available to
Edmonds residents. Public outreach included a
community survey and two virtual public meetings
to explore priorities and opportunities to enhance
recreation programming.
Community Survey
the community -wide surveys (mailed and on-line)
conducted from May to August, 2021 included several
questions related to recreation programs and activities.
Respondents expressed a greater need for community
events (56%) and program and activities geared toward
youth. In particular, respondents had a higher interest
in outdoor programs such as environmental education
(46%), youth day camps (41%) and youth sport
programs (40%). Respondents between 20 and 44 and
those with children in the household were more likely
to state a strong interest for outdoor programs, youth
sports, teen and youth programs. Consistently high
need was noted across all age groups for community
events.
Figure 26. Sentiment Toward the Availability of Recreation Program Options
Community events, such as the Concerts in the
Park or outdoor movies
Outdoor programs, including Beach Rangers or
environmental education
Youth programs, such as summer day camps, arts
or gymnastics
Youth sports programs and camps
Adult classes, such as arts, music, fitness or
wellness
Teen activities, such as game nights, trips or
camps during school breaks '
Family programs, such as scavenger hunts
Adult sports leagues, such as volleyball, pickleball
or softball
■ More Needed
E-sports leagues
o% 50%
■ Current Offerings are Adequate
Respondents were asked to rank a list of potential
recreation, park and open space investments that
included hypothetical relative costs as indicated by the
use of dollar symbols (8) for each system investment.
When force -ranked against other potential park and
recreation system improvements, support for building
a new aquatic center ranked fourth out of six choices,
with 43% of respondents identifying it as a top or high
priority. Respondents to the online -only survey ranked
building a new aquatic center more favorably than the
mail survey respondents.
Given a choice between raising taxes to develop an
amenity in Edmonds versus not having such a facility
in the city, slight majorities supported more taxes for
two of five amenities tested: buying additional parks
for conservation and open space (64%) and building an
aquatic center (53%). However, and aside from buying
additional park for conservation, building an aquatic
center was the only other option for which more than
half of respondents with children supported raising
taxes.
Virtual Public Meetings
42.6%
As part of the first virtual public
meeting in July, attendees were
52.6%
'
asked a series of polling questions as
56.4%
a way to capture current sentiment
and interests. Regarding community
57 8%
events, a strong majority of
attendees (82%) indicated interest
60.
in smaller, more intimate events,
such as outdoor movies, Uptown
Evening Market, and Hazel Miller
Plaza summer concerts.
During the second virtual public
meeting in October, another polling
question explored community
events, a topic that was revealed
Z00%
as a top interest in the community
■ Fewer Needed
survey and the first public meeting.
N
N
W
0
G
>
CIDI
O
w
IL
NI
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
z
Q
DRAFT 93
Packet Pg. 109
DRAFT
Consistent with the first public meeting, the strongest
response (41%) for types of events to be pursued was
adding more small, neighborhood -focused events such
as concerts in local/neighborhood parks.
Also, the future direction of Yost Pool was explored in a
polling question that asked what the focus/scale should
be if the City were to replace the pool with a new
aquatics facility. Given the choices of local or regional
and indoor or outdoor, the overwhelming majority
chose local -scale (76%) with those poll responses split
between indoor (39%) and outdoor (36%) pool options.
RECREATION FACILITIES
The City of Edmonds hosts recreation and arts and
culture programs in its parks and in several municipal
buildings, most notably the Frances Anderson Center.
The day-to-day management, ongoing maintenance,
and long-term reinvestment in City facilities are
crucial to the success of Edmonds'recreation programs.
Additionally, efficient scheduling and use of the
facilities ensures that cost recovery, diversity, equity and
inclusion, program vitality and other goals are met.
Frances Anderson Center
The Frances Anderson Center is the "home" of the
majority of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Services programming. The Center has classroom
spaces, a drop -in weight room, a gymnasium and
dedicated gymnastics space. The Frances Anderson
Center also houses six tenants who provide a wide
range of activities that augment and enhance the
Department's mission, including a ballet school, youth
sports club, Montessori preschool and sculpting studio
space.
Meadowdale Clubhouse
The Meadowdale Clubhouse serves as the location
for the City's Meadowdale Preschool program. The
clubhouse is also available for rent, and amenities
include a kitchen, fireplace, restrooms and an outdoor
fenced playground.
\ X) 4mpar
k A.k 4
Yost Pool
.. +;
fAC
,t il_ -,
Yost Pool is located within Yost Memorial Park and is
an outdoor, 25 meter by 25 yard pool and spa. The City
recently decided to keep the pool open year-round to
extend the outdoor aquatics season.
Waterfront Center
The new Edmonds Waterfront Center is a 26,000
square foot regional community center that replaced
the old Edmonds Senior Center building. The
Waterfront Center is not operated by the City, and
through a land use lease, the Recreation & Cultural
Services division programs space at this facility for
recreation programs and classes.
The City also uses Edmonds College facilities for
volleyball leagues and City of Lynnwood facilities
for softball leagues. Going forward, the City should
continue to coordinate with the other facility and
program providers in the greater Edmonds area, such
as the Edmonds School District, Edmonds Boys and
Girls Club, Dale Turner YMCA, Sno-King Youth
Club, and the cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake
Terrace, among others, on program offerings and
scheduling.
94
Packet Pg. 110
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
RECREATION PROGRAMS
Programming Classifications
the categories below represent the major areas of focus
for current Edmonds recreation programs. Program
lists are based on a review of program offerings for
2018-2021, that were provided by the Department.
Figure 27. Existing City Programs by Classification
Sports Youth
Kidz Love Soccer, Skyhawks Soccer, UK Elite Soccer, Preschool Gymnastics, School -Age
Gymnastics, Skyhawks Summer Sports Camps, Steel Soccer Summer Camps, Gymnastics
Outdoor Camp
Adult
Pickleball Clinics, Pickleball Leagues, Sr.Softball, Co -Ed Softball, Women's 4-on-4 Volleyball
Leagues, Co-Rec Volleyball Leagues, Basketball 3-on-3
Fitness Youth
Taekwando, Kendo, Girls on the Run
Adult
Sustainable Weight Loss & Wellness, Feldenkrais, Taekwon-Do, Kendo, Circuit Training,
Strength & Endurance Interval Training, Intro to Fitness, Yoga, Tai Chi, Qigong, Essentrics,
Personal Fitness Training, Pilates Yoga Fusion, Zumba
Cultural Arts Youth
Drama Kids, Adventures in Art/Drawing/Anime, Custom Art Holiday Cards, Art Camp, Fine
Art Day Camps for Teens, Incrediflix Animation, Digital Photography Kids Camp, Steel
Band, Kindermusik, Fun Factory, Beginning Watercolor
Adult
Steel Band, Ukulele Class & Open Jam Sessions, Studio Photography Workshop, Ballroom
Dancing, West & East Coast Swing Dancing, Nightclub Two Step Dancing, Clogging, Plein
Air Drawing, Beginning Watercolor, Oil Painting, Ukrainian Egg Decorating
Aquatics Youth
Swim Lessons, Swim Team, Family Swim
Adult
Family Swim, Lap Swim, Water Walking
Education Youth
Meadowdale Preschool, Little Fishes Preschool Prep, Babysitting Basics, Play -Well STEM
camps, Online Writing, Virtual Homework Tutoring, Reading Funny Stories, Creative
Writing, Mad Science Camp, Cursive for Kids
Adult
Creative Writing, Writing Labs, ESL Tutoring,
Specialty / General Interest Youth
Cake Decorating, Etiquette Young Ladies & Gentlemen
Adult
Spanish Language classes, Canine Obedience, American Mahjong, Genealogy, Zentangle,
Personal Finance, Healthy Living
Special Needs
Special Events
Taste Edmonds, 4th of July parade and fireworks, Edmonds Arts Festival, Edmonds Classic
Car Show, Sweetheart Dance, Health & Fitness Expo, Best Book Poster Contest, Watershed
Fun Fair, Concerts in the Park, Outdoor Movies, Moonlight Beach Adventure, Bird Fest,
Write on the Sound, Walkable Main Street, Hazel Miller Plaza summer concerts, Uptown
Evening Market, Farmers Market, Celebration of Lights, Easter Egg Hunt, Spring Fest, Egg
Hunt, Tree Lighting
Outdoor Education Youth
Junior Beach Rangers, Discovery Days Spring Camp, Discovery Outdoor Beach Camp,
Discovery Outdoor Nature Camp, Junior Naturalists Outdoor Nature Camp, Sunset Bay
Beach Camps
Adult
Beach Ranger Program, Bird Fest Guided Walks, Intro to Bird Photography, Backyard Bird,
Low Tide Beach Walks, Forest Walks, Starlight Beach Walks
Seniors
Senior-specifc programs provided by the Senior Center
Self -Directed Youth
Scavenger Hunts
Adult
Open Gym Drop -in, Weight Room
DRAFT 95
Packet Pg. 111
DRAFT
Programs Available by Age Groups
Below is listed the basic program categories that are
available for different age groups.
Figure 28. Segmentation of City Programs by Age Group
Program
Sports
Fitness
Cultural Arts
Aquatics
•
.. =
Education
•
•
0
•
•
Specialty / General Interest
Special Needs
Special Events
Outdoor Education
Self -Directed
Human Services
•
•
Program Area Definitions (generalized):
■ Sports — Team and individual sports including camps, ■ Outdoor Education — Environmental education, hiking,
clinics, and tournaments. Also includes adventure/non-
camping, kayaking, and other activities.
traditional sports.
■ Seniors — Programs and services that are dedicated to
■ Fitness — Group fitness classes, personal training,
serving the needs of seniors. This can include all of the
education, and nutrition.
activity areas noted above plus social service functions.
■ Cultural Arts — Performing arts classes, visual arts classes,
■ Self -Directed —This includes the opportunities for
literary arts, music/video production and arts events.
individuals to recreate on their own. This can include
■ Aquatics — Learn to swim classes, aqua exercise classes,
activities such as open gym, use of weight/cardio space
competitive swimming/diving, SCUBA, and other
and lap/recreational swimming. Although not an
programs (synchro, water polo, etc.).
organized program, time and space must be allocated for
■ Education — Language programs, tutoring, science
this purpose.
(STEM) classes, computer, and financial planning. Also
■ Human Services —This can include nutrition and feeding
included is CPR/AED/First Aid.
programs, job training, life skills training, childcare, and
■ Specialty/General Interest —Personal development classes
other activities such as health screenings.
and dog training classes.
■ Special Needs — Programs for the physically and mentally
impaired. Also, inclusion programs.
■ Special Events — City wide special events that are
conducted throughout the year.
96
Packet Pg. 112
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Program Classifications
The following are the projected programming
classifications for the City. It is important to realize
that while certain program areas may be a focus for
growth in programs and services, the Department's
role in providing the actual service may be different as
indicated below.
Classification Definitions
■ Core Programs — are those programs that are a primary
responsibility of the Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and
Human Services Department to provide as city -based
activities.
■ Secondary Programs — are those programs that are a
lower priority to be provided directly by the Department
but may be offered by other organizations through
contract with the city.
■ Support Programs — are programs that are not a priority
for the Department to be providing directly to the
community but where the city may provide support
through facilities, program coordination, and promotion
of activities for other organizations.
The following chart identifies and summarizes
recommended future core programs, secondary
programs and support program areas for the Parks,
Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services
Department.
Figure 29. Recommended Future Program Types by Focus Area
Adult Sports
Cultural Arts
Fitness/Wellness
Outdoor Education
Self -Directed
Special Events
Aquatics
Education
General Interest
Youth Sports
Program Considerations
Seniors
Human Services
Special Needs
Edmonds'recreation programs serve all of the major
age groups. As shown in the community survey, the
Edmonds community considers outdoor programs,
youth recreation and youth sports to be high priorities
for City recreation services.
The following program categories are not extensive due
to the nature of the City's offerings and facilities to
support programs:
■ Special Needs — This is not a significant program area
for the Department currently, but there may be a need to
have these types of services available for the community.
It is anticipated that the vast majority of programming
will be provided by other agencies that specialize in
these services, but this will need to be coordinated by the
Department.
■ Social Services —This can include nutrition and feeding
programs, job training, life skills training, childcare
and other activities, such as health screenings. As the
Human Services division settles into the Department,
consideration should be given to how social services
overlap and integrate with broader recreational offerings.
Regarding aquatics, the City is not a direct provider of
a
swim lessons or aquatics and has made arrangements
0
for the operation and programming of Yost Pool to
Q.
other organizations. The strength and continuity of
aquatics programming should also be weighed against
a
the physical needs of the pool and its infrastructure.
O
Yost Pool is an aging facility that is nearing the end
of its useful life. In the near term, the City should
C
explore the feasibility of replacing Yost Pool, and
m
this concept was generally supported throughout this
planning process. With a new facility, the City should
re-examine its direct staffing and operations of a new
i
pool, as well as consider additional program options
a
that include lifeguarding classes, CPR/AED/
N
First Aid, water aerobics, and paddleboard/kayak
v
classes, among others.
N
The City should continue to stay abreast of
N
to
G
its program offerings and recreation trends,
9
as well as re-evaluate programs based on
>I
participation rates and cost recovery targets.
co
O
Other recreational offerings could include
a
intergenerational programs or ethnic -based
wl
programs that are appropriate for the cultural
orientation of the area. The Department also
E
should consider bringing more programming out to
w
the parks and activating the City's parks with programs
and outdoor classes. This will help to cross-pollinate
recreation customers with the offerings of park
facilities and improve overall community awareness of
M
recreational opportunities within Edmonds.
Q
DRAFT
97
Packet Pg. 113
CO)
ON
w
IL
1 0
c�
a
v)
c
a�
a
j O
06
c
_* � o
a�
L
U
NN�
1.6
IL
N
Ap
N
i. N
is N
x
CD_ O
dff
its;f AVON
_ V
-op, Q
Packet Pg. 114
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
SPECIAL EVENTS
The Recreation & Cultural Services division is
responsible for the overall coordination of community
and special events. These public events provide
gathering opportunities, celebrations and activation of
the downtown and City parks. While not every event
is hosted or run by the City, these special events draw
the community together, attract visitors from outside
the community and are popular with residents. Some
examples of recurring or multi -day events include Taste
Edmonds, Edmonds Arts Festival, 4th of July parade
and fireworks, Farmers Market, Oktoberfest Farmers
Market, and Edmonds Classic Car Show. The City
also has hosted or supported numerous one-time or
single -day events. Recent community events include
the following:
■ Sweetheart Dance
■ Health & Fitness Expo
■ Best Book Poster Contest
■ Watershed Fun Fair
■ Concerts in the Park
■ Outdoor Movies
■ Moonlight Beach Adventure
■ Puget Sound Bird Fest
■ Write on the Sound
■ Celebration of Lights
■ Walkable Main Street
■ Hazel Miller Plaza summer concerts
■ Uptown Evening Market
■ Easter Egg Hunt
■ Spring Fest
Opportunities to connect are clearly crucial to
Edmonds'residents, particularly as the community
emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey and
public meeting responses showed strong interest for
additional community events, especially smaller, more
intimate events such as outdoor movies, the Uptown
Evening Market and the Hazel Miller Plaza summer
concerts. Participants to this PROS Plan process
offered other ideas for events and activities, including
the following:
■ Cultural celebrations near international district
■ More opportunities for neighborhood nature walks (i.e.,
small gatherings of an educational nature)
■ Educational events for wildlife; more environmental
awareness events or demonstrations.
■ Tasting tours of different restaurants
■ Consider aerial drone shows for the 4th of July partnered
with live music
Additionally, the City could explore ideas for events
that draw from the diversity of the community, such as
festivals or activities celebrating Latin American, Asian
or Native American traditions. City parks and facilities
also could be promoted for quinceaneras and other
family celebrations.
Community gathering and special events should
continue to be an area of emphasis; however, the
overall number and breadth of City -sponsored
special events should be carefully managed to align
with the availability of resources and impacts to
general park and facility use. This will ensure the
City can adequately invest in its overall recreational
offerings and maintain high -quality special events.
Other community groups should be encouraged to
be the primary funders and organizers of as many
community -wide events as possible. If the City decides
to offer more events, it should obtain sponsorships to
offset costs and develop a series of seasonal activities.
DRAFT
99
Packet Pg. 115
DRAFT
CHAPTER 8
TRAILS &
CONNECTIONS
Enhancing and expanding existing trails was identified
as one of the highest capital project priorities during the
community engagement process, and walking was the
top activity for Edmonds residents.
Continuing to manage and invest
in the trails system, while also
improving in right-of-way sidewalk
and bike route options are essential
to maintaining a healthy and
livable community and promoting
alternatives to motor vehicle use.
TRAIL USE TRENDS
Walking and hiking continue to
be the most popular recreational
activities nationally and regionally.
Furthermore, national recreation
studies have consistently ranked
walking and hiking as the most
popular form of outdoor recreation
over the last ten years. These studies
include:
■ Sports Participation Survey by
the National Sporting Goods
Association
■ State of the Industry Report by the
Recreation Management Magazine
■ Outdoor Recreation in America by
the Recreation Roundtable
According to the 2020 Outdoor
Participation Report published
by the Outdoor Foundation,
running (including jogging and
trail running) was the most
popular activity among Americans
when measured by the number
of participants and total annual
outings. Running was also the most
popular outdoor activity for all
ethnic groups.
The 2018-2022 Recreation and
Conservation Plan for Washington
State confirmed that outdoor
recreation is an integral part of life
for most Washington residents,
with strong participation in the
most popular category of activities,
which includes walking (94%)
and hiking (61%). Considerable
increases in participation rates in
outdoor recreation activities since
2006 indicate the importance
of State and local communities
continuing to invest in parks, trails,
and open space infrastructure.
100
Packet Pg. 116
W
5.A.a
.. ■ Y 4* .l
W,
� III •,^Y`'`Y.
t
More public paths between neighborhoods.
Trails that are for walking rather than biking.
- Virtual Public Meeting Participant
It would be nice to see the emphasis on trail improvements to
accommodate kids safely having fun on their bikes. Also for older kids
making trails for mountain type bikers. Away from cars, not on the
streets. Maplewood would be great for this.
- Virtual Public Meeting Participant
T
. J"
2
• .v
- ' a
FTERl'R�I TRAI M
a
0
' a
V*
_ i
l.. . z Q
p
O
r
R
L
V
N
N
O
O
The COVID-19 pandemic
The 2020 Sports & Fitness Industry
numbers with the biggest gains
O
le
significantly impacted outdoor
Topline Report identified sports
in running, cycling and hiking.
Co
recreation activities, including trail
that increased in popularity in
Walking, running and hiking
0
use. Indoor facilities and in -person
the last six years, including trail
were widely considered the
aI
programming were shut down and
running, BMX biking, and day
safest activities during pandemic
then only partially restarted in
hiking. For most age segments,
shutdowns. Reviewing only three
o
2020 and 2021. Local and regional
activities that households aspired
months of data (April, May,
13
Park and recreation agencies that
to (e.g., fishing, camping,biking�
and June 2020) revealed that
w
managed trail systems were pressed
and hiking) related to the need for
participation rates for day hiking
m
to adapt to heavy use and crowded
supporting trail infrastructure.
rose more than any other activity,
z
trailhead parking, as many people
shifted their daily exercise routines
An August 2020 report from the
up 8.4%.
Q
to outdoor activities, such as
Outdoor Industries Association
walking and bicycling.
revealed that Americans took
up new activities in significant
DRAFT
101
Packet Pg. 117
Trails for Walkable Communities Trails for Aging Populations Trails for Economic Health N
Parks are known to contribute to a
healthier community by providing
accessible outdoor recreation
particularly through the walking
trail within each park. Getting to
the park by foot or bike can also
offer a healthier choice integrated
with the park destination and its
amenities. In the NRPA publication
Safe Routes to Parks, the elements of
walkable, healthy community design
are outlined as convenience, comfort,
access and design, safety and the
park itself. Sidewalks, bikeways and
trails should provide an integrated
alternative transportation system for
residents to access parks and other
destinations within their community.
As further emphasis for the
importance of a walkable community
to promote public health, the
Surgeon General has issued a Call
to Action to "step it up" and promote
more walking and build a more
walkable world. A more connected
network of trails, sidewalks, and bike
lanes with links to public transit also
provides economic values.
Today's active seniors are looking
at retirement age differently, as
many are retooling for a new career,
finding ways to engage with their
community and focusing on their
health and fitness. It will be critical
for Edmonds' park and recreation
system to take a comprehensive
approach to the City's aging
population needs. Accessibility
and barrier -free parking and paths,
walkability and connectivity will
be paramount to future planning.
Providing programming for today's
older adults includes not only active
and passive recreation, but also
the type of equipment needed to
engage in certain activities. Trails
provide the infrastructure for the
most popular and frequent outdoor
recreation activity of older adults:
walking.
In the 2009 report, Walking the Walk:
How Walkability Raises Housing
Values in US Cities by Joe Cortright
for CEOs for Cities, research cited
the connection between home value
and walkability. Higher WalkScore
measurements where more typical
consumer destination were within
walking distance were directly
associated with higher home values.
Homes located in more walkable
neighborhoods command a price
premium over otherwise similar
homes in less walkable areas.'Ihe
National Association of Realtors
reports in their On Common Ground
publication with numerous articles
citing the preference of walkable,
mixed -use neighborhoods and
the role of walkability in creating
healthier communities.'Ihese
preferences translate into higher
housing values. Even the National
Association of Homebuilders
(March 2014 publication:
"Walkability, why we care and you
should too") have recognized that
walkability is desired by consumers,
creates lower development costs
and allows flexibility in design. As
part of the system of walkability
and bike -ability, recreational trails
are real estate assets that enhance
community c
contribute to
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
LOCAL INSIGHTS
As noted in previous chapters, feedback from the
community survey and two virtual public meetings
(see Appendices B, C & D) provided a wealth of local
insights on current usage and interests in various park
and recreation amenities.
Respondents to the community survey indicated that
one of the top reason for visiting Edmonds parks and
open space is walking or running (78%). Respondents
indicated that the highest unmet park and recreation
facility need is for walking and pedestrian trails. In
the survey, respondents also noted a strong need for
additional pedestrian and bike trails in parks (84%).
Respondents were asked to rank a list of potential
recreation, park and open space investments.
Respondents to both the mail and online survey ranked
the same items as their top three priorities: expanding
trail opportunities, improving or upgrading existing
parks, and buying additional land for future parks.
Respondents to the mail survey identified expanding
trail opportunities as the top priority.
Figure 30. Community Need for Additional Park and Recreation Amenities
Expanding trail opportunities 22.8% 21.7% 18.2% H
Improving or upgrading existing parks 32.5% 25.9% 12.0%
Buying additional land for future parks 16.0% 15.2% 15.8%
Adding new recreational options in existing parks 23.0% 25.1% 25.7% M
Expanding recreation classes & camps ® 12.4% 25.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
■ 1st ■ 2nd 3rd 4th ■ 5th
During the second virtual public meeting, a number
of comments were offered about the importance of
trails, creating stronger linkages to the Interurban
Trail, accommodating pedestrian routes between
neighborhoods and improving certain parks, such as
Maplewood Hill Park, for walking and biking trails.
TRAIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Defining and reinforcing a recreational trail
classification establishes a framework for trail design
and prioritizes proposed trail enhancements and
development. The recreational trail classification system
is based on a tiered network and includes four trail
categories:
■ Shared -Use Paved Trails
■ Neighborhood Links
■ Park Trails
■ Water Trails
While some sections of trail will accommodate higher
volumes of traffic and provide longer connections,
other sections may rely on the local street network and
be designed to link local or neighborhood destinations.
Planning for differing trail types is essential as it
encourages appropriate usage and discourages informal
trail creation that could destroy vegetation and cause
erosion.
Shared -Use Paved Trails
Shared -use paved trails serve as a vital circulation
connection that links adjacent developments,
neighborhoods, parks, schools, and other destinations.
This trail type is paved with either asphalt or concrete
and should be a minimum of 10' wide with one -foot
shoulders on each side of the trail. Typical trail users
include pedestrians, bicyclists and people with other
wheeled devices (e.g., scooters). Bicyclists also use these
routes for commuting purposes. The Interurban Trail is
an example of a shared -use paved trail.
Neighborhood Links
Neighborhood linkage trails are multi -use pedestrian
walking, hiking and biking connections that link
neighborhoods with each other and with open spaces,
parks, schools and other destinations. They provide the
functional network of the trail system and consist of
right-of-way and facilities designed for use by a variety
of non -motorized users. They consist of both soft -
surface and hard -surface materials, vary in width and
may include bike lanes and sidewalks.
DRAFT
103
Packet Pg. 119
DRAFT
Park Trails
Several City parks contain pathways, sidewalks and
hiking trails that provide access and circulation within
and through the park. Yost Memorial Park is a well-
known site with internal park trails.
Water Trails
Water trails are recreational water routes for non -
motorized boats and watercraft. The trailhead locations
are parks or street ends with dock or beach facilities to
enable non -motorized crafts to launch and land.
The Cascadia Marine water trail on Puget Sound is a
National Recreation Trail and designated one of only
16 National Millennium Trails by the White House.
Suitable for day or multi -day trips, the Cascadia
Marine Trail (CMT) is supported by 66 campsites
and 160 day -use sites. Meadowdale Beach Park, a
Snohomish County park, is one of the few Cascadia
Marine Trail sites on the east shore of central Puget
Sound and is the nearest to Edmonds. Camping on
the beach at this park may be permitted for campers
entering and exiting the park under wind or human
powered watercraft. See: https://www.wwta.org/water-
trails/cascadia-marine-traiU
TRAIL SYSTEM INVENTORY
Within the City of Edmonds, a growing collection of
shared -use, neighborhood and park trails provides 8.6
miles of trail facilities that offer many opportunities
for connecting with nature, enjoying vistas and
accommodating health and wellness, see Map 13 on
the following page. However, gaps in the trail network
limit the access and enjoyment of trail use in Edmonds,
and additional connections should be planned to
connect destinations and grow the system.
Figure 31. Existing Recreational Trails within Edmonds
88th Street Connection
288.3
0.1
City Park
1,903.0
0.4
Esperance Park (County)
869.6
0.2
H.O. Hutt Park
635.0
0.1
Hickman Park
1,472.5
0.3
Interurban Trail
10,087.8
1.9
Maplewood Hill Park
797.2
0.2
Waterfront Walkway
7,100.0
1.3
Pine Ridge Park
3,992.8
0.8
Seaview Park
680.5
0.1
Southwest County Park (County)
5,611.2
1.1
Yost Memorial Park
11,920.3
2.3
Total Length
45,358.3
8.6
TRAIL NETWORK WALKSHEDS
As a supplement to the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan (updated in 2015), a gap analysis was conducted
during the PROS Plan development to examine
and assess the distribution of existing recreational
paths and trails. As with the parkland analysis, travel
distances were calculated along the road network
starting from each existing trail segment's known
access points. Trails within parks were also examined.
Service areas were calculated with 1/a-mile and 1h-mile
walksheds for major trails or parks (e.g., Interurban
Trail, Yost Memorial Park) and 1/a-mile walksheds
for the remainder. Map 14 illustrates the citywide
distribution of recreational trails and the relative access
to these corridors within reasonable travel walksheds.
Approximately 18% of the City has close -in access
to recreational trails, including park trails and the
Interurban Trail.
104
Packet Pg. 120
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Legend
O City Limits
Recreational Trails
Bike Lanes & Routes
_ City Parks
Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks
- Edmonds School District
- Water
1 Schools
FINAL VERSION OF PROS PLAN
WILL INCLUDE MAPS AS 11 X17
FOR BETTER READABILITY
* Shorelines
1
161H eTS W
,66TH6 sW
3
nwood
L
SW�4' 336TH ST SW
N
N
O
O
T_
O
le
>I
O
w
a
I
c
0
E
W
}r
w�
W
E
�r
Q
DRAFT 105
Packet Pg. 121
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0N
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 122
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Legend
O City Limits
Recreational Trails
_ 1/4-mile Travelshed to Trail Access
_ 1/2-mile Travelshed to Trail Access
- City Parks
- Open Space & Special Use Areas
- Non -city Parks
- Edmonds School District
- Water
2 Schools
Puget Sound
FINAL VERSION OF PROS PLAN
1Telt,l STeW
WILL INCLUDE MAPS AS 11 X17 5nohom=H
Counly Park
FOR BETTER READABILITY 180TH5 sW
3
I
Lynnwood
Lynntlale Park 188TH sr SW
98TH ST SW
CAS. CHS eT N10 T6W - 200TH ST SW
W �P—THSTSW
M
59�ST z
w MAIN ST 2 TH sr Sw
vW ry NIJT ST III
- T 212TH ST 5W
m HAY M
■ I 3
w Esperance
Woodway € Park Mountlake
Terrace
Fo Unincorporated
O HPL sw
Snohomish Co.
w zzerH srsw
3 4
� aa���n9er
O Park
8 '� 40- 238TH 235'h IL SW2UTH ST SW
238TH ST SW ST SW
g ' !
rf' IjY FOMo
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 a
Miles Shoreline 2aTH ST SW
Q
DRAFT 107
Packet Pg. 123
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0N
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 124
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Similar to transportation planning, recreational trail
planning should be geared toward connectivity, rather
than mileage. Only considering a mileage standard
for paths within the Edmonds park system will
result in an isolated and inadequate assessment of
community needs with little consideration for better
trail connectivity. This Plan recommends a connectivity
goal that re -states and reinforces the desire to improve
overall connections across the City and enhance off-
street linkages between parks and major destinations,
as feasible. Expanding trail connections was identified
as a top priority through the community engagement
process and should also include connections to public
transit when possible.
TRAIL SYSTEM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Trail Development Limitations
Opportunities to develop additional trails and
connections may be limited due to the built -out nature
of Edmonds. One underlying tenet of the recreational
trail system is to enable the placement of trails within
or close to natural features to provide access to the
City's unique landscapes and accommodate outdoor
recreational access to creeks, hillsides, and waterfront.
the future planning and design of trail routes
through natural areas should be based on sensitive
and low -impact design solutions that offer controlled
access to protect the resource while providing for a
positive experience for all modes of trail user. The
determination of future trail alignments should
prioritize natural resource and natural hazards planning
and protections, in part to meet local land use policies
and Washington State requirements.
Alignment
The future growth of the trail network will need
to prioritize trail alignments and locations that are
optimal from multiple perspectives: trail user, trail
experience and trail connectivity. Cost, regulatory and
site suitability factors should also be incorporated.
New trail alignments should attempt to accommodate
different trail use types (i.e., commuter vs. recreational/
destination oriented) and utilize interim solutions such
as widening sidewalks, utilizing utility corridors and
expanding safe bike lanes and routes as opportunities
for trail improvements. Accommodating trail
alignments for local, neighborhood link trails as
connections to regional, shared -used trails or major
park trails is essential for providing access and reducing
the sole reliance on trailheads for providing access to
the trail network.
Access & Trailheads
Safe, convenient entryways to the trail network expand
access for users and are a necessary component of a
robust and successful system. A trailhead typically
includes parking, kiosks and signage and may consist
of site furnishings such as trash receptacles, benches,
restrooms, drinking fountains and bike racks.
Trailheads may be within public parks and open space
or provided via interagency agreements with partner
organizations (e.g., county, school district, public
transit, etc.) to increase use and reduce unnecessary
duplication of support facilities. Specific trailhead
design and layout should be created as part of planning
and design development for individual projects and
consider the intended user groups and unique site
conditions.
In some areas, parking on the shoulders is a problem
that hinders the utility of the shoulders for pedestrian
and bicycle use, while also creating environmental
and neighborhood impacts. In areas where parking
on the road shoulder is persistent for trail access, the
City should explore options for formalizing trailhead
parking improvements to accommodate typical
demand and localize and manage site impacts resulting
from trail use parking. The City should also continue
to explore first/last-mile connections so that potential
park visitors can arrive using transit, reducing the need
for on -site parking.
Trail Signs & Wayfinding
Coordinated signage plays an important role in
facilitating a successful trail system. A comprehensive
and consistent signage system is a crucial component
of the trail system. It is necessary to inform, orient
and educate users about the trail system itself, as
well as appropriate trail etiquette. Such a system of
signs should include trail identification information,
orientation markers, safety and regulatory messages
and a unifying design identity for branding. The
following signage types should be considered
throughout the system:
DRAFT
109
Packet Pg. 125
DRAFT
■ Directional and regulatory signage
■ Trail user etiquette and hierarchy signage
■ Route identification and wayfinding signage
■ Mileage markers or periodic information regarding
distance to areas of interest
■ Warning signs to caution users of upcoming trail
transitions or potential conflicts with motor vehicles
■ Interpretive information regarding ecological, historical
and cultural features found along and in proximity to the
trail
■ QR codes to provide links to additional information
The installation of kiosks at trailheads is a best practice
that should continue. Kiosks provide important trail
information, while reinforcing the visual brand of the
City of Edmonds.
Ongoing Maintenance
Following trail construction, ongoing trail monitoring
and maintenance will keep the trails functioning as
designed, while protecting capital investments in the
network. Future trail renovation projects should be
included in the Capital Improvement Plans as a means
to identify and secure appropriate resources for needed
enhancement.
TRAIL AND PATHWAY
RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Continue to implement the pedestrian and bikeway plan
components of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
■ Continue to improve trail and trailhead signage and
wayfinding and explore ways to indicate connections to
bus and rail transit.
■ Support or provide bicycle skills development and
education classes for youth in partnership with the school
district and local community -based organizations.
■ Improve trailhead areas and parking at Maplewood Hill
Park, and explore options to install additional loops at
that site.
■ Conduct repairs and trail maintenance, as necessary.
110
Packet Pg. 126
�..-;�6
IF I t
F � � 47xsa
I
TD
*-iV' ��1h�: � - .. � tom';±-4��.�..� ��►�
r �t
1
- - � � I' f • "` ay ti ,`�-. �+,-�?yam
IS
. yam. � ,. -i r�� ",.� �*� �'"`s-• _ , 1' i5
�,- .
H 51i
DRAFT
CHAPTER 9
CAPITAL PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the
Edmonds park and recreation system and established
goals and objectives to guide future plannnig, development
and operations. This chapter includes the proposed six -
year capital project plan and provides recommendations
on other strategies to successfully implement the plan.
PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Acquisitions to Fill Park
System Gaps
The acquisition of additional
neighborhood parks is necessary
to address existing gaps in park
services in the South Edmonds area
and along the SR 99 corridor. Three
new park sites should be pursed
followed by public site master
planning processes for each sites
to determine the desired level of
development and types of amenities
Additionally, the City should
continue to coordinate with local
residential developers to include
public parks in new subdivisions
and utilize tools, such as park
impact fee credits, to facilitate the
process.
Open Space & Conservation
Acquisitions
The City should continue to seek
options to expand its open space
holdings and pursue acquisitions
that adjoin city properties or
conserve unique natural areas,
such as wetlands, forested areas
and vistas. Riparian corridors with
their adjacent wetlands should
be protected more actively and
eventually undergo any necessary
restoration measures to ensure
the preservation of habitat and
movement of wildlife along natural
connections between terrestrial and
aquatic habitat.
1 think the top priority is for
acquisition especially in SE
Edmonds and the marsh.
Virtual Public Meeting Participant
Complete the 'missing link" in front
of the Ebbtide!
Virtual Public Meeting Participant
Invest in areas outside of the
bowl.
Virtual Public Meeting Participant
More park benches in a covered
area for the occasional rain shower.
Virtual Public Meeting Participant
112
Packet Pg. 128
Parkland Acquisitions
Pursue acquisitions to fill known parkland gaps to
improve local access and distribution.
Park Development & Upgrades
Playground upgrades and other park enhancements
will improve year-round recreation opportunities.
Yost Pool Replacement L
t
Plan for and implement the replacement of the pool
at Yost Memorial Park.
ADA Enhancements Trail Connections Signage & Wayfinding
Reduce barriers to access for recreation amenities and Pursue a coordinate approach with the Public Works Improve the consistency of signage and wayfinding.
improve accommodations for users of all abilities. Department to align recreational trail planning with
pedestrian and bikeway improvements.
Q
DRAFT 113
Packet Pg. 129
DRAFT
5.A.a
Park Development & Enhancements
In the immediate near -term, the City should focus on
the completion of the redevelopment of Civic Center
Playfield, which is currently under construction with
completion slated for late 2022. The master plan
features youth athletic fields and lighting, permanent
restrooms, improved skate park, petanque court grove,
a pollinator meadow, multi -sports court, tennis court,
a perimeter walking path, fully inclusive playground,
picnic areas, and public art.
A number of parks have aging infrastructure that
warrants significant repairs such as sports court
resurfacing or complete replacements. A few
playgrounds are nearing the end of their useful life
and cycles and should be replaced, including those at
Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park and Yost Memorial
Park.
Other development projects may include adding
amenities to existing parks such as picnic shelters to
Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park and Pine
Street Park and paved pathways connections in Mathay
Ballinger Park and Pine Street Park. Tree plantings
were identified as a desirable improvement at Pine
Street Park and Haines Wharf Park. Additional
tree planting could be identified through the
implementation of the Urban Forestry Management
Plan.
Yost Pool Replacement
While continuing to manage the existing infrastructure
to keep the facility open to the community, the
City should refine their options for replacement of
Yost Pool, following guidance of the 2009 Aquatic
Feasibility Study and the public feedback gathered
during this planning process.
Trail Connections
Trail connections, including sidewalk and bike lanes
improvements, are needed to help link destinations
across the community. Acquiring additional lands,
easements and/or rights -of -way for the continuation
of the Interurban Trail (more off -road segments) are
recommended. Coordinate with the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (and subsequent updates), as
well as coordination with local subdivision and site
development projects.
ADA & Other Accessibility Enhancements
Minor improvements to access, such as providing
ramped entrances, for site furnishings are necessary
to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and ensure universal accessibility. The CIP
includes upgrades and improvements to remove
barriers and improve universal access. In general, the
City should make improvements to existing parks as
needed to ensure proper maintenance, usability and
quality of park features and grounds.
The City also should complete an ADA Transition
Plan for park and recreation facilities to identify and
strategize ADA compliance improvements.
User Convenience Improvements
Older restroom facilities (built before 2010) may
not provide adequate universal access to people
with disabilities. Replacement (or major repairs)
are recommended for restrooms at Olympic Beach,
Seaview Park and Brackett's Landing North. Also,
permanent restrooms should be installed at Marina
Beach Park and Mathay Ballinger Park.
Also, consistent graphics and the implementation
of a consistent citywide signage style will improve
information, usability and "branding" of the City's
park and open space system. In particular, the popular
trail network within Yost Memorial Park has limited
directional and identification signs to let trail users
know their location and how to get to their destination
Municipal Code Update
The Edmonds municipal code includes definitions of
certain park classifications, and these definitions were
last updated in 2001. The municipal code should be
amended to reflect the current parkland classifications,
as appropriate, to relate to land use and development
code regulations and requirements. In addition, the
code sections related to park usage should be updated.
114
Packet Pg. 130
5.A.a
Edm011dS 2022 PRO
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) puts into
chronological order the project intent and strategic
actions to guide the implementation of this Plan. It
assigns proposed time frames and estimated costs
for specific projects. The CIP provides brief project
descriptions for those projects to assist staff in
preparing future capital budget requests.
The following Capital Improvements Plan identifies
the park, trail and facility projects considered for the
next six years or more. The majority of these projects
entail the maintenance, acquisition and development of
parks, recreational amenities and trails. The following
table summarizes the aggregate capital estimates by
park types for the next six years.
Figure 31. Capital Improvements Plan Expenditures Summary
Repair/Renovation/Re
placement,
$27,724,900
Planning,
Acquisition,
$3,352,200 $6,191,400
Development,
$27,156,500
DRAFT 115
Packet Pg. 131
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0N
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 132
Edmonds PROS 2022 6-Year Capital Facilities Program
Working Draft
5.A.a
Project
D City Park
Project Description
Pedestrian safety walkway
$ 100,000 $ 50,000
$
D Cemetery
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
$ 150,000 $ 159,100
$
D Civic Center Playfields
Renovation project continuation (2021 start)
$ 9,871,600 $ 9,871,600
$
A Edmonds Marsh Estuary
Acquisition
TBD
$
50,000
159,100
9,871,600
P
Master Plan
$
250,000
$
273,200
$
273,200
D
Restoration
TBD
$
-
D
Elm Street Park
Nature Playground
$
75,000
$
84,400
$
84,400
D
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
$
75,000
$
84,400
$
84,400
R
Habitat restoration
$
50,000
$
56,300
$
56,300
R
Greenhouses
Replacement
$
100,000
$
100,000
$
100,000
A
Interurban Trail
Extension/acquisition
$
750,000
$
-
$ 869,500
$
869,500
R
Johnson Property
Demolition and securing site
$
200,000
$
200,000
$
200,000
P
Master Plan
$
75,000
$
82,000
$
82,000
R
Meadowdale Playfields
Renovations (City of Lynnwood ILA)
$
500,000
$
200,000
$
300,000
$
500,000
R
Maplewood Hill Park
Playground replacement
$
125,000
$
144,900
$
144,900
D
Marina Beach Park
Master Plan Implementation
$
2,000,000
$
1,750,000
$
1,500,000
$
2,750,000
$
6,000,000
D
Mathay Ballinger Park
Paved loop pathway
$
50,000
$
53,000
$
53,000
D
Restrooms
$
350,000
$
371,300
$
371,300
D
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
$
75,000
$
79,600
$
79,600
A
Neighborhood park - SE1
South Edmonds target area acquisition-1
$
1,500,000
$
1,545,000
$
1,545,000
P
South Edmonds NH park master plan-1
$
75,000
$
79,600
$
79,600
D
South Edmonds NH park development-1
$
750,000
$
819,500
$
819,500
A
Neighborhood park - SR99
SR 99 target area acquisition
$
1,500,000
$
1,591,400
$
1,591,400
P
SR 99 target area NH park master plan
$
75,000
$
82,000
$
82,000
D
SR 99 target area NH park development
$
750,000
$
844,100
$
844,100
A
Neighborhood park - SE2
South Edmonds target area acquisition-2
$
2,000,000
$
2,185,500
$
2,185,500
P
South Edmonds NH park master plan-2
$
75,000
$
84,400
$
84,400
D
South Edmonds NH park development-2
$
750,000
$ 869,500
$
869,500
R
Olympic Beach Park
Restroom upgrade
$
50,000
$
53,000
$
53,000
D
Pine Street Park
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
$
75,000
$
79,600
$
79,600
D
Paved connecting pathway
$
55,000
$
58,300
$
58,300
D
Canopy shade trees
$
25,000
$
26,500
$
26,500
R
Seaview Park
Restroom replacement
$
350,000
$
-
$ 417,900
$
417,900
R
Sierra Park
Playground replacement
$
175,000
$
185,700
$
185,700
P
Waterfront Walkway
Design completion
$
500,000
$
500,000
$
500,000
D
Construction
$
750,000
$
750,000
$
750,000
R
Yost Park
Resurface tennis courts
$
70,000
$
74,300
$
74,300
R
Trail bridge & boardwalk repairs/replacements
$
80,000
$
80,000
$
80,000
R
Playground replacement
$
250,000
$
257,500
$
257,500
R
Pool repair
$
175,000
$
175,000
$
175,000
R
Pool upgrades/renovation
$
500,000
$
546,400
$
546,400
R
Pool replacement
$
20,000,000
$ 23,881,000
$
23,881,000
P
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Design completion
$
2,000,000
$
2,251,000
$
2,251,000
D
Construction
$
6,000,000
$ 6,955,600
$
6,955,600
R
System -wide
Playground replacement / upgrade to inclusive level
$
175,000
$
197,000
$ 202,900
$
399,900
R
Signage & wayfinding
$
50,000
$
53,000
$
53,000
R
Capital repairs*
$
100,000
$
100,000
$
100,000
$
100,000
$
100,000
$
100,000
$ 100,000
$
600,000
P
D
Project Type
A
P
D
R
Parks & Facilities M & O Building
Acquisition
Master planning
Development - new
Replacement/Upgrade
Design
Construction
TBD
TBD
Totals $ 53,651,600 $ 10,776,600 $ 2,406,400 $ 5,010,500 $ 6,483,500 $ 6,451,600 $ 33,296,400
NOTES:
This list identifies planning -level cost estimates and does not assume the value of volunteer or other non -City contributions.
Detailed costing may be necessary for projects noted.
This list is not an official budget and intended as a guiding document for City staff in the preparation of departmental budgets.
$
$
$
-
-
64,425,000
Packet Pg. 133
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0N
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 134
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
IMPLEMENTATION
A number of strategies exist to enhance and expand
park and recreation service delivery for the City of
Edmonds; however, clear decisions must be made in
an environment of competing interests and limited
resources. A strong community will is necessary to
bring many of the projects listed in this Plan to life,
and the Edmonds City Council has demonstrated its
willingness in the past to support parks and recreation
and a high quality of life.
The recommendations for park and recreation services
noted in this Plan may trigger the need for funding
beyond current allocations and for additional staffing,
operations and maintenance responsibilities. Given
that the operating and capital budget of the Parks,
Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services
Department is finite, additional resources may be
needed to leverage, supplement and support the
implementation of proposed objectives, programs
and projects. While grants and other efficiencies may
help, these alone will not be enough to realize many
ideas and projects noted in this Plan. The following
recommendations and strategies are presented to offer
near -term direction to realize these projects and as a
means to continue dialogue between City leadership,
local residents and partners.
Additionally, a review of potential implementation
tools is included as Appendix G, which addresses local
financing, federal and state grant and conservation
programs, acquisition methods and others.
Enhanced Local Funding
According to the city budget, Edmonds maintains
reserve debt capacity for local bonds and voter
approved debt. The city's non -voted general obligation
debt is below its debt capacity limit of $85 million
for non -voted debt. Community conversations
regarding the potential to redevelop the pool at Yost
Memorial Park and/or bundle several projects from
the Capital Improvements Plan warrant a review of
debt implications for the City, along with the need to
conduct polling of voter support for such projects.
Park Impact Fees & Real Estate Excise Tax
Park Impact Fees (PIF) are imposed on new
development to meet the increased demand for parks
resulting from the new growth. PIF can only be used
for parkland acquisition, planning and/or development.
They cannot be used for operations and maintenance
of parks and facilities. The City of Edmonds currently
assesses impact fees, but the City should review its
PIF ordinance and update the methodology and rate
structure, as appropriate, to be best positioned to
obtain future acquisition and development financing
from the planned growth of the community. The
City should prioritize the usage of PIF to secure new
park properties and finance park or trail development
consistent with the priorities within this Plan.
The City currently imposes both of the quarter percent
excise taxes on real estate, known as REET 1 and
REET 2. The REET must be spent on capital projects
listed in the City's capital facilities plan element
of their comprehensive plan. Eligible project types
include planning, construction, reconstruction, repair,
rehabilitation or improvement of parks, recreational
facilities and trails. Acquisition of land for parks is not
a permitted use of REET 2 funds. REET is used for
other City projects, such as facility construction and
public works projects, may be used to make loan and
debt service payments on permissible projects. Through
annual budgeting and with discussions with City
Council, the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
Department should continue to seek access to REET
funds and use the capital facilities plan to compile
compelling projects to enhance service delivery of
the amenities for which the community has indicated
strong support.
Conservation Futures Program
Snohomish County assesses the maximum allowable
excise of $0.0625 per $1,000 assessed value to fund
the Conservation Futures program and provides cities
a venue to access these funds through a local grant
process. The City should continue to submit grant
applications for support in financing the acquisition
of additional natural areas, such as wetlands and forest
lands, to facilitate the protection of additional open
space and potentially enable improved linkages to
expand the trail network
DRAFT
119
Packet Pg. 135
DRAFT
Parkland Donations & Dedications
Parkland donations from private individuals or
conservation organizations could occur to complement
the acquisition of parklands and open space across
the City. Gift deeds or bequests from philanthropic -
minded landowners could allow for lands to come
into City ownership upon the death of the owner or
as a tax-deductible charitable donation. Also, parkland
dedication by a developer could occur in exchange for
Park Impact Fees or as part of a planned development
where public open space is a key design for the
layout and marketing of a new residential project.
Any potential dedication should be vetted by the
Department to ensure that such land is located in an
area of need or can expand an existing City property
and can be developed with site amenities appropriate
for the projected use of the property.
Grants & Appropriations
Several state and federal grant programs are available
on a competitive basis, including WWRP, ALEA,
and LWCF. Pursuing grants is not a panacea for park
system funding, since grants are both competitive and
often require a significant percentage of local funds
to match the request to the granting agency, which
depending on the grant program can be as much as
50% of the total project budget. Edmonds should
continue to leverage its local resources to the greatest
extent by pursuing grants independently and in
cooperation with other local partners.
Appropriations from state or federal sources, though
rare, can supplement projects with partial funding.
State and federal funding allocations are particularly
relevant on regional transportation projects, and the
likelihood for appropriations could be increased if
multiple partners are collaborating on projects.
Internal Project Coordination & Collaboration
Internal coordination with the Public Works and
Development Services Departments can increase the
potential of discrete actions toward the implementation
of the proposed trail and path network, which relies
heavily on street right-of-way enhancements, and
in the review of development applications with
consideration toward potential parkland acquisition
areas, planned path corridors and the need for
easement or set -aside requests. However, to more fully
expand the extent of the park system and recreation
programs, additional partnerships and collaborations
should be sought.
Public -Private Partnerships
Public -private partnerships are increasingly
necessary for local agencies to leverage their limited
resources in providing park and recreation services
to the community. Corporate sponsorships, health
organization grants, conservation stewardship
programs and non-profit organizations are just a few
examples of partnerships where collaboration provides
value to both partners. The City has a variety of
existing agency and community -based organization
partners and should continue to explore additional and
expanded partnerships to help implement these Plan
recommendations.
Volunteer & Community -based Action
Volunteers and community groups already contribute
to the improvement of park and recreation services
in Edmonds. Volunteer projects include park clean-
up days, invasive plant removal, tree planting and
community event support, among others. Edmonds
should maintain and update a revolving list of potential
small works or volunteer -appropriate projects for the
website, while also reaching out to civic groups and
the high school to encourage student projects. While
supporting organized groups and community -minded
individuals continues to add value to the Edmonds
park and recreation system, volunteer coordination
requires a substantial amount of staff time, and
additional resources may be necessary to more fully
take advantage of the community's willingness to
support park and recreation efforts.
Other Implementation Tools
Appendix G identifies other implementation tools,
such as voter -approved funding, grants and acquisition
tactics that the City could utilize to further the
implementation of the projects noted in the Capital
Improvements Plan.
120
Packet Pg. 136
APPENDIX A
PARK SITE
ASSESSMENTS
mom
721
Packet Pg. 137
DRAFT
5.A.a
144 RAILROAD AVENUE TIDELANDS
0.9 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Continue monitoring beach conditions.
■ Keep pathway clear of private vegetation.
■ Replace aging benches.
Amenities:
WATERFRONT 0 Paved path & seawall (City
owned and maintained)
■ Public art (sculptures)
■ Benches
122
Packet Pg. 138
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
BRACKETT'S LANDING - NORTH
5.06 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
WATERFRONT
■ Parking is at a premium when divers and beach `goers' are visiting the park.
Walk-in visitors also frequent the beach with the close proximity to waterfront
food services. Consider a sign to direct drivers to go to other public parking lots
when lot is full.
■ Refurbish parking entrance gate. Upgrade restrooms.
■ Replace entryway sign, anchor, and public art.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Mount leash rule sign on permanent post (currently attached to sawhorse on
walkway).
■ Interpretive signs fading. Plan for replacement.
■ Upgrade informational Dive Park signage.
Amenities:
■ Beachfront
■ Benches
■ Bike rack
■ Drinking fountain
■ Edmonds Underwater Park
access
■ Interpretive signs
■ Public art (sculptures)
■ Outdoor showers
■ Parking
■ Picnic tables
■ Restrooms
■ Trash receptacles
N
N
W
0
0
N
O
d
yl
c
0
E
w
:.o
c
a�
E
ca
a
DRAFT 123
Packet Pg. 139
DRAFT
BRACKETT'S LANDING - SOUTH
2.22 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Update benches as needed.
Amenities:
WATERFRONT 0 Beachfront 14
■ Benches
■ Bike rack
■ Bus stop
■ Interpretive sign
■ Open grass area
■ Picnic tables
■ Planting beds
■ Public art (sculptures)
■ Trash receptacles
■ Viewpoint
■ Walking trail
Q
124
Packet Pg. 140
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
CITY PARK
13.96 ACRES
Amenities:
COMMUNITY 0 Baseball/softball field
■ BBQgrills & Fire pits
■ Benches
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities: ■ Bike rack
■ Addition of pedestrian pathway access to park along northern exit drive aisle. 0 Climbing rock
■ Covered picnic area with grill
p■ Drinking fountain
nal Building 0 EV charging stations
00 Gazebo
■ Group picnic tables
t. ■ Horseshoe pits
■ Natural area w/ trail
■ Open grass lawn
■ Outdoor amphitheater/stage
■ Picnic shelters
■ Picnic tables
■ Playground
■ Recycling receptacles
■ Restrooms (2)
■ Soccer field
■ Spray park
■ Swings
■ Trash receptacles
■ Water spigot
Maintenance Considerations:
■ 3-tiered bleachers should have safety rails added (to meet Internatio
Code).
■ Restroom signs are not ADA-compliant & should be replaced.
■ Handicapped parking signs mounted too low to be ADA-complian
■ Some pavement barriers (gaps/cracks) at restroom E.
N
N
W
0
0
le
>I
co
O
W
IL
i
c
0
E
W
c
m
E
t
0
Q
DRAFT 125
Packet Pg. 141
DRAFT
5.A.a
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS
7.92 ACRES
COMMUNITY
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Continue master plan improvements. Site construction began August 9, 2021.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted.
Amenities:
■ Multi -sport court (1)
■ Boys & Girls Club facility
■ Rubber surface track (1/3 mile)
■ Drinking fountains
■ Field lighting
■ Petanque courts
■ Picnic tables
■ Shade pavilion
■ Playground (inclusive)
■ Restrooms
■ Skate park
■ Soccer fields (1 competition,1
practice)
■ Tennis courts (1)
■ Trash receptacles
■ Walking trail
■ Public art
■ Pollinator field
■ Lighting
N
N
to
0
0
le
>I
co
O
a
i
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
t
0
0
Q
126
Packet Pg. 142
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
WATERFRONT CENTER PARK
1.94 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted - newly developed.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted.
Amenities:
WATERFRONT 0
Beachfront
■
Benches
■
Bike rack
■
Drinking fountain
■
Foot wash station
■
Hand -carried boat launch
■
Lighting
■
Naturalized stormwater
management areas
■
Parking
■
Public art
■
Trash rece tacles
P
■ Viewpoint
■ Walking trail
■ Natural play area
N
N
W
0
0
le
>I
co
O
W
a
i
0
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
z
0
0
Q
DRAFT 127
Packet Pg. 143
DRAFT
5.A.a
-
-
Ask
�' � � �' j 1fd'�L'd#► � + �?�Sf�E+1.�- # -13Y �s��ix�'�c�'�'�i.�. _
ELM STREET PARK Amenities:
1.85 ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD ■ Dog waste bag dispenser
■ Natural area
■ Open grass lawn
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities: ■ Picnic table
■ Nature trail with natural play area could be added.
■ Trash receptacle
■ Access & entry improvements.
■ Small shelter and small playground area could be added.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Native plant restoration and invasive plant species control could be
implemented.
128
Packet Pg. 144
5.A.a
Edf11OW 2022 PRO
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIELD
1.94 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ No ADA/universal access to spectator area for amphitheater. Pl
access with next site renovation project.
Maintenance Considerations:
■
■
■
Amenities: I
an for ADA
NEIGHBORHOOD ■ Baseball/softball field
■ Drinking fountain
■ Outdoor amphitheater / covered
stage
Picnic tables
Playground
Portable toilets
Soccer field
Trash & recycling receptacles
Sports field irrigation not effecting good coverage for consistent grass growth.
Evaluate irrigation system and its coverage to determine best renovation
approach. Plan for irrigation system improvements.
Manage grass sports fields for reduced clover & plantain to better support
sports activities.
Some pavement cracking/upheavals near playground need to be addressed to
remove tripping hazard.
■
M
■
■
■
■
DRAFT 129
Packet Pg. 145
Sports field irrigation not effecting good coverage for consistent grass growth.
Evaluate irrigation system and its coverage to determine best renovation
approach. Plan for irrigation system improvements.
Manage grass sports fields for reduced clover & plantain to better support
sports activities.
Some pavement cracking/upheavals near playground need to be addressed to
remove tripping hazard.
■
M
■
■
■
■
DRAFT 129
Packet Pg. 145
DRAFT
5.A.a
A'V n
HAINES WHARF PARK Amenities:
0.69 ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD 0 Benches
■ Drinking fountain
■ Interpretive signs
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities: ■ Lighting
■ No ADA accommodation in the newer (developed 2012) neighborhood park. 0 Overlook
■ Limited shade in this park. Consider shade structure or additional shade trees. 0 Parking
■ Picnic tables
Maintenance Considerations: ■ Playground
■ Another feature in lower park area is missing - footings remain. (wind 0 Portable toilet
damage?). ■ Shade trees
■ Irrigation not used due to landslide risk. ■ Swing set (2 strap,1 tot,1
inclusive)
■ Trash receptacles
Q
130
Packet Pg. 146
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
c
HICKMAN PARK Amenities: o
5.61 ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD ■ Baseball/softball field a
c
■ Basketball 1/2 courts (2) C
■ Benches
L
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities: ' Bike racks W
■ Add permanent restrooms to this popular neighborhood park.
■
Boulder parea (former school
site)
vilay
Y
I-
Maintenance Considerations:
■
Dog waste bag dispenser
a
N
■ Some weed growth in landscape planting beds at entrance.
■
Drinking fountain
o
v
■ Blackberry bushes intruding on trail through natural area — need pruning.
■
Fitness stations
N
■ Dog waste bag dispenser missing from post at pedestrian bridge.
■
Kiosk
m
c
■ A few pavement cracks need to be addressed.
■
Lighting
c
le
■ Plan to resurface basketball court.
■
Naturalized SWM basin
>�
■ Open grass lawn co
O
■
Parking
d
■
Paved walking loop
■
Picnic shelter
p
■
Playground
■
Portable restrooms
W
■
Trail
c
E
■
Trash & recycling receptacles
M
Q
DRAFT 131
Packet Pg. 147
5.A.a
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK Amenities:
1.22 ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD ■ Basketball court
■ Open grass lawn
■ Picnic tables
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities: ■ Playground
■ Consider additional play activity options.
■ Shade trees
■ Swing set
Maintenance Considerations: ■ Trash and recycling receptacles
■ Invasive blackberry cover the steep slopes. Public likes to pick the berries.
Native plant restoration could be planned when/if public opinion shifts in favor
of blackberry control.
■ Remove barrier to playground entry to provide for universal access.
132
Packet Pg. 148
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
* AMC_
MARINA BEACH PARK
3.37 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
WATERFRONT
■ No ADA-compliant picnic tables. Add at least one accessible picnic table along
the walking trail.
■ Add permanent restroom facility
■ Continue to implement master plan improvements.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Based on post markings on new playground equipment, play area needs thicker
layer of fall safety surfacing.
■ Add more sand to volleyball court.
■ Add gravel to walkway path where worn down.
-- ---- - - -L.r _
Amenities:
■ BBQ-Grills
■ Benches
■ Drinking fountain
Kiosk @ Dog Park
■ Off -leash dog area
�■ Open grass lawn area
■ Picnic tables
■ Playground
■ Portable restrooms
■ Sand volleyball court
g■ Shade trees
■ Shoreline access / gravel beach
■ Spigots/foot wash
■ Trash receptacles
■ View point
■ Walking trail
■ Interpretive signs
Q
DRAFT 133
Packet Pg. 149
DRAFT
5.A.a
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK
1.82 ACRES
Amenities:
NEIGHBORHOOD 0 Playground
■ Bike rack
■ Basketball courts (2)
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities: ■ Open grass lawn area
■ Paved loop path could be added along with a small picnic shelter. 0 Shade trees
■ Upgrade the ADA parking space. Connect to park features with paved path. 0 Trash receptacles
■ Consider converting one basketball court into an alternative sport/play amenity 0 Dog waste bag dispenser
■ Picnic tables
■ Portable restroom
■ Access to Interurban Trail
■ Parking
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Control invasive blackberries.
■ Play equipment climbing net needs cable replacement.
■ Remove access barrier into play area.
■ Replace faded signs
Q
134
Packet Pg. 150
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
■
OLYMPIC BEACH PARK
2.85 ACRES
Amenities:
WATERFRONT 0 Public fishing pier (WFWD
facility, maintained and operated
by City)
■ Benches
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities: ■ Bike rack
■ The park space between buildings could support a paved pathway to connect the ■ Drinking fountains
parking area to the seawall. This connection could enhance public waterfront Interpretive signs
access and provide more universal access to the public promenade.
■ Repair buckled asphalt in parking lot and replace landscape trees to avoid future 0 Parking
pavement upheavals. ■ Picnic area
■ Public art (sculptures)
■ Restrooms
■ Shoreline access/sand beach
g ■ Trash & recycling receptacles
■ View point
■ Visitor center
■ Walking trail
■ Hand -carry boat launch
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Remove, powder coat & replace benches
■ Restroom maintenance: heavy graffiti area, consider adding lightin
N
N
W
0
0
v
I
N
O
d
I
N
c
0
E
w
:.o
c
a�
E
ca
a
DRAFT 135
Packet Pg. 151
DRAFT
PINE STREET PARK
1.47 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
NEIGHBORHOOD
■ No designated handicapped parking for park access. Need to add
accommodation.
■ Add shade trees to playground area. Consider adding a small shelter at
playground.
■ Perimeter paved park path could enhance use.
■ Outfield fence could use safety cap.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Bleachers need safety rails added (to comply with International Building Code).
Amenities:
■ Trash receptacles
■ Bike rack
■ Picnic tables
■ Bench
■ Parking
■ Playground
■ Baseball/softball field
■ Dugouts
■ Portable restroom
■ Climbing rock
■ Swing set (2 strap & 2 toddler)
�■ Open grass lawn
■ Bleachers
■ Drinking fountain
FI
N
N
m
0
0
le
>I
co
O
W
IL
i
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
z
0
Q
136
Packet Pg. 152
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
SEAVIEW PARK
6.05 ACRES
Amenities: I
court could be
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ No ADA accommodation are provided in this park. Plan for up
ADA parking and paved path access to amenities.
■ Drinking fountain at restrooms is not ADA-compliant. Ensure
with separate drinking fountain fixture. Check restroom for nee
Restroom signs not ADA-compliant.
■ Basketball hoop in parking area is a user conflict &basketball l/s
relocated in other area of park.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Cracks in asphalt pavement need to be addressed.
y
N
N
m
0
0
le
>I
co
O
W
IL
i
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
t
0
Q
DRAFT 137
Packet Pg. 153
DRAFT
5.A.a
� �ecl�uouy tree (�,i�a4damher
Rra�to 4hyrachfiuti4h
spread ui tkre lcrvrur }S R In a test Mu it{
nSt�x, The tins ueti� lkln 104 v� iii E+xy
11 111$ lC sjya Cd 4envgq u v ht6.
'L"d bor4rgkt 1UML-1 EITW M,
TIV
tired tuTLt d�sYt`d aTkd VCI14w. S51ot�l um EsuXq E�r1A*n4d
ha
tire".
SIERRA PARK
5.52 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
Amenities: I
NEIGHBORHOOD ■ Baseball/softball field
■ Basketball hoop in parking lot
■ Benches Emi
■ Braille interpretive trail
■ Improve ballfield infrastructure with roofed dugouts, team benches and Drinking fountain (not working)
bleachers with safety railings. Flagpole
■ Add drinking fountain (ADA-compliant). Parking
■ Old play equipment (1996 installation) should be planned for replacement. Add Picnic area
to and enhance play opportunities. Picnic table
Playground
Portable restroom
wood fibers or Soccer field (youth)
Trash receptacles
Walking trails
ntire bleacher.
Maintenance Considerations:
■
■
■
■
■
need
addressed.
Playground safety surfacing should be replaced with engineered
other approved safety surfacing.
Replace former drinking fountain.
Bleachers do not have safety railing. Add to existing or replace e
Asphalt path has pavement cracks from root upheavals that nee
addressed.
Handicapped parking sign mounted too law.
■
■
r:
■
■
■
■ 'n r '
138
Packet Pg. 154
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
YOST MEMORIAL PARK
Amenities:
45.27 ACRES COMMUNITY
'
■
■
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
'
■ Outdoor preschool camp program may need some specific amenities.
■
■ The park would benefit from a master plan to provide for future improvements
�■
that could include a renovated/replaced aquatic facility, upgraded vehicular
circulation & parking, upgraded recreation amenities, improved park pathways
■
and revised natural trail system. The master planning process could identify
■
the more sensitive environments and define special forest areas to be protected
■
while allocating the park's development envelop and helping align a more
sustainable trail network.
'
■ Prior to an overall master plan for the park, the aquatic facility should undergo
'
an updated feasibility study to determine the best approach to providing
�■
seasonal or year-round aquatic programming for the community.
■
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Trail system's boardwalks and bridges need minor repairs and should be planned
for complete replacement within 4-5 years.
■ Some trail alignments follow the fall line (i.e. straight up or down hill), making
them less navigable and more prone to erosion. As the boardwalks and bridges
are scheduled for replacement, the trail alignment should be evaluated to ensure
the improved built trail is in the most preferred alignment. Steep sections of the
trail should be re -aligned to reduce the gradient and avoid erosive conditions.
■ Invasive plant species control measures needed (currently done by volunteers —
could benefit from higher intensity).
■ Playground replacement due (1995 installation).
Basketball 1/2 court
Bench
Bike racks
Drinking fountain
Forested natural area with stream
corridor
Outdoor pool
Parking
Picnic tables
Playground
Portable restrooms
Restrooms (Pool building)
Tennis/Pickleball courts (2 or 8)
Trash receptacles
ils
�I
N
N
to
0
0
le
>I
co
O
W
IL
i
N
0
w
c
m
E
t
0
Q
DRAFT 139
Packet Pg. 155
DRAFT
CENTENNIAL PLAZA
0.08 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted
DAYTON STREET PLAZA
0.10 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Use better identification signage to clarify public use/value.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted.
DAYTON STREET PLAZA - WWTC
0.35 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Use better identification signage to clarify public use/value.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Some minor graffiti on upper plaza level
Amenities:
■ Japanese garden
■ Japanese stone lantern
■ Lighting
■ Holiday tree
■ Ornamental plantings
■ Paved brick plaza
■ Brick seating wall
■ Sister City dedication
plaques
Amenities:
■ Ornamental plantings
■ Public art
■ Inlaid paver art
■ Retaining wall
Amenities: ■ Not ADA-compliant
(many stairs)
■ Benches ■ Paved plaza
■ Fountain ■ Shelter
N
N
w
O
O
4
0
o:
a
N
C
0
E
W
;.o
c
E
a
140
Packet Pg. 156
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
EDMONDS LIBRARY PLAZA
1.29 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted
kyj [111] Z 1113 11.9 ■
24.21 ACRES
Amenities:
■ Benches
■ Bus stop
■ Lighting
■ Ornamental plantings
OPEN SPACE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Identification signs at beginning and end of walkway would be helpful.
■ Implement master plan to daylight Willow Creek.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Check railings at viewpoints for splitting, separation and general wear.
■ Some ADA barriers to viewpoint/overlooks occur where different pavements
meet and have gaps or uneven bumps. Repair.
■ Invasive plant species management and control should continue, especially
along road ROW.
■ Edmonds Marsh East (across Edmonds Way from the main Marsh) contains
0.85 acres and no developed public access. Continue to monitor and control
invasive plant growth.
■ Public art
■ Public rental event
space
■ Restrooms - interior
■ Rooftop plaza
■ View point r
Amenities:
N
■ Interpretive signs
0
c
■ Overlook/viewpoints
le
■ Boardwalk
OI
■ Paved walking path
W
IL
■ Trash receptacles
N�
■ Wetlands
0
■ Natural area
'a
■ Salt & fresh water marsh habitat
w
c
m
E
t
0
Q
DRAFT 141
Packet Pg. 157
DRAFT
EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY
6.63 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Consider installing benches
■ Additional columbarium space
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER
1.62 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Update entry sign using new style guide.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Keep plantings trim in front of facility sign.
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
0.09 ACRES
SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted
■
Amenities: Restroom
■ Shade trees
■ Columbarium
■ Grave sites
�rances Anderson
and LeNNWisure, C1'
Amenities: ■ Day care facility
■ Gymnasium
■ 64,000 sf community ■ Parks Dept
center
administration offices
■ Community meeting
■ Restrooms
rooms
■ Public art - mosaic,
Amenities: fountain, railings
■ Outdoor paved plaza ■ Benches, tables, chairs,
■ Interpretive signs umbrellas
Q
142
Packet Pg. 158
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
H.O. HUTT PARK
4.53 ACRES
OPEN SPACE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ If adjacent land is acquired that offers some park development potential, this
open space could be enhanced by the proximity of a developed park with its
support amenities (parking, restroom, play area, etc.)
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted.
Amenities:
Walking trails
■ "Old growth" trees
■ Dog waste bag dispenser
■ No public parking
■ Walk -to open space for
neighborhood ,
INTERURBAN TRAIL
Amenities:
3.97 ACRES SPECIAL USE
■
Bench
■
Bike rack
Capital Improvement &Planning Opportunities:
■
Bus shelter
Dog waste bag dispenser
■ Extend the shared -use paved pathway to 242nd Street along the existing
�■
■
Drinking fountain
utility corridor and provides off-street pedestrian and bicycle access to Mathay
Ballinger.
■
Interpretive signs
■
Kiosk
Maintenance Considerations:
■
Paved shared use regional trail
■ Heavy weekend use requires more frequent trash collection schedule or
■
Trash receptacles
additional receptacles.
■ The section of informal trail (not officially signed as Interurban Trail) could
be improved with pavement and intentional landscaping. Native plant species
should be selected to continue the existing value as a wildlife corridor (mostly
for birds) with minimal mown edges to keep vegetation off the path.
N
N
O
O
V_
O
>
co
O
W
IL
i
0
c
m
E
Q
DRAFT
143
Packet Pg. 159
DRAFT
5.A.a
LAKE BALLINGER ACCESS
0.19 ACRES WATERFRONT
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Consider adding a firm base (pavement) under the bench to
reduce mud.
■ Improve waterfront for easier hand -carried watercraft shore
launch
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted
LYNNDALE SKATE PARK
2.39 ACRES
Description:
TeFnities: ■ Hand -carried
watercraft shore launch
■ Bench ■ Lakefront access
■ Fishing pole holders (2) ■ Trash receptacle
Amenities:
SPECIAL USE ■ Skate park
■ Public art Al
■ 'Ihe 5,000 sf skate park in Lynndale Park was a joint project between Lynnwood
and Edmonds. The skate park includes public art "Fluid Motion" of sculptural
steel railings. 6h
■ the skate park is supported by parking, restrooms and other features within
Lynndale Park.
■ Half of site acreage counted toward Edmonds park system
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
13.27 ACRES
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
OPEN SPACE
■ No parking —pedestrian access only. Adjacent property acquisition could add
developable land for additional public access and park amenities.
■ Add one ADA parking space.
■ Old play equipment (1995 installation) should be planned for replacement.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Trail maintenance and natural habitat enhancement.
Amenities:
■ Walking trails
■ Swing set
■ Picnic area
■ Wooded open space
N
N
O
O
V_
O
>
i
co
O
W
IL
i
N
c
0
E
w
c
m
t
0
a
144
Packet Pg. 160
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE
1.11 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ No designated ADA parking stall.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Designate ADA parking stall and add handicapped sign
closest to building entrance.
MEADOWDALE NATURAL AREA
1.07 ACRES
Amenities:
■ Bench
■ Community center
■ Community meeting
rooms
■ Parking
■ Preschool
■ Picnic table
■ Playground
■ Restrooms
■ Trash receptacle
Amenities:
OPEN SPACE 0 No public access
■ Natural area - undeveloped
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Site analyses could determine degree of potential park development. Gap
mapping of park facilities could help determine need for this site as a future
park (beyond its value as preserved open space).
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted.
MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS
12.05 ACRES
COMMUNITY
Description:
■ Joint development project between Edmonds, Lynnwood and the Edmonds
School District
■ Half of site acreage counted toward Edmonds park system
Amenities:
■ Lighted youth/adult competition
softball fields (3)
■ Multipurpose sand fields (2)
■ Concession building
■ Playground
■ Walking trail
■ Picnic facilities
■ Forested area
■ Pond
■ Restrooms
■ Parking
■ Public art
N
N
W
O
V-
O
0
o:
a
yl
c
0
W
:.o
c
a�
E
t
ca
Q
DRAFT 145
Packet Pg. 161
DRAFT
OCEAN AVENUE VIEWPOINT
0.2 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ User -made path down to railroad tracks where visitors cross and access beach
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Remove the user -made path to railroad tracks and install signs to indicate no
railroad crossing.
OLYMPIC VIEW OPEN SPACE
0.49 ACRES
OPEN SPACE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Site analyses could determine degree of potential park development. Gap
mapping of park facilities could help determine need for this site as a future park
(beyond its value as preserved open space).
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted.
PINE RIDGE PARK
26.47 ACRES OPEN SPACE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Nature play area could be added.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Increase servicing interval for portable toilet, especially
after busy summer weekends.
■ Laminated root rot may be present. Conduct forest
management study to inform near -term management
actions and guide restoration or reforestation activities.
■ Consider paving the parking lot and adding more defined
parking areas with ADA parking space.
Amenities:
■ Parking
■ Trash receptacles
■ View point
Amenities: IN
■ No public access
■ Natural area - undeveloped
Amenities:
■ Benches
■ Dog waste bag
dispensers
■ Old growth forest
■ Parking area (gravel)
■ Portable toilet
■ Trash receptacles
■ Tool box (for outdoor
preschool)
■ Walking trails
■ Wetlands
N
N
0
O
>
I
co
O
W
IL
I
c
0
E
w
m
E
t
Q
146
Packet Pg. 162
5.A.a
EdI11011dS 2022 PRO
RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK
0.17 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Remove ATM - no longer in service.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Heavy use during ferry wait times. Continue to monitor
trash collection and restroom cleaning needs.
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
1.31 ACRES
OPEN SPACE
Amenities:
■ Dog waste bag
dispenser
■ Landscape plantings
■ Newspaper boxes
■ Pet area
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ If park facility distribution indicates a need for a more developed park site at
this public works location, coordinate with physical limitations to consider how
much could safely be added to this open space site.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted.
■ Picnic table
■ Public art
■ Restrooms
■ Trash & recycling
receptacles
■ Vending machines
Amenities:
■ Open grass field with perimeter
shade trees
■ Contains underground water
tank.
SHELL CREEK Amenities:
1.42 ACRES OPEN SPACE
■ No developed public access
■ Forested natural area.
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Open space properties owned by the City should be evaluated for any
opportunities for public access, depending on extent of wetlands and other
sensitive environmental areas. Where feasible, natural trails could be developed
or wildlife viewing locations to offer some appreciation for the preservation of
Edmonds' natural environments.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Invasive plant species control.
N
N
W
O
T-
O
I
0
a
I
N
C
O
w
;.o
c
a�
E
t
ca
Q
DRAFT 147
Packet Pg. 163
DRAFT
STAMM OVERLOOK PARK
0.36 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ No ADA-designated parking space. Consider need to
upgrade accommodation.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ None noted
SUNSET AVENUE OVERLOOK
1.14 ACRES
SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Keep roses well -trimmed where they intrude on pedestrian
paths.
UNDERWATER DIVE PARK
27 ACRES
SPECIAL USE
Description:
■ Scuba diving park located north of the ferry landing and
accessed from Brackett's Landing — North, designated as a
marine preserve and sanctuary.
■ Area not owned or maintained by City; Leased from WA
Department of Natural Resources.
■ Surface facilities including parking, restrooms, showers,
changing area, foot wash, charts and maps are available at
Brackett's Landing North Park.
Imenities: ■ Little library
■ Benches ■ Parking (5 spaces)
■ Drinking fountain ■ Trash receptacle
■ View point MA
Amenities: ■ Trash receptacles
■ Dog waste bag
■ Walking path dispensers
■ View corridor ■ Interpretive signs
■ Benches
Amenities: ■ Man-made reef
structures
■ Sunken De Lion Dry ■ Bruce Higgins
Dock Underwater Trails
■ Sunken vessels
Photo credit: Annie Crawley
N
N
O
O
T_
O
le
c'
0
W
a
I
0
0
E
w
c
m
E
t
0
M
Q
148
Packet Pg. 164
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
VETERANS PLAZA
0.15 ACRES SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Some pavers are uneven where meeting other pavement
edges. Reset uneven areas to avoid tripping hazards and
ADA barriers.
WHARF STREET
0.12 ACRES
OPEN SPACE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Confirm ownership of stairs
WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY
1.68 ACRES
SPECIAL USE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ None noted
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Kiosk roof repairs needed.
Amenities: ■ Lighting
■ Memorials
■ Benches
■ Drinking fountain ■ Ornamental plantings
■ Flagpole ■ Paved plaza
■ K9 sculpture ■ Trash receptacles
■ Water feature
Amenities: "private beach"
■ No safe access across
■ Viewpoint railroad tracks
■ Wooden stairs signed as
N
N
W
Amenities: o
■ Boardwalk stream crossing
O
■ Hatchery pond (seasonal)
cn�
■ Indoor classroom
O
■ Interpretive signs
a
y�
■ Kiosk
0
■ Native plant demonstration
E
garden
w
■ Natural area/wildlife habitat
■ Parking (gravel)
E
t
■ Picnic tables
cva
■ Portable restroom Q
■ Trash & recycling receptacles
■ Walking trails
DRAFT
149
Packet Pg. 165
DRAFT
5.A.a
WILLOW CREEK PARK
2.25 ACRES OPEN SPACE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
■ Adjacent property (if acquired) could allow for developed public access and more
recreational opportunities.
Maintenance Considerations:
■ Invasive plant species control/management
■ Natural resource/habitat enhancement
Amenities:
■ Forested wetland
■ Stream corridor
■ No developed public access
Q
150
Packet Pg. 166
le1»ALlU1ra.1
N
N
O
O
O
qe
>I
CO)
O
w
IL
w
I
0
E
V
w
m
E
s
R
Q
151
Packet Pg. 167
DRAFT
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
To: Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director
From: Steve Duh, Conservation Technix, Inc.
Date: September 7, 2021
Re: Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey
Community Survey Summary Results
Page 1
Conservation Technix is pleased to present the results of a survey of the general population of the City
of Edmonds that assesses residents' recreational needs and priorities.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
In close collaboration with City of Edmonds staff, Conservation Technix developed the 15-question
survey that was estimated to take less than ten minutes to complete.
The City mailed 2,500 surveys to randomly chosen households in Edmonds on May 29, 2021, of which
501 surveys were completed and returned (20% response rate). Online versions of the survey in English,
Chinese, Korean and Spanish were posted to the City's website on June 4, 2021. An additional 11449
surveys in English were completed from the general, community -wide online surveys. In addition, two
Chinese, five Korean and one Spanish surveys were completed. In all, 1,958 surveys were collected.
Information about the survey was provided on the City's website and on the PROS Plan project subpage.
It was promoted via multiple in -language social media postings and city email blasts. Printed flyers with
QR code links in four languages were made available for distribution by staff for direct outreach to non-
English community groups. Also, significant effort was made to promote the survey to all language
groups during community events, pop -ups and flyer distribution through cultural based community
organizations throughout the summer months. The survey was closed on August 31, 2021, and data
were compiled and reviewed.
Although households were randomly chosen to receive the mail survey, respondents were not
necessarily representative of all City residents. However, age group segmentation shows general
alignment with current Census data. The table below shows the age demographics for the mail and
online surveys, as well as comparative percentages for Edmonds' population.
Under20
<1%
<1%
<1%
20%
20-34
7.7%
6.5%
6.9%
18%
22%
35-44
11.7%
27.7%
23.3%
12%
15%
45-54
14.9%
20.7%
19.1%
15%
19%
55-64
22.6%
14.8%
17.0%
14%
17%
65 to 74
25.0%
22.0%
22.7%
12%
15%
75 and older
17.9%
0.8%
10.3%
10%
12%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
152
Packet Pg. 168
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Page 2
This report includes findings of community opinions based principally on mailed survey responses. Each
section also notes key differences between different demographic groups and among responses to the
online -only survey, where applicable.
Percentages in the report may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
DRAFT 153
Packet Pg. 169
DRAFT
5.A.a
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
FULL RESULTS
How much do residents value parks and recreation?
Virtually all respondents (99%) feel that local
parks, recreation options and open space
opportunities are important or essential to the
quality of life in Edmonds. More than eight in
ten respondents feel that they are essential, -
while an additional 13% believe that they are
important to quality of life, but not essential.
Less than 2% of respondents believe parks are
"Useful, but not important".
Page 3
1. When you think about what contributes to the quality of life in Edmonds,
would you say that public parks and recreation opportunities are...
Essential to the quality of life here
84%
92%
99%
Important, but not really necessary 13%
97%
7%
Useful, but not important
2%
<1%
Not important or don't know
<1%
<1%
No significant differences exist between the
survey subgroups (age, children in household,
geography); however, online survey respondents
indicated stronger responses (-8-10 percentage points
higher) that parks and recreation opportunities are
essential to quality of life in Edmonds.
How often do residents use Edmonds' recreation
facilities, parks, and open spaces?
■ Essential to the quality of
life here
■ Important, but not really
essential
■ Useful, but not necessary
■ Not important
Don't know
Respondents were asked how often they, or members of their household, visited an Edmonds park, recreation facility,
or open space. Respondents tend to visit frequently, with more than half (53%) of respondents to the mail survey
visiting at least once a week and another 20% visiting two or more times per month. Only 13% of respondents visit just a
few times per year. Very few (3%) did not visit a park last year.
4. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, how often did you visit or use Edmonds parks, recreation facilities (such as the Frances
Anderson Center) or open space?
50.0% ■ Mail
50% —
38.8% Online
40%
30%
20.0%
0
20% 15.9% . °
13.7% 13.1%
10% 8.40/-- o,r
■. . 3.2% 1.1% 2.7% 1.1%
0%
Everyday At least once Two or more About once a A few times Do not visit Don't know
a week times a month over the year facilities /
month parks / open
spaces
154
Packet Pg. 170
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Page 4
Online -only survey respondents tended to visit slightly more frequently than mail respondents, with 66% visiting at least
once a week and 84% visiting at least once per month. Respondents of households with children visit slightly more
frequently than those without children, with participation increasing in correspondence with the number of children in
the home. Respondents who live in the southern portion of the city (areas east and west of Esperance) were slightly less
likely than respondents elsewhere to use parks and recreation facilities frequently.
Why do residents visit parks?
Respondents visit local parks and recreation facilities for a variety of reasons. The most popular activities are visiting the
beach and waterfront (83%), walking or running (76%), followed by relaxation (61%), playgrounds (41%) and fitness
(40%). Approximately one in three respondents visited for community events/concerts (37%), wildlife viewing (36%),
dog walking (35%), or family gatherings (34%). Fewer than 7% of respondents visit to use indoor sport courts, fishing or
the Underwater Dive Park. Write-in responses included activities such as pickleball, photography and birdwatching.
5. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, what would you say are the main reasons your household visited Edmonds parks, recreation
facilities or open spaces in the past year? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Beach / waterfront 82.9%
Walking or running 77.5%
Relaxation 60.8%
Playgrounds 40.6%
Fitness 39.5%
Community events / concerts
36.6%
Wildlife viewing
' 36.1%
Dog walking
34.7%
Family gatherings / picnicking
34.4%
Recreation programs, classes or camps
001111M 26.4%
Swimming
20.1%
Bike riding
i 19.3%
Youth sport programs, including summer...
19.1%
Outdoor sport courts
18.1%
Sport fields
18.1%
Watersports / canoeing / kayaking 10.5%
Other . 7.2%
Fishing at the pier 6.2%
Indoor sport courts 5.3%
Underwater Dive Park 3.7%
N/A— I didn't use any Edmonds facilities 11.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DRAFT 155
Packet Pg. 171
DRAFT
5.A.a
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Page 5
With a few exceptions, respondents who responded to the online -only survey visited recreation facilities and parks for
similar reasons as respondents to the mail survey in similar percentages. However, slightly more online respondents
visited for playgrounds (45%), recreation programs (30%), or youth sport programs and camps (22%).
Respondents between 35 and 54 were more likely than other groups to visit for playgrounds, sports fields, outdoor sport
courts, swimming and recreation programs. Several activities, including family gatherings, walking or running,
beach/waterfront, wildlife viewing, and relaxation were similarly popular with all age groups. Respondents with children
in their home were more likely to visit for playgrounds, sport fields, outdoor sport courts, recreation programs, and
youth camps than respondents without children. No significant differences were noted in responses between
respondents living in different areas of the city.
Are residents satisfied with the number and variety of park and recreation options?
Majorities of respondents feel that there are enough or more than enough of only a few types of park and recreation
options offered by Edmonds, including developed parks with playgrounds, sport fields and picnic areas. In all,
respondents feel there are not enough trails, pools and conservation areas — suggesting an existing, latent demand for
facilities of these types. Walking and pedestrian trails had the strongest responses that 'not enough' being provided.
Respondents have fairly balanced views on the provision of recreation programs, indoor gymnasium space and
community events.
2. When it comes to meeting the needs for parks, trails and recreation facilities, would you say there are...
Walking / pedestrian trails 31.5% 051.
Pools 30.0%
Park conservation areas & open space 35.3% 1.6%
Community events (such as the Concerts in the Park) r' . 42.5% JJ.194
Picnic areas & shelters 46.6° .8%
Bike trails in parks 22.8%
Indoor gymnasium space 27.1% .6
Sport fields & sport courts 44.8%
Recreation programs (camps & classes) 37.1% 5
Developed parks with playgrounds 60.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
■ Not enough About the right number ■ More than enough ■ Don't Know
In general, middle-aged year respondents (those between 35 and 54 years of age) were more likely than respondents
over 55 to feel there are not enough recreation programs, walking trails, pools, and developed parks with playgrounds.
Respondents with children under 18 in their home were more likely than adult -only householders to feel the City does
not have enough bike trails in parks, sport fields and courts, recreation programs and indoor gymnasium space.
Respondents living in the southeast area (south of 220th St SW and east of Esperance) noted a higher need for
developed parks with playgrounds, recreation programs, indoor gymnasium space and conservation areas.
156
Packet Pg. 172
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds Page 6
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
How would residents rate the condition of Edmonds' parks and recreation facilities?
Respondents were asked to rate the condition of a 3. How would you rate the condition of each of the following parks
variety of park and recreation facilities on a scale from or recreation facilities?
poor to excellent. Respondents gave
overwhelming high marks to the Waterfront parks in downtown Edmonds 9.9%II
condition the onwaterfront parks ® o
In downtown
n Edmonds. Your nearest, local city park % 16.6/0
Majorities of respondents identified their
local city park (76%), city playgrounds
(63%), trails in parks (55%) and the
Frances Anderson Center (56%) as in
either excellent or good condition. Of the
facilities listed, Yost Pool and sport fields
and courts had lower condition ratings,
and both of these facilities also had the
highest percentage of 'Not Sure/No
Opinion' compared to the other facilities.
There were no significant variations in
Frances Anderson Center 9 M EL 40.6% 21.4% ' M
Playgrounds 16.3% I -
Trails in parks 29wr 29.0%
Yost Pool H-W 19.4%
Sport fields &courts A m
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
■ Excellent ■ Good Fair ■ Poor ■ Not Sure / No Opinion
how respondents rated the condition of
parks and facilities based on age. Respondents from the southeast area (south of 220th St SW and east of Esperance)
noted a higher frequency of 'fair' or 'poor' ratings for 'your nearest local park', playgrounds and trails. Respondents with
two or more children in the household were more likely to give higher 'poor' ratings for sport fields and courts.
What park and recreation options do residents have a need for? Do they feel their needs are met?
The survey asked a question regarding needs for certain park and recreation facilities. A pair of questions asked which
park and recreation facilities and amenities the respondent's household has a need for, and then, whether that need is
well met, somewhat met, or unmet locally.
Of the specific list of amenities provided, 30% of respondents indicated that the highest unmet need is for pedestrian
and bike trails (84%) and an aquatic facility or pool (65%). Pluralities of respondents indicated a need for a variety of
amenities including:
• Indoor fitness & exercise facilities
• Community gardens
• Upgraded or renovated playgrounds
• Outdoor fitness equipment
• Off -leash dog areas (dog parks)
• Additional picnic shelters for group gatherings
• Additional tennis & pickleball courts
Respondents indicated only a limited need for basketball courts and sport fields (rectangular, diamond and lighted), and
many respondents noted these amenities as being 'very well met' by existing facilities.
Overall, strong majorities of respondents feel that their need are either 'very well met' or 'somewhat met' for every
recreation amenity listed in the survey. Four facility types were noted as being 'not at all met' by between 20%-30% of
respondents; these include community gardens, outdoor fitness equipment, pool, and lighted sport fields. For
community gardens and outdoor fitness equipment, there was no significant difference between age groups or
households with/without children, indicating an underlying strength in the general sentiment for need.
DRAFT 157
Packet Pg. 173
DRAFT
5.A.a
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Page 7
Respondents between 35 and 44 expressed a greater need for an aquatic or pool facility. Respondents without children
under 18 indicated a slightly higher need for a disc golf course. Respondents living in the southeastern portion of the city
indicated a higher need for sport fields, indoor fitness facilities, and upgraded playgrounds. Respondents to the random
sample mail survey expressed higher levels of need for all listed park amenities and facilities, especially for picnic areas
and off -leash dog parks, as compared to the online -only survey.
6/7. Does your household have a need for each of the park and recreation amenities or facilities listed below? Using the same
list of items from above, how well are your household's needs met locally for each of the park or recreation facilities?
Have Need
Community gardens 38.2% � 46.4%
Outdoor fitness equipment
Aquatic facility / pool
Lighted, all-weather turf sport fields
Indoor fitness & exercise facilities
Additional tennis & pickleball courts
All -abilities, inclusive playgrounds
Additional basketball courts
Pedestrian & bike trails in parks
Additional fields for soccer, football & lacrosse
Additional fields for baseball / softball
45.4% �
42.4%
50.6% �
1%
65.5%
_%
31.3 %
50.9% �
48.8%
I Am
45.9%
37.0%
45.0%
26.3 %
19.6%
"6.68.9%
84.3%
45.6%
27.5%
42.1%
18.7%
Off -leash dog areas (dog parks) ■ 45.0% INEEMPLA 40.9%
Upgraded or renovated playgrounds 49.0% 42.7%
Additional picnic shelters for group gatherings ' 54.2% 37.6%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
■ Not At All Met Somewhat Met ■ Very Well Met
What recreation options do residents have a need for?
When it comes to recreational programs and activities, respondents expressed a greater need for community events
(56%) and program and activities geared toward youth. In particular, respondents had a higher interest in outdoor
programs such as environmental education (46%), youth day camps (41%) and youth sport programs (40%). Modest
need was indicated for most of the other program options listed, with the exception of e-sport leagues.
Respondents between 20 and 44 and those with children in the household were more likely to state a strong interest for
outdoor programs, youth sports, teen and youth programs. Consistently high need was noted across all age groups for
community events.
158
Packet Pg. 174
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
9/10. Please indicate if your household has participated or used each of the listed recreation program types in the past two
years. Using the same list, indicate if there should be more or less of each available.
Community events, such as the Concerts in
the Park or outdoor movies
Outdoor programs, including Beach Rangers
or environmental education
Youth programs, such as summer day camps,
arts or gymnastics
Youth sports programs and camps
Adult classes, such as arts, music, fitness or
60.8%
wellness
Teen activities, such as game nights, trips or
62.3% I
camps during school breaks
Family programs, such as scavenger hunts
Adult sports leagues, such as volleyball,
pickleball or softball
E-sports leagues
0% 50% 100%
■ More Needed ■ Current Offerings are Adequate ■ Fewer Needed
Have Participated
68.9%
34.1 %
40.2 %
37.3%
40.6%
7.8 %
19.3 %
15.7 %
2.2 %
Page 8
Respondents were also asked why they do not participate in recreation or sports programs offered by Edmonds. One in
three responded that they were not aware of program offerings, suggesting a significant opportunity for the City to
improve information and outreach. Between 15% and 20% of respondents cited a lack of desired activities (17%), being
too busy (20%) or having age or physical limitations (21%) as the reasons they do not participate. There were no
significant differences in responses based on geographic subgroups.
11. If you do not participate in recreation or sports programs offered by Edmonds, what are your reasons? (Check all that apply)
N/A — Does not apply to me
M 38.6%
Not aware of programs
29.3%
Age or physical limitations
21.2%
Too busy; no time
20.3%
Don't have activities I'm interested in
— 17.2%
Held at inconvenient times
12.9%
Do not want to participate
11.8%
Need childcare in order to participate
8.6%
Too expensive
6.8%
Held at inconvenient locations
■ 4.6%
Poor quality of programs
' 2.3%
Team sport leagues are too small or...'
1.6%
Lack of transportation
10.7%
0% 25% 50%
Reason
Mail
Onlin
N/A - Does not apply to me
31%
42%
Not aware of programs
34%
27%
Age or physical limitations
32%
17%
Too busy; no time
21%
20%
Don't have activities I'm interested in
16%
18%
Held at inconvenient times
10%
14%
Do not want to participate
13%
11%
Need childcare in order to participate
5%
10%
Too expensive
6%
7%
Held at inconvenient locations
5%
4%
Poor quality of programs
2%
2%
Team sport leagues are too small or
are often cancelled
1%
2%
Lack of transportation
<1%
1%
DRAFT 159
Packet Pg. 175
DRAFT
5.A.a
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
What recreation and park investments would residents prioritize?
Page 9
Respondents were asked to rank a list of potential 8. For the following list, indicate how you would rank the priority for
recreation, park and open space investments. each (15t priority is highest and 5th priority is lowest). Reorder the list by
Respondents to both the mail and online survey dragging each line into your preferred order of preference.
ranked the same items as
their top three priorities: Mail Online
expanding trail 1. Expanding trail opportunities
1. Buying additional land for future parks
Opportunities, improving or 2. Improving or upgrading existing parks
2. Improving or upgrading existing parks
upgrading existing parks,
and buying additional land 3. Buying additional land for future parks
3. Expanding trail opportunities
for future parks. Mail 4. Adding new recreational options in existing parks
4. Adding new recreational options in existing parks
survey respondents were 5. Expanding recreation classes & camps
5. Expanding recreation classes & camps
more strongly supportive of
expanding trail opportunities, by Buying additional land for future parks
16.4% 15.5% 14.6%
approximately ten percentage
points. Respondents in both the Improving or upgrading existing parks
25.7% 27.2% 16.3%
mail and online surveys ranked
providing recreational programs
Expanding trail opportunities
24.8% 22.3% 20.0% M
as their lowest priority.
There were few differences in Adding new recreational options in existing
priorities between subgroups. parks
Respondents with children in their Expanding recreation classes & camps
home tended to rate improving
existing parks as a higher priority
than those without children in the
home. Respondents did not vary
significant in their priorities depending on which part of the city they live in.
Investment and revenue priorities
® 23.7% 22.9% 25.4%
0 9..w 12.4% 22.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
■ 1st ■ 2nd 3rd 4th ■ 5th
Respondents were asked to rank a list of potential recreation, park and open space investments that included
hypothetical relative costs as indicated by the use of dollar symbols ($) for each system investment. Generally,
respondents to both the mail and online survey ranked improving existing parks, completing the Waterfront Walkway
near Ebb Tide Condos, and acquiring additional land for conservation and open space as their top priorities.
Respondents to the online -only survey ranked building a new aquatic center more favorably than the mail survey
respondents.
Respondents of different ages prioritized the investment options similarly, with the exception of building a new aquatic
center, which was a higher priority for respondents between 35 and 44. Respondents with children in their home tended
to rate building a new aquatic center higher than those without children in the home, who were more likely to rate
completing the Waterfront Walkway and buying additional conservation lands as higher priorities. Respondents did not
vary significantly in their priorities depending on which part of the city they live in, with a couple exceptions. Those living
in the southeastern area rated improving existing parkland as a higher priority. Those living in the southwestern area
and downtown waterfront were more supportive of buying and expanding the Marsh property.
160
Packet Pg. 176
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Page 10
13. Next is a list of improvements and facilities that may be considered for the future. Each one would be funded by your tax dollars.
For each item, indicate whether you think that type of facilities should be a Top Priority, a High Priority, a Low Priority or Not a
Priority at all. Costs are estimated as: $ (somewhat expensive); $$ (moderate); $$$ (very expensive)
Highest 1
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lowest
6.
Improve existing parkland ( $ )
Complete the Waterfront Walkway section
on west side of Ebb Tide Condos ( $$ )
Buy additional parks for conservation & open
space ( $$ )
Buy additional parkland ($$$ )
Buy & expand the Marsh property toward
Woodway ($$$)
Build a new aquatic center ( $$$ )
1. Improve existing parkland ( $ )
2. Buy additional parks for conservation & open
space ( $$ )
3. Complete the Waterfront Walkway section
on west side of Ebb Tide Condos ( $$ )
4. Build a new aquatic center ( $$$ )
5. Buy additional parkland ( $$$ )
6. Buy & expand the Marsh property toward
Woodway ($$$)
Improve existing parkland ( $ )
45.8% 16.39�
Complete the Waterfront Walkway section on
34.5%
27.3% M
west side of Ebb Tide Condos ( $$)
Buy additional parks for conservation & open
33.4%
27.1% M
space ( $$)
Build a new aquatic center ( $$$)
19.3%
24.3%
Buy additional parkland ( $$$)
28.8%
32.9%
Buy & expand the Marsh property toward
23.0%
In
38.2%
Woodway ($$$ )
0% 25% so%
75% 100%
■ Top Priority ■ High Priority ■ Low Priority ■ Not a Priority
Are residents willing to support increased taxes to fund new amenities and experiences?
Given a choice between raising taxes to develop an amenity in Edmonds versus not having such a facility in the city,
slight majorities supported more taxes for two of five amenities tested: buying additional parks for conservation and
open space (64%) and building an aquatic center (53%). Strong majorities were not in favor of increasing taxes to
support installing all-weather turf sport fields, developing a bike skills course or providing an off -leash dog park.
DRAFT 161
Packet Pg. 177
DRAFT
5.A.a
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Respondents with children at home were
significantly more likely that those without
to support increasing taxes for all
improvements other than buy additional
parks for conservation (which received
similarly high support levels). However, and
aside from buying additional park for
conservation, building an aquatic center was
the only other option for which more than
half of respondents with children supported
raising taxes. Respondents 35 to 44 years of
age were somewhat more likely than other
age groups to support raising taxes to fund
an aquatic center or to install all-weather
sport fields. There were no significant
differences based on respondents' location
of residence.
Page 11
12. There may be some park and recreation experiences that are limited or not
available in Edmonds but are available in neighboring communities. If it came
down to a choice between increasing taxes to develop that facility in Edmonds
versus not having that in Edmonds, which would you choose?
Buy additional parks for conservation &
open space
Build an aquatic center
Install all-weather sport fields
Develop a bike skills course / pump track
Provide off -leash dog park(s)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
■ Increase Taxes ■ Not in Edmonds
How do residents want to hear about Edmonds' parks, facilities, programs and events?
The majority of respondents prefer to hear about
Edmonds' parks, facilities, and programs through the
City website (67%) and the City's newsletter (53%).
The Craze recreation program guide (in print and
mailed to homes) and direct are also popular sources
of information, preferred by a plurality of
respondents. These sources were popular with
respondents to both the mail and online -only surveys.
Fewer than two in five respondents would like to hear
about park and recreation opportunities through
community event signs (34) social media (e.g.,
Facebook (33%), Instagram (15%), and Twitter (7%)).
However, social media, including Facebook and
Instagram, is a significantly more popular source of
information for respondents between 35 and 54 and
for families with children. The city newsletter, city
website and community event signs are preferred at
higher rates by older respondents. There were no
significant differences in communication preferences
among those living in different areas of the city.
14. Please check ALL the ways you would prefer to learn about
Edmonds' parks, programs and events.
City website 67.2%
Update in Edmonds city newsletter 53.1%
Craze recreation program guide in... 49.8%
Direct email 43.0%
Community event signs
34.0%
Facebook
32.8%
Craze recreation program guide online...
- 25.6%
Instagram
14.7%
Other
1r 8.1%
Write-in responses included the Edmonds News and Edmonds Beacon.
Twitter . 7.0%
None of these 11.6%
0% 25% 50%
75 %
162
Packet Pg. 178
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Other Comments
Page 12
The survey provided respondents with an opportunity to share their ideas and suggestions via open-ended responses
Over 270 respondents provided written comments related to park visitation and preferred media channels. Common
themes from these comments include:
• Respondents noted a range of other activities that bring them to Edmonds' parks and facilities. These include
photography, being in nature, petanque/bocce, wildlife viewing and pickleball.
• Additional media channels noted included My Edmonds News and the Beacon.
The full list of write-in comments is available with the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department.
DRAFT 163
Packet Pg. 179
DRAFT
5.A.a
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Demographics
Number of children in household
Page 13
A majority (75%) of respondents to the mail survey live in households with no children under 18, while about one in five
live in a household with either one (11%) or two (10%) children. Less than four percent of respondents live in a
household with more than three children. Online -only survey respondents were more likely to live in households with
children than respondents to the mail survey.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Mail survey responses Online -only survey responses
0 1 2 3 or more
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 or more
Age
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the mail survey (65%) were over 55 years of age. Another 15% were 45 to 54 years.
Respondents to the online -only survey also were predominately over 55 years old (44%); however, there were more
responses from younger respondents with 34% of responses from those 20-44 years, versus 19% in the mail survey.
Mail survey responses
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Online -only survey responses
30%
25%
20%
5%
0% , 0%
Younger 20 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and Younger 20 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and
than 20 older than 20 older
Location of residence
Nearly equal percentages of respondents were collected in each of the five geographic areas between the mail and
online surveys. The mail survey had six responses from people who indicated that they live outside of city limits.
However, a slightly higher portion of online -only respondents (9.5%) do not live in the city.
Q
164
Packet Pg. 180
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Mail survey responses
( A) N of ( B) S of 196th ( C) W of 9th (D) S of 220th (E) S of 220th Don't live
Caspers St / St SW, N of Ave, S of St SW, W of St SW, E of inside the city
Puget Dr 220th St SW, E Caspers St Esperance Esperance limits of
of 9th Ave Edmonds
Location Map
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Page 14
Online -only survey responses
(A)N of (B)Sof196th (C)Wof9th (D)Sof22Dth(E)Sof220th Don't live
Caspers St / St SW, N of Ave, S of St SW, W of St SW, E of inside the city
Puget Dr 220th St SW, E Caspers St Esperance Esperance limits of
of 9th Ave Edmonds
N
N
O
O
V_
O
Iq
>I
co
O
w
IL
I
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
z
0
Q
DRAFT 165
Packet Pg. 181
DRAFT
5.A.a
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
ATTACHMENT 1. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
r Community Survey on Parks and Recreation
Fns IYrtV
Dear Edmonds Resrdentr
The City of Etlmorkds is hginning a Community -led process to update its citywide Recreation, Parks and Open
Space Plia n (PROS Plan, for short), We need your hel p to dete rmine how to prioritize projects a nd what we shou Id
focus on to keep o u r parks a nd programs thriving for the next 6-10 years, As a n Inilti al step, the City is conducting
this short survey to assess the community's recreation needs. we understand that COVID-15 has impacted your
a bi lity to participate i n prof rams and visit parks this year, We ask that you consider needs for t he am�
futuro as you oval uate rimmation amen Ities, Your opinions a re im porta nt to thQ Clty.The survey has L5 questions and will anlytake a few minutes to comprete, Ilse the OR code to
take this survey anIIne at httos.//y ww,survewmonkey.com/r/EdmgndsPROS
1 , When you think about what cantriWt�es to the quality of life in Edmonds. would you say that Put4ic parks
and recreation opportunities are... ( CHECK ONE OMON )
❑ Essential to [he quality of life here ❑ Not important
In Important, but rat really essential ❑ oon°t know
Cl Useful, but not r*ces"fy
2- when It comes to maeting the needs for parks, trails and recreation facllimm, would you say there are...
( CHECK ONLY ONE BOX IN EACH ROW )
Nara khan
ruronjrK
AarAthr
%jk 8—
Mo45naupl
4OIr4iP`4Y!
jira"ad"k. .eih rhYRrd'aAi
❑
❑''I
❑
❑
w,Ik..efp.d..e.un lr+k
❑
0
❑
❑
At.1—h u.Iui kt
I ❑
❑
❑
❑
spotntm,& omk cn h
❑
1 ❑
❑
11
pink ■.—Y, thelscn
❑
❑
❑
1--1
�[rMllwr pia �am[{ump`id�nesf
C[
o
❑
❑
S&rNrulrier*v h lwth■1 the C&xkdl in lM Wrkl
❑
❑
❑
E]
Nwt
❑
❑
❑
❑
1`❑l
1�1
❑'1
0
1
0
❑
❑
Fnh [t�n�awl~n erraF 6 agen �pxr
Fickw would ygu rate the condition of each of the following parks or recreation faciit[ies?
F..[ dL.rn
fiam
F.h
F,
H" 5'xF J
IW niun
Your nNrv". ICK41 itY rW4
I ❑
❑
❑
❑
11
N'r., fray.[ pm6 ir.'...__..-i
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
Frei... And—. C.mfr
❑
❑
❑
❑I
Elm.[
Vedl
❑'1
❑1
El
❑1
3pa1 ��Ntl43 awris
❑
i❑i
Il
❑
El❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
[+aYRounA ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Page 15
166
Packet Pg. 182
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
E
Save a stamp Use the QR code and take this survey an line:
%Sr cnnri it bar k ,n 1 ha o-ncinierl Rntur n•Reptp pmalnpq prpykf!ai_ Thank ynP In ado rim fqr pariiclpptingl
ila,o
4. Prior to the (OVIQ• 14 pandemic, how often did ypu visit pr use Edmonds park$, recreation facilities {Such
as the Frances Anderson Center) or open space?
❑
Everyday ❑ A few thane over the year
O
At least orle5e a week o Oa not visit facilities 1 parks / open spaces
❑
TWo or more times a month ❑ Don't know
❑
AbOvK 0Xe a mgnxh
5. Prior to the COV10-19 pandemic, what would you say are the main reasons your household visited Edmonds
parks, recreation facilities or apen spaces in the past year? { CHECK ALL THAT APPLY }
❑
Fitness O
Outdoor sport courts
❑
Playgrounds ❑
Indoor sport courts
❑
Walking or running ❑
Beach ► waterfront
❑
Bike riding ❑
Underwater bhre Park
❑
ape walking ❑
Waterspws I c:an00ii1q f kayaking
❑
Fatuity gatherings f picnicking ❑
Wildlife viewing
❑
Community events f romerts ❑
Fishing at the pier
❑
Recreation programs, oases or camps p
Swimming
❑
Ybuth sport programs, inctuding summer sport camps ❑
Relaxation
❑
$part fields 4
NIA - I didn't use any Edmonds facilities
d
4Uler.
6, Please indicate if your household has a need for each of the park and recreation options listed below AND
irtdacate VOW Well Yinr neegj ere met lineally today
WE
'�'`l�P
'Airy+ W off
Mr,
50+Nwh1M
Mai
Mae Ri All
,Art
A-Wb-1 Frtnk 3ulers rol VovpY#thr..rrp
0
0
❑
❑
❑
tlprttJdnd ar ri mralcd pl1 V &L06 k
I
O
❑
M
Q
hII �Mhrn, nrkrs•,e p4Wmnib
0
()
a01z
P*Aa PW-D W-r Trails'"paib
0
0
❑
❑
❑
YdEif 6lrbm AL ftwow Imums
0
❑
a
0
Outdwr rflrw$s aWKrnrnt
0
O
❑
❑
❑
on.rast`"". (datrutrl
0
C)
❑
❑
Q
{ammur qV Wdrm
0
0
❑
❑
❑
AAdeldrWbmkrrbahtaurt%
0
O
13
❑
Q
bOtlhsenal tonne S pretlrtwH causes
❑
❑
❑
AAdarow ll"fine cocain. f&VtkbH l lYrgy
V
❑
❑
❑
Aiilau r,.l rrrkh ire hrxlull� x,illull
0
0
❑
❑
❑
1 l�tlaU, as weallrr#lurfoA ruHAi
0
❑
❑
❑
Page 16
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 183
DRAFT
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
Community Survey on Park & Recreation Preferences
J. For the following list, indlcatr how you would rank the priority for each �1 st priority is highest and
5th priority is lowest). Mark eech ranking number only once.
WkCC ash PLgrNyOf0.rfl11[E
HANW lWietN LCwril plier"
ism !nd Id 4Ih SHi
Eo-ft hm w
lyp
Ndlin; nrx rrpMn}nal oporons in mbllnl part
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
liWk%Mn4nnl And Mr rWurr pAiis
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
bod- +tlmiloq�rarWM4i
❑
❑
❑
❑
LJ
r❑�T
LJ
ImPW rc M wpgradmx¢Ktlmz pa kI
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
}'W'i'eaeaSbn [4fsn&[an`Rs
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
U. Please indicate if your hvusn: hold has uarticivated or weed each of the listed recreaton provram
types in the past iwa years AND i ndicate if there -hauld be more or less of each anal lable.
Nivev"panii*wed f$hmuF3uerrhe more nrleft ottkktTo*
LBedbin Urn pm Z ymni d}•CHvkydr pVnnm anllrbh?
rri
rw
A*� cia"MI cflwkv
rrr}�-a-rd Pr Ad.na.d
fr,�.r
Meed.d
AWR;InsM,SLPh M aft nerd hLn!211�4Pr v RWw
LJ ❑
❑
AduklGr,ri9wdsah wPryb+L *hLrhaN*iiohbil
0 ❑
❑
[ eirur,sb+INes
Yg1r9h PWaunr5whskwmrrMr orrfamq%"W P" ks
0
❑ ❑
0 0
❑
❑
Vou,h,pans powmm and coaps
{-�
Q
❑ ❑
❑
YwrL.dwichK woh 4agwrN wltlrsk d,us ar rwnrs durrj srhwi anaFs
{0
kJ
}{ }
0
0
I
�❑
0 ❑
�4 ❑
❑
❑
(MAftr Mfkia^"S lni k4ml Wt hMnarLS nr fllH� MW9,l..i���,i u���
Corrivwi." e~is, ivSh,s Lh4{ar.umvP the P4vk a rdq{r maneL
Fim4r POPJ'a. yrrh asxmTpei ,�inof
❑
9. If you do not pSltic 1pety In recroation or sports proFmm offered by Edmond, what are your
reasons? lPleasew check al I that apply-}
❑ NIA - ❑cis rKL apply to mp O Team wort te*g1je3 are tav small or are often ranizellpcl
❑ Age ur physicat limltatluns ❑ Need chii&dre in ardor ka ParliciW].W
❑ Hat aware Of Programs 0 Do not want ro Panic; fiate
❑ Ek3n't have activities I'm imerested in 0 Tao busy; no time
❑ Poor quality of programs 0 Lack of transportation
❑ HeLd at lnc, nvenienr rimm ❑ Tao &?pensive
0 Held at inconvenient locations
70_ Them may he same park and recreation eYpprlenires that are limlted nr net availahle in Edmonds but
are available in neighboring communities. If it came down to a choke 1 et n Ineresing taxis to
dove lop that facility In Edmonds versus not having that in Edmonds, which would you choasmf
I�
L,x
NR Ir.
UW4& k
tilt aY-w"61- �,
❑
❑
lWy addn-�A prb io, oorwrra iom 9 op m %Lke
❑
vlo„Ar dl Irnh dos pwbb(
❑
❑
6UNdAh M"1t ieMft
❑
V""p0ti"Wlh[awwfwmCkrA*
❑
❑
Page 17
168
Packet Pg. 184
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
City of Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Survey (2021)
11. Next is a list of improvements and facilities that may be considered for the future, Each One Would be
funded by your tax dollars, For each item, indicate whether you think that type of facilities should Ire a
Top Priority, a High Priori ty, a Low Priority or Not a Priority at all. Grits are esti mated as. 5 {somewhat
expensive}: $$ (mderatel. $ (very t%Wnslve}-
r"
wNh
tw
NM •
PFkrhy
6..r.d�ak��+.l�rsa�9sssl
❑
❑
❑
❑
h�..rs.si.Il pa�Hr�d{raj
0
0
❑
rd oral jwk% for ccnsmikl &opm Lpma IS51
❑
❑
❑
Q
— rl —
IJ
CDnyinte ow Yrahvfiant Ye&%w w ism on+ k std■ of No 7W{mdoa{SS1
&.F w wap,nu.i,e n;.�.h p�vP.ey,owru;:mdw�iS$$ I
❑
U
I❑-t
Lj
❑ a
r_1
I U
&'w A I�igwek Comm t,41
❑
❑
❑
1 1
12, Please check ALL the ways you would prefer to learn about Edmonds' parks, prasrams and everlts,
❑
City weWte
❑
Twitter
❑
Updamr in Edm6n& city riewv Le tmr
❑
MST3"m
❑
GRAZE recreat`m program gulde mailed to home
❑
direct ernait
❑
CRAZE recreation program 1juide ontine only
❑
Community event sh3iis
❑
Facehoak
❑
Norw of these
❑
Other;
The follovnng questions help us underswnd whether we have a crass -section of the community responding to
this survwy. It's important that you provide a rospons+a to each question,
13. How many children u rider age IS live in your householdF
❑ 0 ❑ 2
❑ 1 ❑ 3 or more
14_ What is your ar?
❑ Yi ?unger than 20 ❑ 55 to 64
❑ 20 to 34 ❑ 65 aiid 74
❑ 35 to 41 ❑ 75 and ateler
❑ 45 to 54
15. In which section of Edmonds rio you Him?
0 l A 1 N of Caspers 5k J Puget Dr
❑ ( B ) S of 196Lh St SWI N of 220th 5t SW, E of 9th Ave
❑ I; C 1 W of 4th Ave. 5 of Caspers St
❑ l Q 15 of 220th St SW, W of Fsprrame
❑ I E 15 of 22Dth 5t 5W. E of Esperur"tce
❑ 0on't live inside the city limits of Edmonds
Thank you for taking ttie time to compk o nis sur M I
Your input will hula tuldrthe drrarapment or the Edmonds Pa-bL Rarroatim& 4pn--I Space flan p �
Tirl i this Sur4o+r onilno with the CLR coda Or A. hs#l,+,i:llwww. U0rev_mgdL1 w%S2M 1r1EdmUrM:kPRQ �
won nnurr allM Idrn" porky, trail i„ d prWamr and nay InLormvd abuyt
khq Parks, RacrvaUan & Op9M Spiv plan pr ,Sat hMK:lfadrnandswa sov 0
The City of Wmon& a wing the me i( s otl a owsukad team who spe6alims.n part and reXreadon v4wlej
ryfay4 rablm ypur sonrpt�Md Fwvel' In tl1* M`5144�d r4#wmryR�Y Enwi4Plr FddryFfed bp=
gnslry�d9rTe[fialx In{
P780K8S5
06M,ii, C4 W%3
Page 18
DRAFT 169
Packet Pg. 185
DRAFT
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 186
Mimi.
APPENDIX C
ONLINE MEETIN
SUMMARY #1
N
N
O
O
O
qe
>I
CO)
O
w
a
w
I
0
E
V
w
m
E
s
R
Q
171
Packet Pg. 187
DRAFT
City of Edmonds PROS Plan
Community meeting summary
Date: 7/22/2021
Time: 6:30-7:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual Meeting
The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRCS) team hosted the first community meeting for the
PROS Plan update using Zoom on July 22, 2021.
The Edmonds PRCS team promoted the meeting through City communication channels, email, and social media.
Meeting information was provided in simplified Chinese, English, Korean and Spanish. The Edmonds PRCS team also
promoted the event to community -based partners.
20 community members participated in the meeting. A list of attendees and participants is included in Appendix A.
The purpose of this meeting was to engage the public in the process of creating the Edmonds Parks, Recreation &
Open Space (PROS) Plan. The project team provided live interpretation for members of the Chinese-, Korean-, and
Spanish-speaking communities. Tammy Leigh DeMent, facilitator, started the meeting by introducing the project,
welcoming attendees, and providing instructions for asking questions and participating in Chinese, English, Korean,
and Spanish. The project team gave a brief plan overview, highlighted previous city and community plans,
summarized upcoming community engagement opportunities, and outlined the planning timeline. They then
engaged the group in multiple polling and discussion sessions.
Project Overview
Angie Feser, Edmonds Director of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services (PRCS) provided the PROS Plan overview. She
introduced Edmonds PROS Plan as a 6-year guide for helping the City manage and improve its parks, recreation
programs, and other outdoor experiences. The PROS Plan looks to the future and will establish goals, identify
specific projects and ideas on how to implement projects.
Angie shared the PROS Plan will explore the City's strengths, areas for parks improvement, and how the City aspires
to meet the community's needs for park and recreation today and into the future. She added that the plan will build
upon Edmonds' tradition of community -based planning, including the Community Cultural Plan, Climate Action Plan,
Transportation Plan, and the Highway 99 Plan.
The planning timeline spans about 9 months, with a draft of the updated PROS Plan before the end of 2021 and City
Council review in early 2022. The PRCS team is engaging the Edmonds community through a survey in four
languages, tonight's virtual meeting (also in four languages), attendance at local events (like the Uptown Farmers
Market) to share information, and through group discussions with recreation program users and City partners.
Angie shared parks facts as context setting for the constraints and aspirations of the PROS Plan. Highlights include:
172
Packet Pg. 188
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
• Edmonds provides 47 parks across the city, with over 230 acres of parks and open space
• It operates numerous sport fields and sport courts, and
• The City manages over 4 miles of trails, including a one -mile trail along the waterfront
• The City has 6 waterfront beaches and a fishing pier
• Before the pandemic, the City accommodated over 8,000 users in its recreation programs; and
• The City has multiple facilities for use or rent, including the Anderson Center, Waterfront Center and park
picnic shelters
• The City offers amazing recreational activities and places that Enhance the Quality of Life & Livability in
Edmonds. This ranges from community events, to playgrounds, to open spaces and trails. It also includes
Yost Pool, recreation programs, picnic and sport areas, and the Underwater (SCUBA) Park.
Angie acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted how people use parks and participate in programs
and activities. She emphasized that the PRCS team is using this time to plan improvements for the future and that
the planning process is just beginning. This meeting is not about decision -making, but rather for community input.
The feedback gathered during the meeting will add to the information gleaned from the community survey.
Poll No. 1: COVID-19 has had an impact on how we recreate. Park usage increased over the past year. What are
you excited about doing more of?
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
0%
Exercising Activities at the Community
Playing
Summer camps Spending time
Anderson Center events and
organized sports
with friends and
festivals
family outdoors
Community Survey
Angie shared that the City launched a community survey in June and so far, more than 1,500 people have
responded. She encouraged participants to take the survey on the website. (Note: the survey will close August 27)
edmondswa.gov/government/departments/parks recreation cultural services
Survey highlights:
99 percent of respondents said parks and recreation are either essential or important to the quality of life in
Edmonds.
• Going to the beach or waterfront and walking or running are the top reasons for visiting city parks.
2
DRAFT 173
Packet Pg. 189
DRAFT
5.A.a
• Survey respondents visit Edmonds parks and open space frequently, with 81 percent visiting parks and
facilities monthly and about two-thirds visiting weekly.
• Priorities include improving existing parks, completing the waterfront walkway and other trail connections,
and buying additional open space lands.
• High -demand amenities include community events, trails, community gardens, and a pool.
Poll No. 2: Survey results to date show a strong interest in making improvements to existing parks. Select your LOP
three parks where you think the City should focus additional improvements.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Mathay Ballinger Marina Beach Park Pine Street Park Sierra Park Yost Memorial Park
Park
Question and Answer Session One
Tammy Leigh invited participants to share their feedback on parks they currently use and opportunities for
improvements. Below is a summary of comments. A full list of comments and questions is in Appendix B.
Comment highlights:
• Provide context for the cost of programming vs. location improvements so that people taking the survey can
better understand the funding decision -making process.
• Explain why only five parks are included in the polling question for priority projects. (Angie explained that
including all of Edmonds parks in a poll was not possible so the focus remained on five parks currently
identified for improvements.).
• Add parks and open space to the SR 99 corridor.
• Invest in areas outside of the "bowl".
• Add bike related activities in parks such as a pump track and a skills course.
• Provide activities for age groups other than young children, specifically for teens and older adults
• Consider bathroom facilities at parks.
• Acquire forested areas threatened by development and add open space throughout the city.
3
174
Packet Pg. 190
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
• Manage invasive plants.
• Evaluate use levels of facilities for organized sports such as Pine St Park which has a little -used baseball field
• Make improvements at Marina Beach Park such as more kayak and paddleboard launch sites, fewer
restrictions for kayaking and paddle boarding, more accessible parking spaces, relocation of portable
bathroom facilities, and more beach volleyball.
• Make improvements at Mathay Ballinger Park including more picnic areas, seating, ADA access, and parking
improvements.
Poll No. 3: We also heard interest in the City acquiring more conservation lands and open space. What types of
conservation lands should the City prioritize acquiring?
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Forested uplands Freshwater Lake Ballinger Saltwater beaches & Wetlands &
creeksides access waterfront marshlands
Poll No. 4: The City offers many community events. Survey results showed strong interest in events. What types
of events should the city focus on?
• 82% - Smaller, more intimate events, such as outdoor movies, uptown evening market, Hazel Miller Plaza
summer concerts
• 18% - Big events such as 4th of July parade and fireworks, Edmonds Classic Car Show, farmers markets
Poll No. 5: With COVID restrictions being lifted and 'normal' is coming back, does your household have a need for
summertime day camps, childcare and camps during school holidays?
• 46% - No
• 36% - Yes
• 15%- Not sure
4
DRAFT 175
Packet Pg. 191
DRAFT
Question and Answer Session Two
Tammy Leigh encouraged participants to share thoughts and ideas for the future of Edmonds parks.
Comment highlights:
Add more parks, services, and facilities in the SR 99 corridor and the south end of the city.
Pass ordinances that prohibit use of parks for non -park purposes.
Funding recommendations include:
o Provide more funding to parks and recreation programs that serve larger populations.
o Continue funding Yost Pool
o Use Washington State Health disparities data and mapping along with resources from the Municipal
Research and Services Centre of Washington to identify locations where capital investment will
provide health benefits to the most people.
o Reference the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Plan for equity -based goals.
Expand the Edmonds Stewards program.
Park site recommendations include:
o Improve Hummingbird Park.
o Provide better access to the waterfront, specifically near the Ebb Tide condominiums, and make it
ADA accessible.
o Include bicycle features and access at parks.
o Build skate parks in other areas of the city outside of the "bowl."
o Divert stormwater from the sound.
Community engagement should include representation from each area of the City with a focus on reaching
underserved communities.
Questions:
• Does the City have funding for future park improvements?
• When will the City update the PROS webpage?
• How long will Marina Park be closed for renovation?
What's Next?
Angie concluded the meeting with a summary of how attendees can stay involved or contact the Edmonds PRCS
team through email at PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov. She reminded attendees to fill out the online survey and share it
with friends, family, and networks.
Finally, Angie announced the City will hold another community meeting in the fall to share the draft plan. She
encouraged participants to check the website and keep an eye on social media for the meeting date.
5
176
Packet Pg. 192
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
APPENDIX A: Meeting attendees and participants
20 community members participated in the meeting.
Community Members ProjectTeam—
Alison Alfonzo Pence Shannon Burley, Deputy Director of the Edmonds Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services
Linda Coburn Angie Feser,Director of the Edmonds Parks, Recreation
& Cultural Services
Mindy Woods,
Human Services Manager for the Edmonds Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services
Rebecca Elmore-Yalch
Scott Burns, PRR, Inc.
Greg Ferguson
Tammy Leigh DeMent, PRR, Inc.
Kelsey Foster (City of Edmonds)
Eunji Hamnett, Korean Language Interpreter, PRR, Inc.
Lora Hein
Yiran Huang, Chinese Language Interpreter, PRR, Inc.
Bruce Higgins
Daniel Ruiz, Spanish Language Interpreter, PRR, Inc.
Nikki Okimoto Glaros
Laura Van Wert, PRR, Inc.
Zack Ott
Laurie Rose (City of Edmonds)
Joe Scordino
Natalie Seitz
Mauri Shuler
Jessica Smith
Roger Pence
Chris Ziobro
Barry
Rick
Sean
DRAFT 177
Packet Pg. 193
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0N
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 194
N
APPENDIX D
ONLINE MEETIN
SUMMARY #2
N
N
O
O
O
qe
>I
CO)
O
w
a
w
I
0
E
V
w
m
E
s
R
Q
179
Packet Pg. 195
DRAFT
City of Edmonds PROS Plan
Community meeting summary
Date: 10/16/21
Time: 1:00 PM — 2:00 PM
Location: Virtual meeting
The second community meeting was held using Zoom on October 16, 2021. Attendance included 40 public
attendees, 2 elected officials and 11 City and consultant representatives of the Edmonds Park, Recreation and
Cultural Services team, Conservation Technix, PRR, and interpreters
Nancy Johnson (Sno-Isle Sierra Club)
Angie Feser, Director of the Edmonds Parks, Recreation
David Orr
Rose LeSmith
Rachel Maxwell
Bryan Roehr
& Cultural Services
Shannon Burley, Deputy Director of the Edmonds Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services
Steve Duh, Project Manager, Conservation Technix
Laura LaBissoniere Miller, Facilitator, PRR
Scott Burns, Technical Support, PRR
Ms. J. Song, Korean Language Interpreter, PRR
Barbara Steller
Marjie Fields
Yingwen Robertson, Chinese Language Interpreter, PRR
Sonja Miranda (LMN)
Daniel Ruiz, Spanish Language Interpreter, PRR
Barbara Rood
Lizzy Buechel, Notetaker, PRR
Scott Urquhart
Judi Gladstone
Vivian Olson
Janet Phillips
Alina Rossano
Teresa Wippel
Jeanett Quintanilla
Robert White
Bill Shirey
Michael Cuzzetto
Laura Wag
Barry Ehrlich
Chrissy Roberts
Mardee Austin
Sharene Bainbridge
Bill Derry
Richard Kuehn
Jack McHenry
180
Packet Pg. 196
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Susan Paine
Susie Schaefer
Nora Carlson
Roger Pence
Gayla Shoemake
Patricia ONeill
Laurie Sorensen
Lora Hein
Nathan Sugg
Catherine
JGY
Lynne
Kan
The City of Edmonds hosted this meeting to report back to community members who have offered input and to
discuss priorities for the City's Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan. This included live interpretation for
members of the Chinese-, Korean-, and Spanish-speaking communities. The project team gave a brief project
overview, highlighting survey results, a summary of community engagement, public outreach, and timeline for
completing the plan. The project team then engaged the group in multiple polling and discussion sessions to gather
input on priorities for the plan.
Laura LaBissoniere Miller, Facilitator, started the meeting by introducing the project, welcoming attendees, sharing
the meeting agenda, and providing instructions about how to participate, including live language interpretation
options. Laura shared that the City was recording the meeting and introduced Angie.
Project Overview
Angie Feser, Director of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services for the City of Edmonds, introduced Project Consultant
Steve Duh of Conservation Technix, who provided the Edmonds PROS plan overview.
• What is the PROS Plan?
o The Edmonds Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan is a 6-year guide for helping the City
manage and improve its parks, recreation programs and other outdoor experiences. The Plan looks
to the future and will establish goals, identify specific projects and ideas on how to implement
projects for the next 6 to 10 years.
• At the core, the PROS Plan is guided by a few basic questions:
o What are the City's strengths and what areas can see improvement?
o How will the City meet today's park and recreation needs and the futures?
• What will the City focus on?
o An assessment of Edmonds' parks and open space will help the PROS plan weigh project priorities.
The PROS plan is the foundations for pursuing state grants and will help the City stay eligible for
other grants that could help pay for some improvements in the plan.
o Community involvement, including outreach from people in Edmonds who speak languages other
than English, will also guide investments and shape the PROS plan.
• Community feedback gathered through:
o A Community -wide survey with 1,958 responses.
o A virtual community meeting in July with 20 participants.
2
DRAFT 181
Packet Pg. 197
DRAFT
o Ongoing updates through the City's website and social media outlets.
• What have we heard so far?
0 99% of respondents shared that parks and recreation spaces are essential or important to their
personal wellbeing.
0 81% of respondents shared that they visit parks/recreation and open spaces at least a couple times
per month.
• Why do people visit Edmonds parks? In order of what was heard most:
Beach / waterfront -
Walking or running -
Relaxatioln -
Playground5
Fitness
Community events / concerts
Wildlife viewing
Dog walking
Family gatherings / picnicking
Recreation prograrns, classes or camps
0 20";- 4V G 60 ,'.. BQli,
• What are the amenities at parks and recreational spaces that interest people the most? Listed in order of
top preferences:
o Pedestrian and bike trails in parks
o Indoor fitness and exercise facilities
o Community gardens
o Upgraded or renovated playgrounds and play structures
o Outdoor fitness equipment
• What improvements should the City focus on? Listed in order of priorities from the community:
o Connecting gaps in trail system, expand trail connections
o Improve or upgrade existing parklands
o Buy more conservation and open space lands
o Build an aquatic center
o Improve restroom facilities
• What recreational activities and existing programs are of the highest interest to people? Listed in order of
preference:
o Community events, such as outdoor movies, Hazel Miller Plaza summer concerts
o Outdoor programs, including Beach Rangers or environmental education
o Youth programs, such as summer day camps, arts or gymnastics
o Youth sports programs and camps
Ica
182
Packet Pg. 198
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Presentation Part One
Focus areas
• The City of Edmonds heard community interest to focus investments in south and southeast Edmonds.
• The City of Edmonds followed up on this priority and analyzed how far different residential areas in
Edmonds are to parks, recreational spaces, or open spaces. This analysis map shows areas in proximity to
developed city parks; the areas in red are within a ten-minute walking distance, while areas in white depict a
further walk to get to an outdoor recreational space.
lopnd
[:Jc4urvt�
-4 moo YAM tihei b I'i
r f; 5M nbed b �q
M crtr aWkz
4— Sr— A sowb ►
rMnrq r,.t�
VI~
WjA sr +tl
i , ■
4
Q
DRAFT 183
Packet Pg. 199
DRAFT
The City created a second analysis map to identify the proximity between residential neighborhoods and =
trails, as well as parks. This map analysis offered evidence that the south, southeast and south parts of 2
Edmonds lack adequate recreational spaces and trails. 3
a
c
L�q.na d
i}IK 4refF �
r.
7R-wir ftur elDft♦�
lmwmi8 aupP 6Pma d uouw r-r-m
17-0* 0 AMM4V OW 8px4# CEunry pL'kt O
r CA, v�k�
'draP.ysP.o.asP.o.u�.1,� I �-
arm E aJF �patl p�Yi,7 t)
ftf
V.W Q
W5Jor$t[w65 � .U)
C
O
06
a �
{ F i
■ 2 �
N
N
.. O
■ ,
N
N
■ to
�. ,
I
t p
dl� PP
.. i
L 0
W
C
u
t
«s
Q
5
184
Packet Pg. 200
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Poll No. 1: Over the next 6 —10 years, in what parts of Edmonds should the City prioritize additional park and
open space investments? Select up to three.
900 0
81%
81%
80%
70%
60% 54%
50%
42%
40%
30%
20%
15%
10%
■0%
North
Downtown
Highway 99
Southeast
Southwest
Edmonds
corridor
Edmonds
Edmonds
* This poll is to share quick thoughts, further discussion is welcome
during Q/A.
Poll No. 2: If you had to pick only one improvement to Edmonds' park system, which of the following would you
choose? Choose one.
35%
30%
25%
20%
20%
17% 17%
15% 13%
10% 1 1 1 .
30%
5%
3%
0% ■
0%
Playground
Improved
Improved
Picnic
Shade for Bike skills/
Community
updates
restrooms
maintenance
amenities
playgrounds pump track
gardens
We would also like to
hear from
you. Tell us what
parks you visit and how you would like to see them improved.
What do you like about the parks?
What is missing? Are parks
easy to access? What
do they need? What could be
better?
Q
DRAFT 185
Packet Pg. 201
DRAFT
Q&A:
• We are in great need for new skateparks in the area, the ones in Edmonds and Lynndale are out of date.
o The City is installing a new skatepark as part of the Civic Park Project
• There are no poll answer options for increasing the NATURAL habitat- for example the tree canopy. Instead,
the options are all structural. Children are in greater need of NATURE to interact with than they are paved
and constructed, human made facilities.
o The objective for this question is to ask about physical improvements, but there will be other
questions/polls to address the need for additional open space.
• Expand Yost Pool operations.
• More trees especially with benches. Note climate change will mean hotter temperatures
• Current Edmonds and Lynndale skateparks are not worth fixing, they need replacement.
o Lynndale Skate Park is part of the Lynnwood Park system. Civic Park is being re -developed (the old
park has been removed and a new one being built).
• Underwater dive park curation
• Will the City try to buy the UNOCAL property when it becomes available and turn it into a park and not use it
for development?
• What is the status of the UNOCAL property purchase? Land is at a premium. City needs to purchase.
o I believe you are referring to the Chevron property by the marsh. The City secured the first right of
refusal for acquisition of this property — the City is considering acquiring that property. There are
other options for other state agencies to buy that land and lease it to the city. Options are being
explored around that property.
• Increased accessibility to current parks.
• 1 have had young people mention they would like mountain biking area.
• Better trail maintenance at Yost.
• Please remember that SW County Park also serves Edmonds' residents.
• Return to natural habitat, increased accessibility, stewardship of current trails to help reduce off -trail traffic.
• Would like to see better irrigation monitoring overall. Most parks with grassy areas seem to always have
very squishy, overwatered lawn areas. Seems to me that watering could be reduced (or use better
technology to water smarter) in many areas (saving money and making grassy areas useful/less muddy).
• More park benches in a covered area for the occasional rain shower.
• 1 am concerned about the conservation needs of parks. There are erosion problems, especially in Yost and
Maplewood parks. These are the "headwaters" of Shell and Northstram creeks. Consequently, both these
creeks have serious erosion problems and sediment flows in the creeks. I'd like to see more emphasis on
use of Open Space in the PROS plan.
• Improvements are needed in upgrading the natural environments children especially and all other ages as
well have opportunity to engage with and interact within close proximity of where they live in a
predominantly built environment.
• Functional toilets: Porta-toilets are better than nothing at all.
• Make and maintain the dive park.
• It would be great to have mountain bike locations and educating the public about where mountain biking is
safe/permitted. Example, there is a lot of mountain biking activity on small trails in Yost Park and people are
unclear as to whether this is a permissible activity.
• Possible ILA with County for Esperance Park (to make better picnic benches and art corridor and electric
outlets). Possible ILA with Ballinger Park to install amenities that Edmonds residents have better access to
on Edmonds side of the Mountain Lake Terrace Park around the lake.
• Would very much like to see the Unocal property purchased as a park.
• Lynndale skatepark needs improvement — at least filling cracks. They have grown over the years making it
difficult and dangerous.
186
Packet Pg. 202
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
1 live next to the main City Park on 3rd Ave S. Both the entry drive and the exit drive are badly in need of
repaving. They are also too narrow to be safe for both pedestrians and automobiles and the many vehicles
from the city maintenance yard that use these roads daily. Is there a plan to address this need?
• Community engagement in maintaining parks.
Amenities near Lake Ballinger launch
• Could the city purchase the UNOCAL Property as a City park?
• Love the improvements to the Esperance Park in southeast area that is NOT Edmonds.
1 would like to see a redesign of the South Brackett's Landing area to be more useable and feature more
drought tolerant, native plants.
When will Maplewood Park get some much -needed attention? It encourages some pretty shady behavior
since it is mostly hidden and open after dark, the gate is never closed. Bike trails for kids, better signage to
increase usage, attention to those way to tall and not healthy trees.
Presentation Part Two
The City heard a strong interest for additional community events. The City currently offers a range of community
events, including large and medium sized events, and smaller neighborhood events like concerts in local parks.
Additional events will require additional staff, maintenance, and partners. We would like to learn more about the
events you'd like to see. We want to hear your thoughts: what type of events should the city focus on? Please feel
free to use CIA to offer other ideas.
Poll No. 3: We heard interest in additional community events. What types of events should the City focus on?
45%
41%
40%
35%
30%
25%
25%
20%
16%
15% 13%
10%
6%
5%
0%
Big Events(festivals Medium Events Small Keep Existing Mix Other suggestions
and markets) (movies) Neighborhood -park
Events
* Other suggestions: Change the events focus to (use Q&A to offer ideas)
E:1
DRAFT 187
Packet Pg. 203
DRAFT
Q&A:
• Isn't Taste run by the Chamber not the City?
o Chamber manages the Taste with the City as a partner. We are asking if the Edmonds community
would like more of these events. If so, those events could be provided by the City or other
organizations.
• Cultural celebrations near international districts
1 could hear Taste Edmonds from my house. It was awful.
Events in venues outside of the Bowl, please.
• 1 think it is appropriate for other organizations to host and manage large events.
More opportunities for neighborhood nature walks (small, quiet gatherings of an educational nature) "forest
bathing" or "forest therapy' for example, bird and plant identification and understanding.
Having partners like the Chamber and ECA or private companies if there are more events
More environmental awareness - events or demonstration areas.
Inclusion of indigenous populations.
Tasting tours of different restaurants (maybe with one ticket for all).
• For local events, use the opportunity to share information and education on environmental issues since the
Climate Crisis is upon us--- to have compost options available.
Events not in bowl, in local neighborhoods. Large events in the Bowl are not really for locals anymore. No
events in the streets or right of ways.
Educational events for wildlife.
• Encourage the permitting to change from fireworks shows to drone shows for 4th of July possibly partnered
with live music.
Now we will move on to aquatics and the need for a pool replacement. Yost pool is around 50 years old and nearing
the end of its life. A 2009 feasibility study of Yost pool suggested the need for its replacement. There is strong
support to replace Yost pool, which offers questions to consider. For example, should the pool be:
• A large, regional pool?
• A small, neighborhood pool?
• Should the pool be indoor or outdoor?
Each option listed above has different requirements for staffing, maintenance, and associated development costs.
For example, a local scale, outdoor pool is seasonal, and offers limited use in summer months. Even as a limited
option, there are high costs. For example, constructing something like this would cost around $4 — 6 million.
A year-round, local scale, indoor pool, in comparison, might cost around $15 — 20 million, and might not be able to
accommodate all activities and community desires.
A large, outdoor pool that serves regionally would be seasonal, and might cost around $10 —12 million.
An indoor, regional aquatic center - kind of like the one in Lynwood — might cost around $30 — 40 million.
Accordingly, we are interested to learn more about community preferences for the Yost pool replacement.
We
188
Packet Pg. 204
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Poll No. 4: If the City were to replace Yost Pool with a new aquatics facility, what should be the focus for a new
facility?
45%
40% 39%
36% ■35%
30%
25%
20% 18%
15%
10%
6%
5%
0%
Local -scale pool, outdoor Local -scale pool, indoor Regional -scale, outdoor Regional -scale, indoor
Q&A:
• Yost pool should be for locals, and funding should come mainly from verdant. It should be free for all.
• Lynnwood Pool is already so close. Yost should differ from that.
• Pools, fountains, other water features will become increasingly essential as hotter weather during the
summer becomes more prevalent with climate change.
• Aquatics is a perfect opportunity to partner with other cities and agencies in SW county. Edmonds needn't
go it alone.
• We need a "no pool" option to reflect that as a low priority. We have much more serious needs.
• The Yost site pool is best suited for outdoors. Stay within that footprint.
• With wonderful indoor pool facilities close by in MLT and Lynnwood, I like an offering similar to our Yost
Park offering (outdoor summer pool in the trees).
• If regional scale/outdoor - it could have traditional use in the summer, but then have winter use in the
summer as well if used as Nordic -style hot/cold therapeutic baths. Extremely popular, but very few facilities
in this area. https://www.scandinave.com/whistler/en/baths/ .
• replacement of pool in other location of Yost would allow for more trails and natural areas.
• The local -scale outdoor pool at Yost Park is the gem of Edmonds.
• What about both: local indoor and outdoor pools?
Another important priority to Edmonds community members are trails and trail connections. Opportunities for M
outdoor running, and other outdoor recreation activities are also of interest. There is a community -wide desire to
expand the trail system in Edmonds. Currently, the City is planning for bike lane improvements, including how to Q
providing safe routes with signs and maps.
10
DRAFT 189
Packet Pg. 205
DRAFT
Poll No. 5: What do you see as the most important options for improving trails in Edmonds? (Select all that apply):
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
31%
0% —
Improve signage and Improve maintenance of
trails information existing trails
46%
40%
37%
Build new trails in Acquire and build new Use right-of-way and All options
existing trail corridors sidewalks
parks/openspace
What other ideas do you have to improve trail connections across Edmonds?
M
The interurban trail is not connected with Edmonds through the intersection with 104 — this should be a high
priority to complete so it's connected. Improved safety is important. While proximity to parks and open
space is important, the quality of resource should be a consideration in your level of service analysis. For
example, I don't think it's right to consider a 10-acre athletic field comparable to parks located within the
"Bowl"; I hope that is also a consideration in your level of service analysis, which was not quite drawn out
during your presentation.
In regard to the pool: money is not infinite, and I think that available funding should be allocated to address
the quality of services offered. The City should prioritize communities that are fundamentally underserved.
In terms of events: all events happen within the "Bowl". I would like to see an expansion of the Uptown
Market to feature more food vendors, specifically, fruit and vegetable vendors. I found this missing from the
public market.
• Use un-opened street rights of way
• Access to the trails and knowing where they are is important. I am sure there are more in the city than I am
aware of.
• More public paths between neighborhoods. Trails that are for walking rather than biking
• Complete the "missing link" in front of the Ebbtide!
11
190
Packet Pg. 206
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Try to offer many trails to be inclusive and accessible.
• Agree with the comment about eliminating fireworks shows in the city, especially in proximity to the
shoreline and parks. They pollute, degrade air quality, frighten animals and those with PTSD and leave
garbage that then gets washed into waterways. They also create major traffic snarls and idling cars are
another environmental degradation, not to mention being a fire hazard.
Needed a 'lighting needs on the walking paths' question- Ballinger neighborhood and the walking area
around the Playfields near OVD between (NE Edmonds)? Many people do or would walk there late in the
evening. In the winter it is dark and not as safe
The Edmonds section of the Interurban Trail does not reflect Edmonds' beauty. Also building safe
connections for bikes to access light rail is huge.
It would be nice to see the emphasis on trail improvements to accommodate kids safely having fun on their
bikes. Also for older kids making trails for mountain type bikers. Away from cars, not on the streets.
Maplewood would be great for this.
1 agree about connecting Edmonds to the interurban trail
• 1 am concerned about taking away road space in existing streets. Congestion such as might be experienced if
trails are put on the existing Highway 4. Purchasing land for bike trails is necessary rather than taking
existing land to share bike and car trails
Permitted usage for existing trails needs to be clarified. Lots of our wooded trails are used being utilized by
mountain and motorized bikes and in many cases it is hazardous to hikers/walkers due to trail size. I don't
believe they are supposed to be used this purpose but there is not signage informing users/ enforcement of
rules.
o Currently, the city code does not disallow the use of bikes in the parks; so we are unable to post
signs or rules about prohibited usage that doesn't exist. In order for us to change that, the city code
would need to be changed; then we could move forward with different signage. Overall, the code
does not state that bikes are not allowed in parks.
"HERE, HERE" for the Interurban trail improvements - bummed that it is closed during light rail development
in Lynnwood area, but all for public transportation,
Work with County and neighboring cities to repair and build new interconnections. This will increase access
and improve safety.
I would like to see the Balinger side improved to coincide with the great work that the city of MLT is doing
for upgrade at the main park area.
• 1 would like to see the Balinger side improved to coincide with the great work that the city of MLT is doing
for upgrade at the main park area.
Important to provide connections to existing trails. Trails should be accessible to walkers and bikers, without
having to drive to a parking facility to get on the trail.
Safety for walking is a concern. Any lighting in the city, especially in proximity to parks, needs to be Dark
Skies compliant, especially to reduce intrusion into wildlife habitat and interference with bird migration and
provide someplace with darkest skies for viewing the night sky.
Better access to Meadowdale Park. The signage can be confusing and direct people down Norma Beach Rd if
they miss it.
My comment is about safety in Yost Park. Last week, I went for a walk in Yost Park, no cars around, felt a
little scary b/c it was just me in park. I walked fast because no one was there; it was a little scary. Are you
guys thinking about maybe a phone or cameras in the park for people? I want to clarify that I went to the
Yost Park in the day 1:00 pm. and I were the only person there. It will be great to see police around - safety
is my priority.
o Yost Park is not lit with streetlights or other lights, although park hours are from 8 am — dusk, so it Q
technically closes at dusk and in the evenings when it does get darker. If there are specific
improvements that would make you feel more comfortable the PRCS would like to have that
12
DRAFT 191
Packet Pg. 207
DRAFT
conversation. We would be willing to include additional improvements to make the park feel safer.
Maybe we can get in touch following this conversation. There are lots of other concerns around
safety in Yost Park, so this will be important for city to address.
We need to preserve trees, especially in watersheds.
1 think the top priority is for acquisition especially in SE Edmonds and the marsh.
Please remember the wisdom of Joni Mitchell - DO NOT pave paradise and put up a parking lot.
Also agree with all the first caller had to say. I loved the Uptown Market; however, I was disappointed that
there were few to no produce vendors/ aka FARMERS. Would love to see community gardens with options
for sharing produce in neighborhood markets such as this.
1 would like to see more work on connecting/way finding to Lake Ballinger. Edmonds should continue to rely
on Ballinger as a resource for the southeastern part of the city.
HOORAY for MORE TREES! Does the park collaborate with the Edmonds Tree Board?
With the south part of Edmonds needing more parks (we are in a parks desert), the city should look for
partnering opportunities. One is coming up with the affordable housing project with the Lutheran church. I'd
like to see the city work with the church to develop a park on some of their property so that housing project
can be integrated with the rest of the neighborhood through a playground that is used by the entire
neighborhood
More youth -oriented activities in parks like skateboarding and parkour. More park staff at the parks to
maintain and help community.
Provide grants and build more partnerships with grassroots and community organizations to host events,
improve access to parks and recreation, help with safety, etc. Grassroots and community organizations can
help local governments better understand community needs and how to engage them.
Need to reduce light pollution. I have a headlamp for some of the times I am out after dark.
When looking at pools for 4-40 million!!! Skateparks are low maintenance. If designed correctly by proper
skatepark builder they will be a timeless addition to the city that has draw from out other local
communities. MILT and Lynwood do not have parks). Brier is terrible as well. We have a huge hole in this
dept. Please see Calivera (Lake Stevens) skate park and Torgeson Nnorth Bend) as great examples of
timeless design and construction. See MLTskatepark.org my personal website for skatepark advocacy.
thank you
The local parks are not patrolled, and they are not closed at night. I live next to Maplewood and it is very
busy after hours and not in a good way.
• Is there a reason not to make Maplewood Park walk-in only/ driveway designed to obstruct vehicles to avoid
the problems happening there after hours?
o We are aware of neighbors' concerns of Maplewood Park around safety, security and after-hours
activities in the park. We are aware and in communication with police department to request for
additional sweeps and drive-throughs in the park. There is always a consideration of including a gate
in the park, however this would require maintenance staff to lock and unlock gate, and we don't
currently have the staff to do this.
1 heard "free camping." Did I hear that wrong?
o We do not have camping or campsites in any of our parks; we do not provide camping in our parks —
that is not an option.
o The section of the presentation refers to youth summer camps and to programming, rather than
camping outside.
Are there any plans around community gardens?
o Edmonds PRCS received a wonderful donation from Shirly Johnson Property, There has been some
discussions in the past about this site being used for a community garden. The Park will need to go
through master planning process for engaged community.
13
192
Packet Pg. 208
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
o In addition, we are seeing in PROS plans responses for community gardens —that will require
additional research into finding potential locations
• Is the Park Department considering climate impacts in its planning?
o Yes, in several ways. One as simple as plant material and design — shifting to plant material that
don't require additives, etc. being aware of species that we are using, considering species that
require less water, etc.
o In addition, parks provide benefits to help with climate change as well. Le. tree canopies provide
shade, ecological benefits for water and air
• Will the permitting be different for events that will be allowed at Civic Park when it is completed?
o Civic Park was designed in conjunction with several large festival producers; things like fireworks
show and Taste of Edmonds. The park has been designed to accommodate larger festivals, and the
expectation is that they will return to Civic Park.
• The Parks Dept needs to include ways to incorporate climate mitigation and adaptation into the planning.
Examples: preserve and increase tree canopy and restore the Edmonds Marsh, which will reduce flooding on
Hwy 104.
• Regarding the question on climate change, do you have a plan to increase the tree canopy both in the parks
and open spaces?
o We don't necessarily have a plan specific to X amount of trees per park or increasing tree canopies.
But we do utilize our parks for tree and vegetation planting. There is a considerable amount of tree
planting every year within parks department. We complete tree planting during the restoration of
park sites.
• More outreach and volunteerism solicited for park and marsh maintenance. The supervision may mean it
isn't even a cost savings but makes the community more vested in our natural spaces. I want to ditto an
earlier commenter who said that outreach and education on being good stewards of the earth would be a
great focus for our park in our park spaces- passive methods not so expensive. Also, where can we put
water collection tanks to minimize amounts of stormwater going into our creeks?
o This is something that we have started to do and are looking for more opportunities for partnership.
• Lynndale as I understand it was a collaboration between Lynnwood and Edmonds? Great to hear about
already planned replacement of Civic Park. Who is the designer? This is a huge problem when cities do not
consult skateboarders and people who use them when designing. You may be just making another park that
will have little use due to poor design. This is the most unfortunate part of skateboard park development. I
have links to preferred designers on my site. www.Mltskatepark.org. — Grindline, Dreamworks, Evergreen.
• Water usage needs to be considered in all new plantings and landscaping.
• Since Civic Park will include many features to enhance the space for all to enjoy, how can you continue to
have fireworks there when they cause noise and mess that impacts all who live nearby? I highly recommend
partnering with the chamber to offer drone or laser shows. Since we are the first designated Creative
District, I would like to see us do something new, creative and special in our community for the 4th of July
celebrations.
• The current Edmonds Marsh will need lots of help ($) readjusting to salt water and clean up of invasive
species. Can the plan include potential connectivity to the UNOCAL property?
• The concern about safety in Yost is regarding unleashed dogs - not just for people but for leashed dogs too.
• Needs to include safety for the other beings (wildlife) with whom we share this area, the ones who came
before us who are being increasingly driven from their original homes. We need contiguous wildlife habitat
that provides safe habitat for native species of all kinds, including places protected from human and other
invasive intrusion.
Other comments for engagement:
14
DRAFT 193
Packet Pg. 209
DRAFT
Zoom is really not an effective way to reach all of our folks. It requires a fast internet connection, as well as a
device. Phoning in leaves the presentation sight unseen. So, these meetings are only truly accessible to
those with means and not the general community.
o Due to COVID, we can have limited in person engagement around this plan (attending night market);
we will continue to look for opportunities around this plan as it is safe to do so.
Is it possible for individuals, other than those attending today, to give feedback about specific parks? I'm
thinking specific input on specific parks might be valuable to the department
o We encourage questions and comments to continue after the meeting ends. We encourage you to
ask your neighbors to share feedback as well.
Time to do some in -person events again also, with appropriate precautions, of course. Doing Zoom -only is
not adequate.
o Edmonds' current policy does not allow in person meetings; we would obviously prefer to do this in
person but are unable to do so. Do have a timeline associated with project — adoption by February
to be eligible for state funding for the next 3 years. Additional comments are welcome. The team is
always available to email directly to the PROS plan email address and parks dept. is always available
for conversations via phone call, or email.
I hope there will be virtual opportunities to attend. Some people wouldn't attend an in- person event.
What's Next?
Visit city website; continued conversations with city council and planning board; draft PROS Plan by year
end; please visit website to share additional comments.
The survey links have been posted in the Chat for this meeting. You can access the survey directly from
those links or use your phone to scan the QR code shown on the screen.
If you have anything else you would like to share, please email the Edmonds team at
PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov and someone will respond directly to you.
15
194
Packet Pg. 210
Wf)nitHWWFtTATATNLFiir r9H!}pj 1, +
i d ill,'-++�+�a-i 1 Ti Fij '' '
W"M
LDER
N
N
co
O
T"
O
qe
>I
CO)
O
w
IL
w
I
0
E
V
w
m
E
s
R
Q
195
Packet Pg. 211
DRAFT
CONSERVATION
T E[ H H I x
STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION NOTES
Project Name: Edmonds PROS Plan Update
Location: Zoom Video Conference
Notes by: Steve Duh, Conservation Technix
Participant: Greg Ferguson, Edmonds Stewards
program
Jenna Nand, business owner, Chamber
board member
Bill Derry, resident, retired planner,
People for Puget Sound board chair
Subject: Stakeholder Group Discussion (#1)
PURPOSE
Project No.: Proj-# 21-138PLN
Interview Date: August 17, 2021 Time: 12:30 pm
Angie Feser, Director, Edmonds Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services
Shannon Burley, Assistant Director, Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Steve Duh, Conservation Technix
To discuss current interests and future needs related to Edmonds' parks and recreation opportunities. The meeting
took place on August 17, 2021, via a Zoom video conference from 12:30 pm — 2:00 pm.
DISCUSSION
The discussion began with brief introductions and an overview of the City's PROS Plan update process. A set of
questions were used to initiate the discussion and explore ideas about local parks and recreation needs.
What Participants Value about Edmonds' Parks and Recreation
• Growing up and playing at Mathay Ballinger Park
• Waterfront and beach public space — great democratic space, everyone can enjoy the view and the water
(e.g., walk the marina, picnic by the sea)
• Waterfront, especially daytime low tide
• There are more visitors coming to Edmonds, which is good for merchants. Edmonds has the best people
and public space, which equals charm
• There is frequent music and at different scales (small, solo performer events and large concerts in City Park
and on Main Street).
• It is critical for kids to play outside and have natural space
• Access to two county parks — chapter 2 of the 2016 PROS Plan notes per capita acreage and level of service.
Edmonds is low in open space parks, and service levels might show as better if the city counts the county
park in Esperance
Interview Notes 1 August 28, 2021
196
Packet Pg. 212
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Interview Notes (continued
Comments on Maintenance
• Parks operation staff is doing great, work hard and interact with the public graciously
• Parks are well -maintained and clean. Cleanliness is not an issue in the Bowl and north Edmonds. There is a
different demographic around Mathay Ballinger Park and Hwy 99, with more of a 'street population' there.
Park maintenance and cleanliness is more of an issue in southwest and southeast Edmonds.
• Consider starting a business investment district along Hwy 99 to help finance improvements.
• Yost Park has been very busy during COVID; parking lot has been full
• There are different uses in open spaces versus parks (i.e., encampments). The city should tackle it, so all
feel safe to use these spaces. Support and assistance for the unhoused are better than a sweep. (Note: The
City is trying to get a social worker to aid in this area.)
• Maintenance overall is really good and should continue to be high/highest priority.
• Invasive species is an ongoing issue. Sound Salmon Solutions and Edmonds Stewards can help with invasive
species control (see 2016 Plan, chapter 4, goal 4)
Open Space Needs
• Edmonds Marsh is an underused gem; expanding that site is a big habitat opportunity and chance to
daylight creek into the Sound. Add a boardwalk and viewing platform
• Look at the Unocal property; it might be a surplus opportunity from the company. Consider adding it to
Edmonds' park system
• There is not a lot of open space left in the city. One opportunity is to open street rights -of -way, Consider
opportunities for temporary or permanent improvements, such as basketball, tennis, trails. There is a fair
amount of unopened ROW in southeast Edmonds
• The forest parcel across from Yost Park might be subdivided and would be a good candidate to buy it and
maintain as tree canopy (Shell Creek).
Recreation Opportunities & Needs
• At Mathay Ballinger, add exercise equipment — play equipment for adults. More open to all ages and
abilities, especially seniors
• Sport leagues are well -organized for active sports, politically strong and can take care of themselves
• There is a need for extended trails and natural trails — connect waterfront, Meadowdale, Marsh, Yost
• The 2016 Plan has a reference to climate change. Make parks easier to access on foot, attempt to lessen
the impact of vehicular access. Also, watch for water rise at waterfront sites; add more tree cover
• Would like to see more flowering trees along streets and more trees along Hwy 99. More trees and shade
will help with the impact of high temperatures on the street and sidewalk. Add more shade, benches and
hydration stations
Recreation Programs
• Yoga on beach or in parks. Hainsworth Park has outdoor yoga
• Focus on youth, elderly and disabled communities, with focus on public health
Interview Notes
August 28, 2021
DRAFT
197
Packet Pg. 213
DRAFT
Interview Notes (continued
Project ideas
• Acquire more park and open space lands (south and east Edmonds are most deficient).
• Focus more on Hwy 99, which is not recognizable as Edmonds (i.e., art, trees, look, feel). There should be
more equity in park investments. Hwy 99 generates more tax revenue than the Bowl; harder to fund
projects in area like Hwy 99.
• The Marsh property offers opportunities for trees and habitat value; might be easier to find outside
resources fund a project like the Marsh than Hwy 99 area projects.
• Develop more space for pollinators and re -wilding. Consider a wildlife crossing on 76th. Plant more trees
and plants.
• Concern about dog park near Puget Sound and with urine and waste going into the Sound. It is a bacterial
'hotspot'
• Look for opportunities for an east/west trail from Hwy 99 to the ferry, something safe and separated
-- End of Notes --
Interview Notes
3
August 28, 2021
198
Packet Pg. 214
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
CONSERVATION
VATION
T E[ H N I x
STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION NOTES
Project Name: Edmonds PROS Plan Update
Location: Zoom Video Conference
Notes by: Steve Duh, Conservation Technix
Participant: Ken Cooper, Edmonds Boys & Girls Club,
Executive Director
Heather Damron, Edmonds moms group
Alison Pence, Rotary, Diversity
Commission
Tia Scace, Edmonds Garden Club
Subject: Stakeholder Group Discussion (#2)
PURPOSE
Project No.: Proj-# 21-138PLN
Interview Date: August 19, 2021 Time: 10:00 am
Ashley Song, Arts Commission
Matt Finch, ESD Facility Manager
Angie Feser, Director, Edmonds Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services
Shannon Burley, Assistant Director, Edmonds
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Steve Duh, Conservation Technix
To discuss current interests and future needs related to Edmonds' parks and recreation opportunities. The meeting
took place on August 19, 2021, via a Zoom video conference from 10:00 am —11:30 am.
DISCUSSION
The discussion began with brief introductions and an overview of the City's PROS Plan update process. A set of
questions were used to initiate the discussion and explore ideas about local parks and recreation needs.
What Participants Value about Edmonds' Parks and Recreation
• Walking the waterfront, several parks have different things to offer (i.e., variety, active, passive, sunset,
water)
• For the Boys & Girls Club, we take our biking club to Yost Park and use City Park for the splash pad.
Appreciate rule change for dogs in parks
• Value the greenspace. As a parent, I appreciate the playgrounds, but gravitate toward the trails. At Sierra
Park, would prefer to see nature area, rather than playground equipment
• Always try to hike forested park on walks
• There are a lot of trees that offer environmental benefits
• Would like to see more open space and more public art in parks
Interview Notes 1 August 28, 2021
DRAFT 199
Packet Pg. 215
DRAFT
Interview Notes (continued
Comments on Maintenance
• Maintenance is great. There is not a lot of litter and no damage to trails
• City Park is packed daily; Pine Street Park is used heavily
• City Park is clean, busy. With all the events, the clean-up is great
• The pier walkway has a lot of seaweed and is slippery at times
• Focus on areas that aren't just in higher economic areas
• There are never enough staff to manage plants. Volunteers are great, but more is needed to remove
invasives
Recreation Needs
• Make sure all parks are accessible.
• At Marina Park, the ADA parking is closest to the water, but the porta potties are near the off -leash area
and far from these parking stalls. Move the logs for room for porta potties closer in
• At Mathay Ballinger, there is one ADA stall, and visitors can't really get to the features in the park from
there (e.g., picnic table, porta potty, play area)
• More effort on conservation (i.e., climate change) — would like to see less grass/lawn (incl the related
watering, fertilizing & resources) and more regionally appropriate plants
• Need more open space and parks
• There is really nothing in the southeast portion of the city, especially in multi -family areas with no open
space to walk to
• There is a demand for athletic fields — need both, open space and fields for active use
• ESD worked more with the city in the past building turf fields at Woodway and with Lynnwood for
Meadowdale fields
• If there were to be an aquatic center, maybe find a site along Hwy 99, rather than in the Bowl
• Walking and biking paths across the city and to/from school.
• Collaborate with ESD regarding improvements that might help accommodate field trips or walking to
school. (ESD noted that there are likely no major construction in Edmonds in the next ten years.)
• Connect a trail east/west to the Interurban Trail
• Add a food garden or more community gardens; Garden Club gets requests for more pea patches
Future needs
• More open fields and more athletic fields
• Maintain what we have
• The Boys & Girls Club is always searching for space for recreation programs
• Keep a strong focus on tree canopy
• Moon shot idea — walkable recreation within five minutes for all residents. This might be a challenge in the
south and southeast. Difficult to walk to Mathay Ballinger Park— no direct route, dangerous traffic, no safe
pedestrian route
• More green for everyone and closer to Hwy 99
• Conserve open space and expand on it with more restoration; improve access to nature and wildlife. During
COVID, really appreciate having things to see and do (i.e., trees, birds, wildlife, etc.)
Interview Notes 2 August 28, 2021
200
Packet Pg. 216
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Interview Notes (continued
Communication
• Consider translating more city materials and information, but it may need in -person translation in the
various dialects. The focus tends to be on the main dialect (i.e., Mandarin). Personal, direct outreach should
be expanded, but the city may need to have people of color conducting the outreach
• Hwy 99 area needs more access to social and health services
-- End of,'Votes --
Interview Notes
August 28, 2021
DRAFT
201
Packet Pg. 217
DRAFT
CONSERVATION
T E[ H H I x
STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION NOTES
Project Name:
Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan
Project No.: Proj-# 21-138PLN
Location:
Phone Calls & Zoom Conferences Interview
Sept. 3, 9, 10, & 28, Times: varied
Dates:
2021
Notes by:
Jean Akers, Conservation Technix
Participant:
Angela Harris, Port of Edmonds
Matt Finch, Director of Facility Operations,
Commissioner
Edmonds School District
Natalie Seitz, Resident, Equity advocate
Jean Akers, Conservation Technix
Kirsten Paust, Resident, Pool advocate
Subject:
Stakeholder One-on-one Interviews
PURPOSE
To discuss current issues, opportunities and needs for park and recreation amenities. The interviews took place
individually from September 3`d to 28th via phone call or Zoom engagement.
DISCUSSION
Each interview began with a brief introduction and overview of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Plan update process. The interviewee was asked to briefly describe their role and relationship to Edmonds' parks
and recreation provision. A set of questions were then used to guide the discussion and elicit ideas about the park
system and local recreation needs.
Agency or Individual Roles
• The Port of Edmonds values its partnership with City Parks & Recreation; the relationship and
communications are good.
• The Port owns land adjacent to several city -owned park and open space lands and coordinates with access
and amenities, where feasible.
• Edmonds School District (ESD) goes beyond the City of Edmonds with its boundaries including Woodway,
Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Esperance.
• The City Parks & Recreation and ESD have collaborated on sports fields implementation projects in the past
and are interested in continuing to partner on capital projects that can benefit the community.
• ESD actively supports community events by offering rental of is facilities and parking areas to support
festivals and programming.
• Advocating for equity and inclusion of the South Edmonds and SR 99 communities to provide more park
and recreation facilities in underserved areas.
• Advocating for better management and future upgrades and improvements at Yost Pool.
Interview Notes 1 September 29, 2021
202
Packet Pg. 218
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Interview Notes (continued)
Value/Rating of Parks
• Port Commissioners noted that parks were generally in average to good condition and had numerous
volunteer activities engaged in work projects.
• More promotion could be coordinated to spread the word about community events.
• Waterfront Center is amazing.
• ESD wants to reconnect parks leadership with their Capital Partnership Program that works informally to
coordinate community -related improvements through needs assessments.
• Park facilities are good.
• South Edmonds and the SR 99 community are lacking in sufficient park facilities and should take a more
upfront priority in creating a more equitable park system.
Concerns or Issues
• Restrooms at the fishing pier need an upgrade. They're too dark and have bad night lighting.
• Restrooms near the ferry dock & underwater park needs major upgrade/renovation.
• City park sports fields have drainage issue in right field in the spring.
• Increased walkability and safe routes to school & parks.
• Capital investments have been mostly focused on downtown and waterfront leaving the South Edmonds
and SR 99 community underserved in park and trail facilities.
• Current gap in Interurban Trail makes for a dangerous connection. Connect gaps to create more regional
trail value.
• Create a durable process using an equity -based matrix and review/evaluate maintenance allocations to
ensure equity in park care.
• Reinforce the public health role of parks in the community.
• SR 99 & South Edmonds communities have higher temperatures due to more urban development (and away
from waterfront) and could benefit from more green spaces and tree canopy.
• Spur trail between Mathay Ballinger Park and Interurban Trail needs to be repaved.
• Avoid consuming Mathay Ballinger Park with a future SWM basin, reducing its footprint for possible future
recreational amenities.
• In gap analysis, add service areas for all park & rec amenities, not just neighborhood and community parks.
• Address access to programming.
• What's the future plan for Yost Pool? Aquatic programs are big value to community & need to be preserved
into the future.
• Yost Pool had a great summer swimming program run by the YMCA but the switch to Cascade Swim Club
has limited the public access to the pool.
• Review and evaluate concessionaire terms and agreements to ensure community -based programming
value.
• Yost Park had unlimited access for YMCA programming that affected park capacity and public use of Yost
Park. Was there any review of park carrying capacity? Traffic study for effect of programming?
• Sunset corridor may be impacted by railroad expansion of third rail line. How can trail access be protected?
• Older kids are not well -served except at the skate park. More recreational opportunities are needed like
zip -lines, BMX tracks, BIG swings, etc.
Interview Notes
September 29, 2021
DRAFT
203
Packet Pg. 219
DRAFT
Interview Notes (continued
Project ideas
• Parks map would be good to make information more accessible.
• Promotion of Edmonds parks could include other providers (county, school & other lands) as useful
resources in their park information.
• Future daylighting of Willow Creek could be an opportunity for more partnering and coordination between
Port and City Parks.
• A community recreation center (better than Yost).
• Improved access & boardwalk along the east side of Edmonds Marsh.
• Enhanced interpretive programs around the hatchery
• More sports fields for games and practices are needed
• More arts, cultural and environmental activities
• More soccer and mountain biking
• A Park Steward program could represent park efforts and solidify volunteer activities
• Enhance walkability to the waterfront from residential areas.
• Potential expansion of former Woodway HS campus could involve additional sports fields, lighting or a
future school site.
• City could benefit from a sports complex that provides tournament capacity to draw more economic
activity.
• An "opportunity fund" for SR 99 could help with resources and acquisitions to address current inequities.
• Parks could provide meeting spaces that could be rented/reserved by small businesses and individuals since
library only allows public uses. Snohomish (Willis Tucker) provides private reservable meeting space as a
good service to the community. This space could be combined with the City's future satellite office along
SR 99.
• Add a bike tool station on the Interurban Trail.
• Rework 77 to Trail so it's safer.
• Add restrooms and a drinking fountain to Mathay Ballinger Park.
• Enhance landscaping along utility corridor for better aesthetics.
• Upgrade infrastructure at Yost Pool.
• Marina Beach Park OLA could be improved by the removal of some of the older agility equipment.
Key Priorities
• Collaborate on Port's waterfront project to help create a seamless boardwalk experience.
• Consideration of an inter -local agreement between parks and ESD to help facilitate partnerships and
capital project resources and implementation. ESD has an ILA with Lynnwood where Lynnwood
contributes to elementary school construction to enlarge the gym to be able to accommodate more
community -based programming.
• Safe routes to parks and schools through enhanced walkability in the community.
• Lighting for Woodway Campus synthetic fields to extend available play time throughout the year.
• Add a "pocket park" classification to address an inequity in park definitions. Address the disparity
between park plan classifications and city code definitions.
• Provide more park amenities in SR 99 & South Edmonds communities.
• The 'International District' along SR 99 deserves more city investment and attention: tree plantings,
connected green spaces, pedestrian -friendly amenities. (See Shoreline as an example.)
• Yost Pool upgrades.
Interview Notes 3 September 29, 2021
204
Packet Pg. 220
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Interview Notes (continued)
• Completion of Civic Park.
• Balance resources to invest across the City.
nthar Cnmmantc
• The Port will be moving its administration building (current structure to be removed) with a major rework
of the waterfront boardwalk. The project will create some small open space(s) along the promenade.
• ESD is facing capacity issues at Sherwood & West Gate Elementary Schools while Edmonds Elementary
School has declining enrollment. A 5-10 year plan for elementary school replacement in Edmonds could be
an opportunity to partner with Parks & Recreation.
• Partnering with ESD for a future aquatic center is feasible.
• Could there be a partnership with Mountlake Terrace to allow some development of the west side of
Ballinger Park to provide for Edmonds' residential park needs? Could Edmonds lease part of that parkland
for developing more active park facilities, like sports fields?
• "Edmonds Moms", a Facebook group, has over 7,000 members and could be a resource for parks & rec
communications.
• "Edmonds Dogs" is another local interest group to be considered in communications about projects and
programming.
• Informal volunteer group in Yost Park has been trimming blackberries and clearing overgrown vegetation
along trails. Could this be a human resource that gets expanded into a "Friends of Parks" 501.3.c entity?
-- End of Notes --
Interview Notes
September 29, 2021
DRAFT
205
Packet Pg. 221
DRAFT
CONSERVATION
T E[ H N I x
STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION NOTES
Project Name: Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan
Location: Zoom Video Conference
Notes by: Jean Akers, Conservation Technix
Participant: Joomi Kim, Executive Director
Korean Community Services Center
Subject: Stakeholder Interview
PURPOSE
Project No.: Proj-# 21-138PLN
Interview Date: Oct. 14, 2021 Times: 11:00am
Jean Akers, Conservation Technix
To discuss current issues, opportunities and needs for park and recreation amenities. The interview took place on
October 14th via Zoom video conference.
DISCUSSION
The discussion began with a brief introduction and overview of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Plan update process. Joomi Kim was asked to briefly describe her role and organization and its relationship to
Edmonds' parks and recreation provision. A set of questions were then used to guide the discussion and elicit ideas
about the park system and local recreation needs.
Agency Perspectives
• The Korean Community Services Center (KCSC) provides a variety of social, financial, legal, counseling and
linguistic services for the Korean -speaking population in the Puget Sound Region. Up until now it has had
little if any relationship with the City of Edmonds and its provision of parks and recreation.
• Many of the people KCSC serves are not connected to recreation programming or the use of park facilities
due to language barriers.
• KCSC is advocating for equity and inclusion of the South Edmonds and SR 99 communities to provide more
park and recreation facilities in underserved areas.
Value/Rating of Parks
• The City's parks are beautiful but not as essential as needed social services.
• Walking trails and safe walking environments are important. Walking in green spaces is better than heavily
urban.
• Waterfront Center is very nice but KCSC clientele are not likely to use it due to discomfort with language
barrier.
Interview Notes 1 October 14, 2021
206
Packet Pg. 222
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Interview Notes (continued)
Concerns or Issues
• Heavy investment in waterfront & downtown has left underserved areas of Edmonds without adequate
facilities and services.
• Distance from waterfront and its amenities can be an additional barrier for KCSC community. SR 99 corridor
needs more focus & attention.
• The City (and Parks & Rec) is not engaged with its Korean community.
• Affordable housing is in short supply. High-rise residential housing could provide needed affordable living
and a small community center could be part of the project.
• City does not currently place many park and recreation resources in non -white, diverse resident
populations.
Project ideas
• A small (or large) community center located along SR 99 corridor could help provide much -needed services
and access to recreation programming.
• KCSC is ready to provide Korean translators for a variety of recreation programs. They run lots of programs
but need more space and are willing to help City with translation.
• KCSC runs a number of "wisdom" classes where life skills are taught such as photography, flower arranging,
knitting, computer use, Yoga, and how to use a smartphone. They have limited space and could expand
their programming to collaborate with Edmonds' recreation programming and provide the teachers
(Korean -speaking).
Help create better walking environment in SR 99 & South Edmonds communities.
Key Priorities
• Somewhere near SR 99 corridor, a multi -cultural community center is needed. The center should provide
reservable meeting space, conference/auditorium space, commercial kitchen, game room, gym, after
school programs and maybe an indoor pool.
Other Comments
• Look at the land surrounding the Burlington Coat Factory. Is there an opportunity to acquire some space
for a community center?
• As an example of type of needed facility: the Snohomish Senior Association meets one to three times a
week and likes to prepare their own meals (needs a kitchen) have an indoor gathering space, play some
simple games (ping pong, Mah Jong, etc).
-- End of Notes --
Interview Notes
October 14, 2021
DRAFT
207
Packet Pg. 223
DRAFT
5.A.a
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
�L
:.i
a.
Q_
L
V/
N0
U)
0
06
0
ca
a�
L
i
L
a
N
N
O
N
a+
Q
208
Packet Pg. 224
a.�
PO I� -IF l
TREND.��
3
{ .J.,..irAt?�} Fry
H
DRAFT
The following summaries from recognized park and
recreation resources provide background on national,
state and local park and recreation trends. Examining
current recreation trends may inform potential park
and recreation improvements and opportunities to
enhance programs and services.
2020 NRPA Agency Performance Review
The 2020 National Recreation and Park Association
(NRPA) Agency Performance Review summarizes the
key findings from their Park Metrics benchmarking
tool and is intended to assist park and recreation
professionals in effectively managing and planning
their operating resources and capital facilities. The
report offers a comprehensive collection of park- and
recreation -related benchmarks and insights to inform
professionals, key stakeholders, and the public about
the state of the park and recreation industry. The 2020
NRPA Agency Performance Review contains data
from 1,053 unique park and recreation agencies across
the United States as reported between 2017 and 2019.
Key Findings and Characteristics
Park facilities and operations vary greatly across
the nation.. The typical agency participating in the
NRPA park metric survey serves a jurisdiction of
approximately 42,500 people, but population size
varies widely across all responding jurisdictions. The
typical park and recreation agency has jurisdiction
over 20 parks comprising over 430 acres. Park facilities
also have a range of service levels in terms of acres of
parkland per population and residents per park. These
metrics are categorized by the agency's population size.
Park Facilities
Nearly all (96%) of park and recreation agencies
operate parks and related facilities. The typical park and
recreation agency has:
■ One park for every 2,281 residents
■ 9.9 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents in its
jurisdiction
■ 11 miles of trails for walking, hiking, running and/or
biking
210
Packet Pg. 226
5.A.a
EdfI ONS 2022 PRO
Figure F1. Median Residents per Park Based On Population Size
7,000 5,908
6,000
5,000
4,000 2 889
3,000 2,281 1,963 2,523
2,000 1,300
1,000
0
°0
�. ti ore
Figure F2. Acres of Parkland per 1,000 Residents based on Population Size
14 12
10.9
12 g,g
9.6
10
8.9
7.7
8
6
4
2
0
. ae °o
'Ly°O
o�
A large majority of park and recreation agencies
provide playgrounds (93.9%) and basketball courts
(86.5%) in their portfolio of outdoor assets. Most
agencies offer community and/or recreation centers
(60%) while two in five offer senior centers.
The typical park and recreation agency that manages
or maintains trails for walking, hiking, running and/or
biking has 11.0 miles of trails. Agencies serving more
than 250,000 residents have a median of 84.5 miles of
trails under their care.
Park and recreation agencies often take on
responsibilities beyond their core functions of
operating parks and providing recreational programs.
Other responsibilities may include tourist attractions,
golf courses, outdoor amphitheaters, indoor swim
facilities, farmer's markets, indoor sports complexes,
campgrounds, performing arts centers, stadiums/
arenas/racetracks, fairgrounds and/or marinas.
Programming
Nearly all (93%) of park and recreation agencies
provide recreation programs and services. More than
eight in ten agencies provide themed special events
(88% of agencies), team sports (87%), social recreation
events (87%), youth summer camps (83%), fitness
enhancement classes (82%), and health and wellness
education (81%).
Staffing
Park and recreation employees are responsible for
operations and maintenance, programming and
administration. The typical park and recreation agency
has:
■ 41.9 full-time equivalent staff (FTEs) on payroll
■ 8.1 FTEs on staff for every 10,000 residents in its
jurisdiction
■ Median FTE counts also positively correlate with
the number of acres maintained, the number of parks
maintained, operating expenditures, and the population
served. For example, agencies that serve populations
between 20,000 and 49,999 residents employ an average
of 27.3 FTE, while agencies that serve 50,000 to 99,000
people employ an average of 60 FTE.
Figure F3. Park and Recreation Agency Staffing: Full -Time Equivalents (By
Jurisdiction Population)
350.0
300.0
LL 250.0
200.0
v
150.0
z 10.0
N 50.0ai
.
0.0
�e5 00 �� o0 00 00
PAP roc °&
v ti11
ota
Jurisdiction Population
N
N
W
0
0
Co
O
W
IL
wl
C
O
w
c
m
E
z
M
r
Q
DRAFT 211
Packet Pg. 227
DRAFT
Another way of comparing agency staffing across
different park and recreation agencies examines
number of staff per 10,000 residents. These comparative
numbers hold fairly steady across population sizes with
the median for all agencies at 8.1 FTEs.
Figure K Park and Recreation Agency FTEs Per10,000 Residents
10
9
LL g
0 7
v 6
E 5
z 4
m 3
1
0
`ey o00 �o° C°a o00 °°o
'L
sec Lo. bo , 9y, gyp, y°o
PAP tirac °°o °°o o°p a�
� ti ore
Jurisdiction Population
Capital and Operating Expenses
For capital expenses, the typical park agency:
■ Dedicates about 55% to renovation projects and 32% to
new development projects.
■ Plans to spend about $5,000,000 million on capital
expenditures over the next five years.
■ For operations, the typical park agency spends:
■ $4.3 million per year on total operating expenses
■ $7,000 on annual operating expenses per acre of park and
non -park sites managed by the agency
■ $81.00 on annual operating expenses per capita
■ $97,000 in annual operating expenditures per employee
■ 54% of the annual operating budget on personnel costs,
38% on operating expenses, and 5% on capital expenses
not included in the agency's capital improvement plan
(CIP)
■ 44% of its operating budget on park management and
maintenance, 43% on recreation, and 13% on other
activities
Agency Funding
The typical park and recreation agency:
■ Derives 60% of their operating expenditures from
general fund tax support, 26% from generated revenues,
11% from dedicated taxes or levies, and 5% from grants,
sponsorships and other sources
■ Generates $21.00 in revenue annually for each resident in
the jurisdiction
2020 State of the Industry Report
Recreation Management magazine's 2020 Report
on the State of the Managed Recreation Industry
summarizes the opinions and information provided
by a wide range of professionals (with an average 22.3
years of experience) working in the recreation, sports,
and fitness industry. Given the emerging COVID-19
pandemic, Recreation Management also conducted a
supplemental survey in May 2020 to learn about both
the impacts to the industry and what mitigation steps
organizations were taking in response.
Partnerships
The 2020 report indicated that most (89%) recreation,
sports, and fitness facility owners form partnerships
with other organizations as a means of expanding their
reach, offering additional programming opportunities
or as a way to share resources and increase funding.
Local schools are shown as the most common partner
(64%) for all facility types. Youth -serving organizations
(Ys, JCC, Boys & Girls Clubs) and park and recreation
organizations were the most likely to report that they
had partnered with outside organizations, at 100% and
95% respectively.
Revenue Outlook
In January 2020, half of respondents expected revenues
to increase in both 2020 and 2021. Survey respondents
from urban communities are more optimistic about
revenue increases as compared to rural respondents.
In last year's report, parks respondents had reported
increases in their average operating expenditures with
operating costs that grew by 14% between fiscal year
2019 and 2019. Respondents generally expected their
operating expenses to continue to increase between
2019 and 2021, with camps expecting a 10% increase,
recreation centers at 8%, and parks at 6%.
212
Packet Pg. 228
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
Relative to costs and revenues, few facilities covered
by the survey reported that they cover more than
75 percent of their operating costs via revenue. The
percentage recovered varied with type of organization
with the average percentage of costs recovered for all
respondents hovering near 50% and private for -profit
organizations achieving the highest cost recovery rates.
For parks, the cost recovery rate remained steady at
44%.
Over the past decades, public parks and recreation
departments and districts have faced a growing
expectation that facilities can be run like businesses.
Many local facilities are expected to recover much of
their operating costs via revenues. While this is the
business model of for -profit facilities like health clubs,
it is a relatively recent development for publicly owned
facilities, which have typically been subsidized via tax
dollars and other funding sources. Most recreation
providers (81%) have been taking actions to reduce
expenditures. Cost recovery actions typically involve
reduction in expenses with improving energy efficiency
as the most common action (51% of respondents).
Increased fees and staffing cost reductions and putting
off construction or renovation plans were reported as
other common methods for reducing operating costs.
As of May 2020, nearly 90% of respondents anticipated
that total revenues would decline in 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Most anticipated a revenue
drop of 30-50%, though one in seven expected a
decline of more than 50%. In general, respondents are
split on when they expect that revenues will begin to
recover - 44% believe revenues will begin to rebound in
2021 while 40% expect further revenue declines.
Facility Use
The majority of respondents reported an increase in
use of their recreational facilities as of January 2020.
Looking forward, more than half of respondents (53%),
including 60-65% of parks and recreation centers, were
expecting to see further increases in the number of
people using their facilities over the next two years.
In 2020, 22% of respondents said they were planning to
add more staff at their facilities, 75% were planning to
maintain existing staffing levels, and 3% were planning
to reduce staffing. The May 2020 survey found,
however, that nearly half of responding organizations
had laid off or furloughed staff due to the impacts
of COVID-19 and nearly two-thirds had suspended
hiring plans.
Facilities and Improvements
Respondents from parks were more likely than other
respondents to include: park shelters (83.3% of park
respondents had shelters); playgrounds (82.7%); park
restroom structures (79%); open spaces (73.9%);
outdoor sports courts (71.9%); bike trails (48.3%);
outdoor aquatic facilities (42.1%); dog parks (40.4%);
skateparks (39.9%); fitness trails and outdoor fitness
equipment (34.5%); disc golf courses (33.7%); splash
play areas (33.3%); community gardens (32.3%); golf
courses (29.2%); bike and BMX parks (14.2%); and ice
rinks (13.9%).
Over the past seven years, the percentage of
respondents who indicate that they have plans for
construction, whether new facilities or additions or
renovations to their existing facilities, has grown
steadily, from 62.7 percent in 2013 to 72.9 percent
in 2020. Construction budgets have also risen. The
average amount respondents were planning to spend on
their construction plans was up 10.8% in 2020, after an
18.4% increase in 2019.On average, respondents to the
2020 survey were planning to spend $5.6 million on
construction.
A majority of park respondents (54%) reported plans
to add features at their facilities and were also the most
likely to be planning to construct new facilities in the
next three years (39%).
The top 10 planned features for all facility types
include:
1. Splash play areas (25.4% of those with plans to add
features were planning to add splash play)
2. Playgrounds (20.3%)
3. Park shelters (17.3%)
4. Dog parks (17.1%)
5. Park restrooms (16.1%)
6. Synthetic turf sports fields (14.8%)
7. Walking and hiking trails (14.8%)
8. Fitness trails and outdoor fitness equipment (14.8%)
9. Disc golf courses (12.9%)
10. Outdoor sports courts (11.3%)
The COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant
impact on construction plans. As of May 2020, over
one-third (34%) of respondents had put construction
on hold due to the impacts of the pandemic, rising
costs, and supply shortages.
DRAFT
213
Packet Pg. 229
DRAFT
Programming
Nearly all respondents (97%) offer programming
of some kind. The top 10 most commonly offered
programs include: holiday events and other special
events (provided by 65.3% of respondents); educational
programs (59%); group exercise programs (58.8%);
fitness programs (57.6%); day camps and summer
camps (57.3%); youth sports teams (55.2%); mind -
body balance programs such as yoga and tai chi
(51.2%); adult sports teams (46%); arts and crafts
programs (45.8%); and programs for active older adults
(45.4%).
Respondents from community centers, parks and
health clubs were the most likely to report that they
had plans to add programs at their facilities over
the next few years. The ten most commonly planned
program additions were:
1. Fitness programs (24% of those who have plans to add
programs)
2. Group exercise programs (22.4%)
3. Teen programs (22%)
4. Environmental education (21.8%)
5. Day camps and summer camps (20.9%)
6. Mind -body balance programs (20.5%)
7. Programs for active older adults (18.1%)
8. Special needs programs (17.9%)
9. Holidays and other special events (17.4%)
10. Arts and crafts (17%)
Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic required
many respondents to either put programs or services
on hold (82%) or cut programs or services entirely
(34%). Additionally, many respondents have had to
rethink their programming portfolios. Two-thirds
of respondents (67%) had added online fitness and
wellness programming as of May 2020, 39% were
involved in programs to address food insecurity, and
one in four was involved in programs to provide
educational support to out -of -school children.
General Challenges
In January 2020, facility managers were asked about
the challenges they anticipated impacting their
facilities in the future. Generally, overall budgets are
the top concern for most respondents including their
ability to support equipment and facility maintenance
needs (58%) and staffing (54%). Marketing, safety/
risk management, and creating new and innovative
programming also remain continuing challenges
for facility managers. Facility managers also report
that environmental and conservation issues (13%)
and social equity and access (10%) are posing
increasing challenges. However, as of May 2020,
many respondents concerns had shifted to addressing
the COVID-19 pandemic impacts described in the
sections above.
2020 Outdoor Participation Report
Overall Participation
According to the 2020 Outdoor Participation Report,
published by the Outdoor Foundation, just over
half of Americans ages 6 and older participated in
outdoor recreation at least once in 2019, the highest
participation rate in five years. This increase was not
universal, however, and there was significant variation
in participation between age, gender, and racial groups.
Despite the overall increase in the percentage of
Americans engaging in outdoor recreation, the total
number of recreational outings declined in 2019.
Outdoor participants went on a total of 10.9 billion
outdoor outings in 2019 — a 12% drop from the 2012
high-water mark of 12.4 billion outings. In addition,
the number of outings per participant declined 17% in
the past five years, from 85 outings per participant in
2014 to 71 in 2019.
This drop mirrors a decline in the total number of
outings per participant. Each year for over a decade,
participants have engaged less often in outdoor
activities. As a result, the percentage of `casual'
participants in outdoor recreation (i.e. those who
participate one to 11 times per year) has grown by
about 4% over the past 15 years, which the percentage
of `core' participants (i.e. weekly participants) has
declined.
214
Packet Pg. 230
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Figure F5. Frequency of Outdoor Outings: Trending Over Many Years
Casual (1 to 11 times) 28.2% 27.9%
Moderate (12 to 51 times) 32.5% 31.8%
Core (52+times) 39.3% 40.4%
Running, jogging and trail running in the most popular
outdoor activity by levels of participation, as shown in
the chart below, followed by fishing, hiking biking and
camping.
Figure F6. Most Popular Outdoor Activities by Participants, Nationwide
Running, jogging & trail running
Freshwater, saltwater & flyfishing
Hiking
Road biking, mountain biking & BMX
Car, backyard & RV camping
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
Youth Participation Declines
the youngest participants, children 6 to 17, were
outdoors far less than in previous years.lheir average
outings fell from a high of 91 in 2012 to just 77 per
child in 2019. Youth participation declined across the
board in 2019, with the biggest declines seen in girls
aged 18 to 24 (-5%) and boys ages 13 to 17 (-4%).
Households with children, however, continue to drive
growth in participation. Adults with children had much
higher outdoor recreation participation rates (57%)
than adults without children (44.4%).
Female Participation Continues to Grow
In 2019, women made up 46% of participants in
outdoor recreation while men made up 53.8%,
representing the smallest gender gap measured in the
report's history. Women's participation has increased
from 43% of all participants in 2009 to 46% in 2019.
28.4% 31.7% 32.6%
33.1% 32.5% 32.6%
38.5% 35.8% 34.9%
Diversity Gap Remains
Despite increases in participation, Black/African
American and Hispanic Americans continue to be
significantly underrepresented in outdoor recreation.
Hispanics made up 11.6% of outdoor recreation
participants, a 35 percent shortfall relative to their
proportion of the population ages 6 and over (17.9%).
Similarly, Black/African Americans represented 12.4%
of the U.S. population ages 6 and over in 2019, but
just 9.4 percent of outdoor participants, a 24 percent
participation deficit. Black youth were the least likely to
participate in outdoor recreation as compared to Asian,
Hispanic, and Caucasian youth — signaling a potential
future gap in outdoor participants. However, those
Black and Hispanic Americans who do participate in
outdoor recreation do so frequently — more often, on
average, than members of other racial groups.
In 2019, 62% of Asian Americans participated in
outdoor recreation, followed by 53% of White, 48% of
Hispanic, and 40% of Black/African Americans.
Impacts of COVID-19
An August 2020 report from the Outdoor Industry
Association indicated that COVID-19 impacted
recreation participation in April, May and June as
Americans flocked to outdoor recreation amid COVID
restrictions. Americans took up new activities in
significant numbers with the biggest gains in running,
cycling, and hiking given that these activities were
widely considered the safest activities during pandemic
shutdowns.'Ihe hardest hit activity segments during
COVID shutdowns were team sports (down 69%) and
racquet sports (down 55%). Reviewing just April, May
and June 2020, participation rates for day hiking rose
more than any other activity, up 8.4%.
DRAFT
215
Packet Pg. 231
DRAFT
2020 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities
Topline Participation Report
Prepared by a partnership of the Sports and Fitness
Industry Association (SFIA) and the Physical Activity
Council (PAC), this February 2020 participation report
summarizes levels of activity and identifies key trends
in sports, fitness, and recreation in the US. The report is
based on over 18,000 online interviews of a nationwide
sample that provides a high degree of statistical
accuracy using strict quotas for gender, age, income,
region, and ethnicity. The study looked at 122 different
team and individual sports and outdoor activities.
Compared to 2014, eight million more Americans were
casually active in 2019 indicating a positive movement
toward an increasingly active population. Sports that
made great strides in the last six years include trail
running, cardio tennis, BMX biking, and day hiking.
Over the last year, only 2.1 million additional people
reported participating in an activity that raises their
heart rate for more than 30 minutes. Participation in
active high calorie activities has remained flat for the
last four years.
The percentage of people reporting no physical activity
during the past year declined to 27% in 2019 - its
lowest point in six years — continuing an increasing
trend in activity. Rates of inactivity continue to be
linked to household income levels, with lower income
households having higher rates of inactivity. However,
in 2019, households across the income spectrum saw
declines in inactivity.
Figure F7. Total Participation Rate by Activity Category
Fitness Sports
Outdoor Sports
Individual Sports
Team Sports
-
Water Sports
Racquet Sports
Winter Sports
Fitness sports continue to be the most popular
activity type for the 5th consecutive year. Other
sports activities, including individual sports, racquet
sports, and water sports have seen a modest decline in
participation since 2018. Team sports experienced a
slight increase in participation, driven by the increasing
popularity of basketball and outdoor soccer. While
racquet sports lost about 2% of participants since
2018, mostly due to declines in squash and badminton
participation, the rising popularity of pickleball and
cardio tennis may reverse this declining trend.
When asked which activities they aspire to do, all
age -groups and income levels tend to show interest
in outdoor activities like fishing, camping, hiking,
biking, bicycling, and swimming. Younger age groups
are more interested in participating in team sports,
such as soccer, basketball and volleyball, while older
adults are more likely to aspire to individual activities
like swimming for fitness, bird/nature viewing, and
canoeing.
Physical education (PE) participation shows 96% of
6 to 12-year old youth and 82% of 13-17 year olds
participated in PE in 2019. While younger children
were more likely to participate in PE, older youth
had higher average days of participation. Children
were more than twice as likely to be inactive if they
did not attend PE. Overall, all ages saw an increase in
PE 2019. Participation in PE is thought to lead to an
increase of active healthy lifestyles in adulthood.
Figure F8. Sports with the highest 5-year increase in participation
Trail Running
Hiking (Day)
Rowing Machine
Kayaking (Recreational)
Aquatic Exercise
216
Packet Pg. 232
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
Figure F9. 5-Year Change in Outdoor Sports Participation
190
160%
130%
100%
76%
70% 56% 52%
40% 33% o
24% 20% 17% 13% 12% 9% o
10%
4/0 2% 2% 1%
.. .
. . .
-20% - -9% -12% -13% -14%
-24%
-50% J
W on uo on o0 w w on on on nn
L C `LL.- O i0 L O O. N L =p C N bq O w 3 N
c m s u ° `t v oo p v N o m 3 y o
c m � E 7 -o O O
b (0 3
\ bn
on cc
:Em c a 3 a)V �^ 'aC `w m �' z O ro
c c v
Y m m ao m O '^ m O _2 O
F C C o
Y O O V N
Y Z
o
L Y Y 'gyp O bD C
m C L N C O m
F O O W LL T Z
C u O
1 2co� C L
T U
u
co
Americans Engagement with Parks Survey
This annual study from the National Park and
Recreation Association (NRPA) probes Americans'
usage of parks, the key reasons that drive their use, and
the greatest challenges preventing greater usage. Each
year, the study examines the importance of public parks
in Americans' lives, including how parks compare to
other services and offerings of local governments. The
survey of 1,000 American adults looks at frequency
and drivers of parks/recreation facilities visits and the
barriers to that prevent greater enjoyment. Survey
respondents also indicate the importance of park and
recreation plays in their decisions at the voting booth
and their level of support for greater funding.
In 2020, NRPA conducted a shorter -than -typical
Engagement survey because of the dynamic nature of
life during the COVID-19 pandemic.'Ihe 2020 Study
focused on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
on park and recreation usage, whether residents see
public parks as an essential public service, and whether
people vote for political leaders based on their support
for parks and recreation funding.
Key findings include:
■ Eighty-two percent of U.S. adults agree that parks and
recreation is essential.
■ Seventy-seven percent of survey respondents indicate
that having a high -quality park, playground, public open
space or recreation center nearby is an important factor in
deciding where they want to live.
■ U.S. residents visit local park and recreation facilities more
than twice a month on average.
■ Three in five U.S. residents — more than 190 million
people — visited a park, trail, public open space or other
recreation facility at least once during the first three
months of the pandemic (mid -March through mid -June
2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
According to the Americans Engagement with Parks
report,
"In many communities across the nation, parks,
trails and other public open spaces have been crucial
resources available to people seeking a brief respite
from the public health crisis. As businesses shut
down operations during the spring, many parks
and trails remained open, providing people with
opportunities to safely enjoy outdoor physical
N
N
to
0
0
>
co
O
W
IL
NI
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
z
Q
DRAFT 217
Packet Pg. 233
DRAFT
activity with its many attendant physical and mental
health benefits. According to NRPA Parks Snapshot
Survey data (nrpa.org/ ParksSnapshot), 83 percent
of park and recreation agencies kept some/all of their
parks open during the initial wave of COVID-19
infections in April 2020, while 93 percent did the
same with some/all of their trail networks.
Consequently, people flocked to their local parks,
trails and other public open spaces. Three in five
U.S. residents — more than 190 million people
— visited a park, trail, public open space or other
recreation facility at least once during the first
three months of the pandemic — from mid -March
through mid June 2020. Parks and recreation usage
was particularly strong among GenZers, Millenials,
Gen Xers, parents, people who identify as Hispanic/
Latinx and those who identify as nonwhite.
As has been the case with virtually every aspect
of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has altered the
frequency with which most people engage with their
local park and recreation amenities. Still, slightly
more than half of people have been visiting parks,
trails and other public open space amenities as
often — if not more often — since the start of the
pandemic than they had during the same period in
2019. Twenty-seven percent of U.S. residents report
that their use of parks, trails and other public open
spaces increased during the first three months of
the pandemic relative to the same period in 2019. A
quarter of survey respondents indicates their parks
and recreation usage during the period from mid -
March to mid- June 2020 matched that of the same
three months in 2019. Forty-eight percent of people
report that their usage of parks, trails and public
open spaces declined during the early months of the
pandemic."
Washington State Recreation and Conservation
Plan
The 2018-2022 Recreation and Conservation Plan
for Washington State provides a strategic direction
to help assure the effective and adequate provision of
outdoor recreation and conservation to meet the needs
of Washington State residents. The plan identifies the
following five near and long-term priority areas and
establishes specific actions within each priority to help
meet the outdoor recreation and conservation needs
within the state:
1. Sustain and Grow the Legacy of Parks, Trails, and
Conservation Lands
2. Improve Equity of Parks, Trails, and Conservation
Lands
Meet the Needs of Youth
4. Plan for Culturally Relevant Parks and Trails to Meet
Changing Demographics
5. Assert Recreation and Conservation as a Vital Public
Service
Sustain & Grow the Legacy
A wealth of existing recreation and conservation areas
and facilities should be kept open, safe, and enjoyable
for all. Some modifications to meet the interests of
today's population may be needed at some facilities.
Sustaining existing areas while expanding and building
new facilities to keep up with a growing population is
one of the five priority goals.
Improve Equity
The National Recreation and Park Association's
position on social equity states:
"Our nation's public parks and recreation services
should be equally accessible and available to all
people regardless of income level, ethnicity, gender,
ability, or age. Public parks, recreation services and
recreation programs including the maintenance,
safety, and accessibility of parks and facilities, should
be provided on an equitable basis to all citizens of
communities served by public agencies."
The Washington plan restates that equity goal for all
its citizens. Improving equity is also a strategy for
improving a community's health. Current statewide
participation rates in outdoor activities were surveyed
as part of the plan.
218
Packet Pg. 234
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
Figure F10. Participation Rates for Washington Residents in Outdoor Activi-
a:..
Walking
94%
Nature activities
89%
Leisure activities at parks
82%
Swimming
68%
Sightseeing activities
67%
Hiking
61%
Outdoor sports
48%
Water -based activities (freshwater)
46%
Camping
45%
Trending activities
33%
Snow and ice activities
30%
Bicycling
28%
Get Youth Outside
Washington State youth participate in outdoor
activities to a greater extent than youth nationally. Park
and recreation providers are urged to offer a variety
of outdoor activities for youth and to support youth
programs. Most youth are walking, playing at a park,
trying new or trending activities, fishing in freshwater,
exploring nature, and riding bikes. Other activities of
interest to youth are activities in freshwater such as
boating and paddling, fishing in saltwater, and target
shooting, hiking, outdoor sports, and riding off -road
vehicles.
Figure F11. Youth Participation Rates for Washington Residents in Outdoor
Activities
Walking
88%
Leisure in parks
78%
Trending activities
77%
Fishing in freshwater
77%
Nature -based activities
75%
Bicycling
74%
Freshwater -based activities*
66%
Target shooting
62%
Hiking
57%
Outdoor sports
57%
Off -road vehicle riding
57%
Fishing in saltwater
53%
*(not swimming)
Plan for Culturally Relevant parks and Trails to Meet
Changing Demographics
Washington's population is expected to grow by 2
million people by 2040 leading to more congestion
and competition for recreation resources. Between
2010-2040, the percent of people of color are expected
to increase from 27 percent to 44 percent. With the
cultural change in the population, preferred recreational
activities also will change. By 2030, more than one of
every five Washingtonians will be 65 years old or older.
By 2040, there will be more seniors than youth. Park
and recreation providers should be prepared to create
new and diverse opportunities and accommodate the
active senior population.
Assert Recreation and Conservation as a Vital Public
Service
the plan recognizes that outdoor recreation contributes
to a strong economy and is a public investment like
other public services and infrastructure. The report cites
the Outdoor Industry Association and other economic
studies that reinforce the importance of park and
recreation services locally, regionally and statewide.
2019 Special Report on Paddlesports & Safety
In 2019, the Outdoor Foundation produced a report
focused on paddlesports data based on a participation
survey (over 20,000 online interviews with a
nationwide sample of individuals and households).
In 2018, 22.9 million Americans (approximately
7.4% of the population) participated in paddle sports.
This represents an increase of more than 4 million
participants since the study began in 2010.Over the
last five years, there continues to be an increase in
paddlesports popularity among outdoor enthusiasts,
with significant portions of the nationwide growth
occurring in the Pacific region.
Recreational kayaking continues to grow in popularity
but may be driving some of the decline in canoeing.
"Ihe popularity of stand-up paddling has soared,
increasing by 1.5 million participants over the past
five years, though it does not have nearly as high a
participation rate as either recreational kayaking or
canoeing.
DRAFT
219
Packet Pg. 235
DRAFT
Most paddlers are Caucasian, other racial and ethnic
groups are largely under -represented. However,
Caucasian participation has remained relatively flat
while participation by people identifying as Hispanic
or Black/African American has grown by 0.5% to
1% per year since 2013. 71his growth has led to more
than 773,000 new Hispanic paddlers in just six years,
signaling the importance and potential of engaging
minority groups in paddlesports.
One in eight paddlers have been participating in the
sport for 21 years or more. However, many participants
— between thirty and sixty percent, depending on the
discipline — tried a paddlesport for the first time in
2018. Such high levels of first-time participation may
produce longer term growth in paddling, assuming
participants continue to enjoy the sport.
Among adult paddlers, most participate for excitement
and adventure, for exercise, or to be close to nature.
Kayakers, rafters, canoers and stand-up paddlers often
enjoy, or would be willing to try, other paddlesports.
Many also enjoy similar outdoor "crossover" activities
such as hiking, camping, walking, and nature viewing.
220
Packet Pg. 236
rl "_-, A-
APPENDIX G
IMPLEMENTA
TACTICS
221
Packet Pg. 237
DRAFT
5.A.a
LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS
The City of Edmonds possesses a range of local
funding tools that could be accessed for the benefit
of growing, developing and maintaining its parks and
recreation program. The sources listed below represent
likely potential sources, but some also may be dedicated
for numerous other local purposes which limit
applicability and usage. "Therefore, discussions with City
leadership are critical to assess the political landscape
to modify or expand the use of existing City revenue
sources in favor of park and recreation programs.
Councilmanic Bonds
Councilmanic bonds may be sold by cities without
public vote. The bonds, both principal and interest, are
retired with payments from existing city revenue or
new general tax revenue, such as additional sales tax or
real estate excise tax. The state constitution has set a
Excess Levy — One Year Only
Cities and counties that are levying their statutory
maximum rate can ask the voters, at any special
election date, to raise their rate for one year (RCW
84.52.052). As this action increases revenue for one-
year at a time it is wise to request this type of funding
for one-time uses only.
Regular Property Tax - Lid Lift
Cities are authorized to impose ad valorem taxes
upon real and personal property. A city's maximum
levy rate for general purposes is $3.375 per $1,000 of
assessed valuation. Limitations on annual increases
in tax collections, coupled with changes in property
value, causes levy rates to rise or fall; however, in no
case may they rise above statutory limits. Once the rate
is established each year, it may not be raised without
the approval of a majority of the voters. Receiving
voter approval is known as a lid lift. A lid lift may be
permanent, or may be for a specific purpose and time
maximum debt limit for councilmanic bonds of 11/z% of period.
the value of taxable property in the city.
General Obligation Bond
For the purposes of funding capital projects, such as
land acquisitions or facility construction, cities and
counties have the authority to borrow money by selling
bonds. Voter -approved general obligation bonds may
be sold only after receiving a 60 percent majority
vote at a general or special election. If approved, an
excess property tax is levied each year for the life of
the bond to pay both principal and interest. The state
constitution (Article VIII, Section 6) limits total debt
to 5% of the total assessed value of property in the
jurisdiction.
A levy lid lift is an instrument for increasing property
tax levies for operating and/or capital purposes. Taxing
districts with a tax rate that is less than their statutory
maximum rate may ask the voters to "lift" the levy lid
by increasing the tax rate to some amount equal to
or less than their statutory maximum rate. A simple
majority vote of citizenry is required.
Cities and counties have two "lift" options available to
them: Single-year/basic or Multi -year.
Single -year: The single -year lift does not mean that the
lift goes away after one year; it can be for any amount
of time, including permanently, unless the proceeds
will be used for debt service on bonds, in which case
the maximum time period is nine years. Districts may
permanently increase the levy but must use language in
the ballot title expressly stating that future levies will
increase as allowed by chapter 84.55 RCW. After the
initial "lift" in the first year, the district's levy in future
222
Packet Pg. 238
5.A.a
MOW 2022 PRO
years is subject to the 101 percent lid in chapter 84.55
RCW. This is the maximum amount it can increase
without returning to the voters for another lid lift.
The election to implement a single -year lift may take
place on any election date listed in RCW 29A.04.321.
Multi -year: The multi -year lift allows the levy lid to
be "bumped up" each year for up to a maximum of six
years. At the end of the specified period, the levy in
the final period may be designated as the basis for the
calculation of all future levy increases (in other words,
be made permanent) if expressly stated in the ballot
title. The levy in future years would then be subject to
the 101 percent lid in chapter 84.55 RCW.
In a multi -year lift, the lift for the first year must state
the new tax rate for that year. For the ensuing years,
the lift may be a dollar amount, a percentage increase
tied to an index, or a percentage amount set by some
other method. The amounts do not need to be the
same for each year. If the amount of the increase for
a particular year would require a tax rate that is above
the maximum tax rate, the assessor will levy only the
maximum amount allowed by law.
The election to implement a multi -year lift must be
either the August primary or the November general
election.
The single -year lift allows supplanting of expenditures
within the lift period; the multi -year left does not, and
the purpose for the lift must be specifically identified in
the election materials. For both single- and multi -year
lifts, when the lift expires the base for future levies will
revert to what the dollar amount would have been if no
lift had ever been done.
The total regular levy rate of senior taxing districts
(counties and cities) and junior taxing districts
(fire districts, library districts, etc.) may not exceed
$5.9011,000 AV. If this limit is exceeded, levies are
reduced or eliminated in the following order until the
total tax rate is at $5.90.
Parks & Recreation Districts (up to $0.60)
Parks & Recreation Service Areas (up to $0.60)
Cultural Arts, Stadiums & Convention Districts (up to
$0.25)
Flood Control Zone Districts (up to $0.50)
Hospital Districts (up to $0.25)
Metropolitan Parks Districts (up to $0.25)
All other districts not otherwise mentioned
4. Metropolitan Park Districts formed after January 1,
2002 or after (up to $0.50)
5. Fire Districts (up to $0.25)
6. Fire Districts (remaining $0.50)
Regional Fire Protection Service Authorities (up to
$0.50)
Library Districts (up to $0.50)
Hospital Districts (up to $0.50)
Metropolitan Parks Districts formed before January 1,
2002 (up to $0.50)
Sales Tax
Paid by the consumer, sales tax is a percentage of the
retail price paid for specific classifications of goods and
services within the State of Washington.
Governing bodies of cities and counties may impose
sales taxes within their boundaries at a rate set by state
statute and local ordinances, subject to referendum.
Until the 1990 Legislative Session, the maximum
possible total sales tax rate paid by purchasers in cities
was 8.1 percent. This broke down as follows: state, 6.5
cents on the dollar; counties, 0.15 cents; cities, 0.85
cents; and transit districts, a maximum of 0.6 cents
(raised to 0.9 cents in 2000). Since then multiple sales
options were authorized. Those applicable to Parks and
Recreation include: counties may ask voters to approve
a sales tax of up to 0.3 percent, which is shared with
cities. At least one-third of the revenue must be used
for criminal justice purposes.
Counties and cities may also form public facilities
districts, and these districts may ask the voters to
approve a sales tax of up to 0.2 percent. The proceeds
may be used for financing, designing, acquisition,
construction, equipping, operating, maintaining,
remodeling, repairing, and reequipping its public
facilities.
Revenue may be used to fund any essential county and
municipal service.
If a jurisdiction is going to change a sales tax rate or
levy a new sales tax, it must pass an ordinance to that
effect and submit it to the Department of Revenue at
least 75 days before the effective date. The effective date
must be the first day of a quarter: January 1, April 1,
July 1 or October 1.
N
N
to
0
0
le
>�
co
O
W
IL
c
0
E
w
c
m
t
Q
DRAFT 223
Packet Pg. 239
DRAFT
Business and Occupation Tax
Business and occupation (B&O) taxes are excise taxes
levied on different classes of business to raise revenue.
Taxes are levied as a percentage of the gross receipts of
a business, less some deductions. Businesses are put in
different classes such as manufacturing, wholesaling,
retailing, and services. Within each class, the rate must
be the same, but it may differ among classes.
Cities can impose this tax for the first time or raise
rates following referendum procedure.
B&O taxes are limited to a maximum tax rate that can
be imposed by a city's legislative body at 0.2 percent
(0.002), but grandfathered in any higher rates that
existed on January 1,1982. Any city may levy a rate
higher than 0.2 percent, if it is approved by a majority
of voters (RCW 35.21.711). Beginning January 1,
2008, cities that levy the B&O tax must allow for
allocation and apportionment, as set out in RCW
35.102.130.
Admissions Tax
An admissions tax is a use tax for entertainment.
Both cities and counties may impose this tax through
legislative action.
Cities and/or counties may levy an admission tax in an
amount no greater than five percent of the admission
charge, as is authorized by statute (cities: RCW
35.21.280; counties: RCW 35.57.100). This tax can be
levied on admission charges (including season tickets)
to places such as theaters, dance halls, circuses, clubs
that have cover charges, observation towers, stadiums,
and any other activity where an admission charge is
made to enter the facility.
If a city imposes an admissions tax, the county may not
levy a tax within city boundaries.
The statutes provide an exception for admission to
elementary or secondary school activities. Generally,
certain events sponsored by nonprofits are exempted
from the tax; however, this is not a requirement.
Counties also exempt any public facility of a public
facility district for which admission is imposed. There
are no statutory restrictions on the use of revenue.
Impact Fees
Development impact fees are charges placed on new
development in unimproved areas to help pay for
various public facilities that serve new development or
for other impacts associated with such development.
Both cities and counties may impose this tax through
legislative action.
Counties that plan under the GMA, and cities, may
impose impact fees on residential and commercial
development activity to help pay for certain public
facility improvements, including parks, open space,
and recreation facilities identified in the county's
capital facilities plan. The improvements financed from
impact fees must be reasonably related to the new
development and must reasonably benefit the new
development. The fees must be spent or encumbered
within ten years of collection.
Real Estate Excise Tax
Excise tax levied on all sales of real estate, measured
by the full selling price, including the amount of any
liens, mortgages, and other debts given to secure the
purchase. Both cities and counties may impose this tax
through legislative action.
Counties and cities may levy a quarter percent tax
(REET 1); a second quarter percent tax (REET 2) is
authorized. First quarter percent REET (REET 1)
must be spent on capital projects listed in the city's
capital facilities plan element of their comprehensive
plan. Capital projects include planning, acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement,
rehabilitation, or improvement of parks, recreational
facilities, and trails.
The second quarter percent REET (REET 2) must also
be spent on capital projects, which includes planning,
construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or
improvement of parts. Acquisition of land for parks
is not a permitted use of REET 2. Both REET 1 and
REET 2 may be used to make loan and debt service
payments on projects that are a permitted use of these
funds. The City of Edmonds currently assesses both
REETs and uses this funding for a variety of capital
project needs.
224
Packet Pg. 240
5.A.a
MOM 2022 PRO
Lodging Tax
The lodging tax is a user fee for hotel/motel
occupation. Both cities and counties may impose this
tax through legislative action.
Cities and/or counties may impose a "basic" two
percent tax under RCW` 67.28.180 on all charges
for furnishing lodging at hotels, motels and similar
establishments for a continuous period of less than one
month.
This tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5 percent
state sales tax, so that the total tax that a patron pays in
retail sales tax and hotel -motel tax combined is equal
to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction. In addition,
jurisdictions may levy an additional tax of up to two
percent, or a total rate of four percent, under RCW
67.28.181(1). This is not credited against the state sales
tax. Therefore, if this tax is levied, the total tax on the
lodging bill will increase by two percent.
If both a city and the county are levying this tax, the
county must allow a credit for any tax levied by a city
so that no two taxes are levied on the same taxable
event. These revenues must be used solely for paying
for tourism promotion and for the acquisition and/
or operating of tourism -related facilities. "Tourism" is
defined as economic activity resulting from tourists,
which may include sales of overnight lodging, meals,
tours, gifts, or souvenirs; there is no requirement that a
tourist must stay overnight.
Conservation Futures Tax (Snohomish
Counties)
The Conservation Futures Tax (CFT) is provided for
in Chapter 84.34 of the Revised Code of Washington.
Snohomish County imposes a Conservation Futures
levy at a rate of $0.0625 per $1,000 assessed value for
the purpose of acquiring open space lands, including
green spaces, greenbelts, wildlife habitat and trail
rights -of -way proposed for preservation for public use
by either the county or the cities within the county.
Funds are allocated annually, and cities within the
county, citizen groups and citizens may apply for funds
through the county's process. The CFT program for
each county provides grants to cities to support open
space priorities in local plans.
FEDERAL & STATE GRANTS AND
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Program
The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Program, also known as the Rivers &Trails Program
or RTCA, is a technical assistance resource for
communities administered by the National Park
Service and federal government agencies so they can
conserve rivers, preserve open space and develop trails
and greenways. The RTCA program implements the
natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation
mission of NPS in communities across America.
Community Development Block Grants
These funds are intended to develop viable urban
communities by providing decent housing and
a suitable living environment, and by expanding
economic opportunities, principally for low and
moderate income persons. Snohomish County, in
partnership with 18 cities and towns within the county
through an interlocal agreement, receives CDBG
funds on an entitlement basis as an Urban County
Consortium. The county administers this funding
on behalf of the consortium through the Snohomish
County Office of Housing and Community
Development (OHCD). CDBG funds can be used
for a wide variety of projects, services, facilities and
infrastructure.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Grants Program
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act of
1989 provides matching grants to organizations and
individuals who have developed partnerships to carry
out wetland conservation projects in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico for the benefit of wetlands -
associated migratory birds and other wildlife. Two
competitive grants programs exist (Standard and a
Small Grants Program) and require that grant requests
be matched by partner contributions at no less than
a 1-to-1 ratio. Funds from U.S. Federal sources may
contribute toward a project, but are not eligible as
match.
DRAFT
225
Packet Pg. 241
DRAFT
The Standard Grants Program supports projects in
Canada, the United States, and Mexico that involve
long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement
of wetlands and associated uplands habitats.
The Small Grants Program operates only in the
United States; it supports the same type of projects
and adheres to the same selection criteria and
administrative guidelines as the U.S. Standard Grants
Program. However, project activities are usually smaller
in scope and involve fewer project dollars. Grant
requests may not exceed $75,000, and funding priority
is given to grantees or partners new to the Act's Grants
Program.
Recreation and Conservation Office Grant
Programs
The Recreation and Conservation Office was created
in 1964 as part of the Marine Recreation Land Act.
The RCO grants money to state and local agencies,
generally on a matching basis, to acquire, develop,
and enhance wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation
properties. Some money is also distributed for planning
grants. RCO grant programs utilize funds from various
sources. Historically, these have included the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund, state bonds,
Initiative 215 monies (derived from unreclaimed
marine fuel taxes), off -road vehicle funds, Youth
Athletic Facilities Account and the Washington
Wildlife and Recreation Program.
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA)
This program, managed through the RCO, provides
matching grants to state and local agencies to protect
and enhance salmon habitat and to provide public
access and recreation opportunities on aquatic
lands. In 1998, DNR refocused the ALEA program
to emphasize salmon habitat preservation and
enhancement. However, the program is still open to
traditional water access proposals. Any project must
be located on navigable portions of waterways. ALEA
funds are derived from the leasing of state-owned
aquatic lands and from the sale of harvest rights for
shellfish and other aquatic resources.
Washington Wildlife & Recreation Program
(WWRP)
The RCO is a state office that allocates funds to local
and state agencies for the acquisition and development
of wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation properties.
Funding sources managed by the RCO include the
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program. The
WWRP is divided into Habitat Conservation and
Outdoor Recreation Accounts; these are further
divided into several project categories. Cities, counties
and other local sponsors may apply for funding in
urban wildlife habitat, local parks, trails and water
access categories. Funds for local agencies are awarded
on a matching basis. Grant applications are evaluated
once each year, and the State Legislature must
authorize funding for the WWRP project lists.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
provides grants to buy land and develop public outdoor
facilities, including parks, trails and wildlife lands.
Grant recipients must provide at least 50% matching
funds in either cash or in -kind contributions. Grant
program revenue is from a portion of Federal revenue
derived from sale or lease of off -shore oil and gas
resources.
National Recreational Trails Program
The National Recreational Trails Program (NRTP)
provides funds to maintain trails and facilities that
provide a backcountry experience for a range of
activities including hiking, mountain biking, horseback
riding, motorcycling, and snowmobiling. Eligible
projects include the maintenance and re-routing
of recreational trails, development of trail -side and
trail -head facilities, and operation of environmental
education and trail safety programs. A local match
of 20% is required. This program is funded through
Federal gasoline taxes attributed to recreational non -
highway uses.
Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF) Program
The YAF provides grants to develop, equip, maintain,
and improve youth and community athletic facilities.
Cities, counties, and qualified non-profit organizations
may apply for funding, and grant recipients must
provide at least 50% matching funds in either cash or
in -kind contributions.
226
Packet Pg. 242
5.A.a
EdmondS 2022 PRO
Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund
Grants are awarded by the Salmon Recovery Funding
Board for acquisition or restoration of lands directly
correlating to salmon habitat protection or recovery.
Projects must demonstrate a direct benefit to fish
habitat. "There is no match requirement for design -only
projects; acquisition and restoration projects require
a 15% match.lhe funding source includes the sale
of state general obligation bonds, the federal Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and the state Puget
Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund.
STP Regional Competition - Puget Sound
Regional Council
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are
considered the most "flexible" funding source provided
through federal transportation funding. Every two
years the Puget Sound Regional Council conducts a
competitive grant program to award FHWA Surface
Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. These
funds are awarded at the Regional level by PSRC
and at the countywide level by the Infrastructure
Coordinating Committee (ICC). The ICC is a standing
sub -committee of Snohomish County Tomorrow
(SCT) comprised of public works representatives of the
cities, the County and the Tulalip Tribe; representatives
from the PUD, the Washington State Department
of Transportation, Port of Everett, and local transit
agencies.
For the Countywide STP/CMAQcompetitions,
the policy focus is on providing transportation
improvements to a center or centers and the corridors
that serve them. Centers are defined as regional growth
and regional manufacturing/industrial centers, centers
as designated through countywide processes, town
centers, military bases/facilities and other local centers
OTHER METHODS & FUNDING
SOURCES
Metropolitan Park District
Metropolitan park districts may be formed for the
purposes of management, control, improvement,
maintenance and acquisition of parks, parkways and
boulevards. In addition to acquiring and managing
their own lands, metropolitan districts may accept
and manage park and recreation lands and equipment
turned over by any city within the district or by the
county. Formation of a metropolitan park district may
be initiated in cities of five thousand population or
more by city council ordinance, or by petition, and
requires majority approval by voters for creation.
Park and Recreation District
Park and recreation districts may be formed for the
purposes of providing leisure -time activities and
recreation facilities (parks, playgrounds, pools, golf
courses, paths, community centers, arboretums,
campgrounds, boat launches, etc.) and must be initiated
by petition of at least 15% percent of the registered
voters within the proposed district. Upon completion
of the petition process and review by county
commissioners, a proposition for district formation and
election of five district commissioners is submitted to
the voters of the proposed district at the next general
election. Once formed, park and recreation districts
retain the authority to propose a regular property tax
levy, annual excess property tax levies and general
obligation bonds. All three of these funding types
require 60% percent voter approval and 40% percent
voter turnout. With voter approval, the district may
levy a regular property tax not to exceed sixty cents
per thousand dollars of assessed value for up to six
consecutive years.
Park and Recreation Service Area (PRSA)
Purpose to finance, acquire, construct, improve,
maintain or operate any park, senior citizen activities
center, zoo, aquarium and/or recreation facilities; and
to provide higher level of park service. The Northshore
Parks and Recreation Service Area, which owns the
Northshore Senior Center building, is located east of
Edmonds.
DRAFT
227
Packet Pg. 243
DRAFT
Business Sponsorships/Donations
Business sponsorships for programs may be available
throughout the year. In -kind contributions are often
received, including food, door prizes and equipment/
material.
Interagency Agreements
State law provides for interagency cooperative efforts
between units of government. Joint acquisition,
development and/or use of park and open space
facilities may be provided between Parks, Public Works
and utility providers.
Private Grants, Donations & Gifts
Many trusts and private foundations provide funding
for park, recreation and open space projects. Grants
from these sources are typically allocated through a
competitive application process and vary dramatically
in size based on the financial resources and funding
criteria of the organization. Philanthropic giving is
another source of project funding. Efforts in this area
may involve cash gifts and include donations through
other mechanisms such as wills or insurance policies.
Community fundraising efforts can also support park,
recreation or open space facilities and projects. The
Community Foundation of Snohomish County also
offers small grants ($500 - $5,000) to qualified non-
profit organizations (501(c)(3)) or public agencies such
as local government, schools, libraries or parks.
ACQUISITION TOOLS & METHODS
DIRECT PURCHASE METHODS
Market Value Purchase
Through a written purchase and sale agreement, the
city purchases land at the present market value based
on an independent appraisal. Timing, payment of real
estate taxes and other contingencies are negotiable.
Partial Value Purchase (or Bargain Sale)
In a bargain sale, the landowner agrees to sell for less
than the property's fair market value. A landowner's
decision to proceed with a bargain sale is unique and
personal; landowners with a strong sense of civic pride,
long community history or concerns about capital gains
are possible candidates for this approach. In addition
to cash proceeds upon closing, the landowner may be
entitled to a charitable income tax deduction based on
the difference between the land's fair market value and
its sale price.
Life Estates & Bequests
In the event a landowner wishes to remain on the
property for a long period of time or until death,
several variations on a sale agreement exist. In a life
estate agreement, the landowner may continue to
live on the land by donating a remainder interest
and retaining a "reserved life estate." Specifically, the
landowner donates or sells the property to the city, but
reserves the right for the seller or any other named
person to continue to live on and use the property.
When the owner or other specified person dies or
releases his/her life interest, full title and control over
the property will be transferred to the city. By donating
a remainder interest, the landowner may be eligible for
a tax deduction when the gift is made. In a bequest, the
landowner designates in a will or trust document that
the property is to be transferred to the city upon death.
While a life estate offers the city some degree of title
control during the life of the landowner, a bequest does
not. Unless the intent to bequest is disclosed to and
known by the city in advance, no guarantees exist with
regard to the condition of the property upon transfer or
to any liabilities that may exist.
228
Packet Pg. 244
5.A.a
Edf11OW 2022 PRO
Gift Deed
When a landowner wishes to bequeath their property
to a public or private entity upon their death, they
can record a gift deed with the county assessors office
to insure their stated desire to transfer their property
to the targeted beneficiary as part of their estate. the
recording of the gift deed usually involves the tacit
agreement of the receiving party.
Option to Purchase Agreement
this is a binding contract between a landowner and the
city that would only apply according to the conditions
of the option and limits the seller's power to revoke an
offer. Once in place and signed, the Option Agreement
may be triggered at a future, specified date or upon
the completion of designated conditions. Option
Agreements can be made for any time duration and
can include all of the language pertinent to closing a
property sale.
Right of First Refusal
In this agreement, the landowner grants the city
the first chance to purchase the property once the
landowner wishes to sell. the agreement does not
establish the sale price for the property, and the
landowner is free to refuse to sell it for the price offered
by the city. this is the weakest form of agreement
between an owner and a prospective buyer.
Conservation and/or Access Easements
through a conservation easement, a landowner
voluntarily agrees to sell or donate certain rights
associated with his or her property (often the right to
subdivide or develop), and a private organization or
public agency agrees to hold the right to enforce the
landowner's promise not to exercise those rights. In
essence, the rights are forfeited and no longer exist.
this is a legal agreement between the landowner
and the city that permanently limits uses of the land
in order to conserve a portion of the property for
public use or protection. The landowner still owns
the property, but the use of the land is restricted.
Conservation easements may result in an income
tax deduction and reduced property taxes and estate
taxes. Typically, this approach is used to provide trail
corridors where only a small portion of the land
is needed or for the strategic protection of natural
resources and habitat. through a written purchase and
sale agreement, the city purchases land at the present
market value based on an independent appraisal.
Timing, payment of real estate taxes and other
contingencies are negotiable.
Park or Open Space Dedication Requirements
Local governments have the option to require
developers to dedicate land for parks under the State
Subdivision Law (Ch. 58.17 RCW) and the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Ch. 43.21C
RCW). Under the subdivision law developers can be
required to provide the parks/recreation improvements
or pay a fee in lieu of the dedicated land and its
improvements. Under the SEPA requirements, land
dedication may occur as part of mitigation for a
proposed development's impact.
LANDOWNER INCENTIVE MEASURES
Density Bonuses
Density bonuses are a planning tool used to encourage
a variety of public land use objectives, usually in urban
areas. They offer the incentive of being able to develop
at densities beyond current regulations in one area, in
return for concessions in another. Density bonuses are
applied to a single parcel or development. An example
is allowing developers of multi -family units to build
at higher densities if they provide a certain number
of low-income units or public open space. For density
bonuses to work, market forces must support densities
at a higher level than current regulations.
Transfer of Development Rights
The transfer of development rights (TDR) is an
incentive -based planning tool that allows land
owners to trade the right to develop property to its
fullest extent in one area for the right to develop
beyond existing regulations in another area. Local
governments may establish the specific areas in which
development may be limited or restricted and the
areas in which development beyond regulation may
be allowed. Usually, but not always, the "sending" and
"receiving" property are under common ownership.
Some programs allow for different ownership, which,
in effect, establishes a market for development rights to
be bought and sold.
DRAFT
229
Packet Pg. 245
DRAFT
IRC 1031 Exchange
If the landowner owns business or investment property,
an IRC Section 1031 Exchange can facilitate the
exchange of like -kind property solely for business
or investment purposes. No capital gain or loss is
recognized under Internal Revenue Code Section
1031 (see www.irc.gov for more details). This option
may be a useful tool in negotiations with an owner of
investment property, especially if the tax savings offset
to the owner can translate to a sale price discount for
the City.
Current (Open Space) Use Taxation Programs
Property owners whose current lands are in open space,
agricultural, and/or timber uses may have that land
valued at their current use rather than their "highest
and best" use assessment. This differential assessed
value, allowed under the Washington Open Space
Taxation Act (Ch.84.34 RCW) helps to preserve
private properties as open space, farm or timber lands.
If land is converted to other non -open space uses, the
land owner is required to pay the difference between
the current use annual taxes and highest/best taxes for
the previous seven years. When properties are sold to
a local government or conservation organization for
land conservation/preservation purposes, the required
payment of seven years worth of differential tax rates is
waived. The amount of this tax liability can be part of
the negotiated land acquisition from private to public
or quasi -public conservation purposes. Snohomish
County has four current use taxation programs that
offer this property tax reduction as an incentive
to landowners to voluntarily preserve open space,
farmland or timber land on their property.
OTHER LAND PROTECTION
OPTIONS
Land Trusts & Conservancies
Land trusts are private non-profit organizations
that acquire and protect special open spaces and are
traditionally not associated with any government
agency. Forterra is the regional land trust serving
the Edmonds area, and their efforts have led to the
conservation of more than 234,000 acres of forests,
farms, shorelines, parks and natural areas in the region
(www.forterra.org). Other national organizations with
local representation include the Nature Conservancy,
Trust for Public Land and the Wetlands Conservancy.
Regulatory Measures
A variety of regulatory measures are available to
local agencies and jurisdictions. Available programs
and regulations include: Critical Areas Ordinance,
Edmonds; State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA);
Shorelines Management Program; and Hydraulic
Code, Washington State Department of Fisheries and
Department of Wildlife.
Public/Private Utility Corridors
Utility corridors can be managed to maximize
protection or enhancement of open space lands.
Utilities maintain corridors for provision of services
such as electricity, gas, oil, and rail travel. Some utility
companies have cooperated with local governments
for development of public programs such as parks and
trails within utility corridors.
230
Packet Pg. 246
5.A.a
u
Packet Pg. 247
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Comments regarding parks plan for SE
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:34:10 AM
For Angie review
From: John Zipper <jzipper@zippergeo.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 3:09 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Comments regarding parks plan for SE
To be completely upfront, I was very disappointed that the consultants neglected to expand on
Edmonds residents access to MLT's Ballinger Park via the Interurban Trail. Ballinger Park is a regional
park (regional because it attracts users from MLT, Edmonds, and Shoreline) located along and
accessible from the Interurban Trail. Ballinger Park is accessed from the Interurban Trail by Edmonds
residents. The following conditions were not considered in the Pros plan document:
1. Access to Ballinger Park from Edmonds: (see attached photo, taken in July 2021). Literally a hole in
the fence. Surrounded by blackberries in summer and a mud hole in winter. There is no parking
anywhere near this hole in the fence. People park in the blackberries closer to the other gate and
create a mud hole there too.
2. Maintenance of Interurban Trail adjacent to Ballinger Park: Who maintains the north roughly 750
feet of the trail from 75th PI W to the gate at the border with MLT? I have seen public works
occasionally trim back the blackberries, but this past summer I had to inform the equipment
operator that the trail is "Edmonds"... he initially insisted it was MLT. Cable TV and phone wires were
knocked down in the autumn storm along this stretch and are still there months later, hanging down
to the ground.
3. MLT has a master plan for Ballinger Park that includes ADA trail connections to the Interurban
Trail and park improvements (including daylighting Halls Creek and lakefront access) on this west
side which is used primarily by Edmonds residents. The Ballinger Park entrance from the trail would
be close to the current hole in the fence. That was not mentioned in the Pros plan. The MLT master
plan certainly seem relevant to every Edmonds resident east of Hwy 99.
4. An ADA trail connection from the Interurban Trail to Lakeview Drive would provide a heavily used
short cut for Edmonds residents to MLT transit center and the MLT lakefront access on the east side
of the park. This trail is already in the Ballinger Park master plan. All they need is funding.
Considering the number of Edmonds residents who walk the Interurban Trail, many of whom access
Ballinger Park (or would access the park if there was an ADA trail access along the trail), I would like
to see the following:
Packet Pg. 248
5.A.b
A. Rather than spend millions on an undersized parcel in the neighborhood, partner with MLT to
improve the west side of Ballinger Park. The partnership could fund ADA trail access to Lakeview
Drive, a small parking lot, stormwater ponds, better lighting, landscape planting consistent with best
practices, and an actual gate to replace the hole in the fence.
B. Interurban Trail is the most heavily used Edmonds parks asset east of Hwy 99. More maintenance
(and possibly some improvements) appear warranted by the amount of foot and bike traffic. My
main concern is the northern roughly 750 feet of the trail (from 75th PI W to the gate). The trailside
is overgrown with scruffy weed trees and blackberries, the lighting is terrible, and there are still
fallen wires that came down a few months ago. Can Parks commit to maintaining this stretch of trail
so it actually looks like it is well cared for? Public works does not seem to pay attention to it.
C. Interurban Trail can provide a connection to Shoreline that will be useable by senior citizens,
families with children, etc. if the missing link crossing SR104 is improved. There is no mention in the
Pros plan of pursuing grants and/or land acquisition for this purpose. I believe that the SR104
crossing is too steep and too hairy for most people to attempt on a regular basis, so usage today is
limited to hard core bikers. Does Edmonds have a long term goal of completing the trail by crossing
SR104 with a structure? If so, this should be mentioned in the Pros plan including the possible need
for parks land acquisition.
Thank you,
John Zipper
425-478-7748
PS I live at 9111 Cascade Drive, Edmonds WA 98026 but I also own and am renovating 23023 74th
Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026.
Packet Pg. 249
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Concern regarding Parks Plan and Edmonds Underwater Park
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:43:02 AM
Angie for review.
From: Monica Fred<monica.l.fredrickson@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:25 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Concern regarding Parks Plan and Edmonds Underwater Park
Hello,
I am writing to voice my concern that the Parks Plan does not have Edmonds Beach and Edmonds
Underwater Park as a regional park, and it's listing as a special use park doesn't adequately capture
how special this place is.
This park has generations of history. My grandmother and father watched it develop. I still visit my
grandmother after diving (grand father has passed) and we'd reminisce about the stories of her day
and adventures of the mine. My uncle dove there and now I do. My cousin takes her kids there to
explore the beach. That's 4 generations of park users!
Edmonds Underwater Park draws tourists from all over the country, and even the world. This place is
renown for the amount and health of diverse wildlife. From the ling cod, to the hooded nudibrach,
to the harbor seal, Edmonds Beach and Underwater Park provides the nursery for the ecosystem we
love.
In addition to divers, families roam the beach for shells, wildlife, and adventures with children.
Elderly come to stay on the benches and watch the view. Athletes run the shore line, and swim in
the water. Birders come for the wide variety of sea birds. Food enthusiasts come to enjoy full
stomachs after sampling the local cuisine. Native people have special ties to this land. This is their
land too, and we owe it to them to be good shared users and stewards.
Please ensure that Edmonds Beach and Underwater Park is given the designation, support, and
protection it deserves for the world class park it truly is.
Thank you,
Monica Fredrickson
Packet Pg. 250
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:40:43 AM
Angie for review.
From: james trask <jetrask69@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
To Whom it May Concern.
I am responding to the City of Edmonds Planning Program for the next six years. As a scuba diver, I
wish to give input on the underwater park located in your fair city. This park has been a destination
location for decades by divers from not only Washington but Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Canada.
This park has it all for divers, bathroom, parking, easy access to the water, numerous restaurants and
shops plus it has a dive shop as a local business whose majority of income relies on the park. Bruce
Higgins has made this park what it is today and with his tireless work has made it a place to come,
spend the day and spend money.
As President of a non-profit organization which supports restoration, conservation and enhancing
our aquatic wonderland, this park needs to be saved and kept a "Destination Location" for decades
to come. I started diving in 1998 and it was one of my first dives and still remember it to this day. I
hope the city council and planners will think about this. I understand all too well that the attraction
that brings so many people to your city is the water. Granted, most do not see below the surface
and realize just how fantastic this location truly is.
Sincerely,
James Trask
President
Washington Scuba Alliance
C: 206-498-5256
Sent from Mail for Windows
Packet Pg. 251
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
FW: Draft+ PROS+ Plan+ Feedback
Date:
Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:41:27 AM
Angie for review.
From: georgebarron43@gmail.com <georgebarron43@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 7:06 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Draft+PROS+Plan+Feedback
I am a scuba diver and use the Edmonds Underwater Park on a regulator basis. I live in Lynnwood
and make the 19 minute drive from my home to Edmonds Underwater Park, on average, once a
week. While there, I typically go to have lunch, after the dive, and love walking around the city. I
love sitting in the street (open air) and watching the "city' go by.
The Edmonds Underwater Park's location and topography are unique to the Pacific Northwest. The
fact that it's closed to fishermen has resulted in an incredible array of exceptionally large fish,
typically growing to the maximum size per species. Edmonds Underwater park is a "seed area" for
all sorts of life that wouldn't exist outside of the park, in the volume that it does, if it wasn't for the
park.
The Edmonds Underwater Park is unique and highly appreciated and we applaud the city's foresight
in creating, expanding, and supporting the park and we're looking forward to the continued support
from the City and from the Parks Department for the next 6 years.
George Barron
Lynnwood, Wa.
(425) 443-6800
0 Virus -free. www.ava.com
Packet Pg. 252
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: Edmonds Underwater Park
Date:
Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:42:34 AM
Angie for review.
From: Muhammed Memon <mtmemon@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:17 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Underwater Park
Good Evening,
I am a scuba diver and use the Edmonds Underwater Park on a regulator basis. I live in North Bothell
and make the 25 minute drive from my home to Edmonds Underwater Park, on average, once a
week. While there, I typically have a coffee before and go to have lunch, after the dive.
The Edmonds Underwater Park's location and topography are unique to the Pacific Northwest. The
fact that it's closed to fishermen has resulted in an incredible array of exceptionally large fish,
typically growing to the maximum size per species. Edmonds Underwater park is a "seed area" for
all sorts of life that wouldn't exist outside of the park, in the volume that it does, if it wasn't for the
park.
The Edmonds Underwater Park is unique and highly appreciated and we applaud the city's foresight
in creating, expanding, and supporting the park and we're looking forward to the continued support
from the City and from the Parks Department for the next 6 years.
Muhammed Memon
Sent from my Galaxy
Packet Pg. 253
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Feedback on the 2022 Draft PROS Plan
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:27:17 AM
Angie for review.
From: Jesse Langdon <jesselangdon@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:59 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Feedback on the 2022 Draft PROS Plan
In response to the the City of Edmonds Draft PROS Plan for 2022:
• Overall, the 2022 Draft PROS plan is disappointing with regards to sustainability,
stewardship, and climate change adaptation and mitigation issues.
• Pg. 2 mentions that Recreation Services "implements" ... "environmental education and
stewardship programs", however, the last few years have seen only a miniscule amount
of money and resources budgeted to support environmental stewardship efforts in the
City's parks, primarly through the Edmonds Stewards and Students Saving Salmon
programs. Without the recent perseverance of volunteers involved in this program,
stewardship efforts would likely be non-existent in the City's parks and natural areas.
• Pg 4 - The Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee is mentioned, however no
information is included regarding who is part of this Advisory Committee, how the
committee members are chosen, or if the Advisory Committee was advised on this plan.
• Climate change is barely mentioned throughout the plan, including under the Current
Challenges section. Sea -level rise, extreme weather events including flooding, drought,
and extreme heat events need to at least be considered by the Parks department.
• Pg 5. - Guiding Documents - There is no mention of the City of Edmonds
Sustainability Initiatives. Were the Initiatives even reviewed when drafting this
document?
• Pg 19 - Benefits of Parks, Recreation & Open Space - there is no mention of climate
change mitigation in this section. In addition to improving air quality and helping with
stormwater control, trees are also a well -documented carbon storage solution, while also
providing shade and wildlife habitat.
• Pg 20 - Goals & Objectives - again, no mention of climate change mitigation or
adaptation goals mentioned regarding Parks goals and objectives. The Parks & Rec.
department should have explicit goals for reducing operations -related emissions
(electric vehicles and tools), and improving carbon storage through native plant
restoration and tree planting.
• Pg 24 - How exactly will the Parks & Rec. department "support the implementation of
the Urban Forestry Management Plan"? As written, this statement is too vague.
• Also, will there be restoration, stewardship, and/or habitat management plans developed
for each park? Just mentioning "Preserve and protect areas with critical habitat or
unique natural features" is insufficient. Will there be an increase in financial and
staffing support of stewardship and restoration efforts? Invasive species monitoring,
removal, and management should be explicitly mentioned, as this comprises a key work
component that is needed to "preserve and protect" natural areas in the City's park
system.
• Please include more discussion of the need to improve streamside habitat, reduce stream
Packet Pg. 254
5.A.b
bank erosion, and engage in Salmon habitat restoration in the Natural Resource &
Habitat Conservation section.
• We need a comprehensive plan to continue the restoration of the Edmonds Marsh. This
is a unique and vital natural feature in the City of Edmonds and the central Puget Sound
region. Invasive species have infested the wetted areas of the Marsh and will need to be
removed and managed.
• The Unocal property represents a prime opportunity to increase open/green space,
expand Edmonds Marsh, and improve water quality of Willow Creek.
Planning/fundraising efforts should be outlined. Can this be included in the Captial
Planning and Implementation section?
• Current Conditions - The Invasive Plant Species Control section under Current
Conditions should include mention of all of the invasives currently infesting City of
Edmonds parks, including English Holly, English Laurel, Bitter nightshade,Common
reed grass, and Japanese Knotweed. The Edmonds Stewards program has been active in
Edmonds for several years, and should be mentioned.
The 2022 Draft PROPlan should be delayed and revised to address the aforementioned
issues, and overall, better incorporate sustainability, conservation, and climate
mitigation/adaptation strategies and goals.
Thank you for your attention!
Sincerely,
Jesse Langdon
8503 214th PI SW,
Edmonds, WA 98026
425-633-6359
Packet Pg. 255
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Future planning to fill gap on Interurban Trail
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:54:40 PM
For Angie to review.
From: Gordon Black <gordonblack1984@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 2:23 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Future planning to fill gap on Interurban Trail
Greetings - I'm writing in connection with a proposal to
have Edmonds' long-term parks plan include completing
a missing link on the Interurban Trail between Edmonds
and Shoreline.
Currently, the separated trail ends in Shoreline at the
Aurora Transit Center: it then diverts onto streets,
including busy Meridian Avenue, before resuming as a
car -free route approximately a 1/2 mile north on
Meridian Avenue in Edmonds.
One assumes it was routed this way since WSDOT
severed the original Interurban railway route when
SR104 was built. My proposal is to examine how the trail
can be continued as a separated bike and pedestrian path
without the detour on tooth and Meridian (yes,
technically, there is a routed path parallel to Meridian
but it is hilly, wooded dark and rough).
This would involve bridging 244th and SR 104 and
picking up the remaining right-of-way that continues
south from where the trail currently ends in Edmonds.
Packet Pg. 256
5.A.b
Ambitious? Perhaps but not any more so that the
successful project that the City of Shoreline developed
some 15 years ago to cross SR99 and 155th St. with new
bridges for pedestrians and bicyclists.
I would like an opportunity to provide additional
information in support of why this is a project worthy of
inclusion in a parks and city long-term recreation and
transportation plan.
Sincerely,
Gordon Black
Edmonds
(2o6) 225-85345
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley."
Robert Burns, poet, 1785
Packet Pg. 257
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: parks planning suggestion
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:34:21 AM
For Angie review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Liz Smalley <smalleyfamily@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 8:11 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: parks planning suggestion
After going through the many pages and great info.... I did want to mention the following. I do not know why
Esperence is still unincorporated. It has a great park ,,,but since it is a county park, it is not maintained like the
Edmonds parks are. I live close to Hickman and generally walk my dog there ,,,but Esperence is the best off leash
dog park, after the beach park. But often, it just looks like it needs more care than it is given.
What is the process to incorporate Esperence into the city? What are benefits,,, negatives? I have never understood
that.
thanks for considering.
Liz Smalley
10509 235th PI SW
Edmonds, Wa 98020
206 595 8766
Packet Pg. 258
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Parks planning
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:36:00 AM
For Angie review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tom Mayer <tmayer43@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 2:32 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Parks planning
I strongly support the proposals to expand the open space/natural areas in the city, to expand tree canopy with an
aggressive tree planting campaign and to acquire private lands to extend connectivity of existing parks when and
where possible. Yes, I am ready and willing to donate to support these proposals.
Tom Mayer
Sent from my Wad
Packet Pg. 259
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:27:05 AM
Attachments: imaae001.Dna
Angie for review.
From: Clint Lambert <clint.lambert@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:02 AM
To: William Kessler <billk@beresfordlaw.com>
Cc: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
Excellent. Got to get involved in local decision making.
Regards,
Clint Lambert
+12066797764
On Jan 11, 2022, at 08:59, William Kessler <billk(@beresfordlaw.com> wrote:
Hello- Thank you for sending the below email. I suggest the city build a park, or convert an existing
park, with a large playground very similar to the one described these articles (Atlantic and NPR), and
for the reasons set forth in those articles:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/O4/hey_parents-leave-those-kids-
alone/358631/
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/O4/O3/395797459/the-value-of-wild-risky play -fire -mud -
hammers -and -nails
Please feel free to call me anytime to discuss.
William O. Kessler
Lawyer
BERESFORD BOOTH
145 Third Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
P 425.776.4100
F 425.776.1700
billk(4r beresfordlaw.com
Packet Pg. 260
5.A.b
www.beresfordlaw.com
This message is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to which it is transmitted and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws.
From: ActiveNet(@active.com <ActiveNetl@active.com> On Behalf Of reczone(@edmondswa.gov
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 1:08 PM
To: William Kessler <billk(@Beresfordlaw.com>
Subject: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
Help shape the future of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services!
The City has completed a draft of the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan for the
future of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services and is requesting your input. The draft
plan is now available for review here and while it is a very large document, perhaps you are able to
review a few sections? Each piece of input is incredibly valuable.
Feedback can be emailed to PROSPlanl@edmondswa.gov and/or by attending and providing
comment during one of the upcoming Planning Board or City Council regular meetings when the
plan will be discussed. This is currently scheduled as follows:
• January 12, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document presentation and discussion
• January 26, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document Public Hearing
• February 1, 2022 - City Council - Plan Presentation*
• February 15, 2022 - City Council — Plan Public Hearing*
• February 22, 2022 - City Council - Plan Approval consideration*
*City Council meeting dates are tentative at this time. Check the City's Meeting Calendar
for specific dates, times and agenda packet materials available HERE.
The PROS plan is focused on providing equitable access to and investment in parks, recreation and
cultural arts facilities and programs and outlines future parks capital projects. The updated plan will
guide the city in providing high quality, community -driven parks, waterfront, and natural areas and
recreation programs. Vital to the success of the planning for the future is input from the public, and
we look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Angie Feser
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director
FAC (Frances Anderson Center)
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA
98020
Please note that this is a one-time, non -promotional email. It was not sent as a result of any
mailing list to which you may be subscribed to.
Packet Pg. 261
5.A.b
If you believe you have received this message in error or would like to be removed from our
subscription lists, you can unsubscribe by clicking here.
Packet Pg. 262
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:08:56 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Peter Hallson <pjhallson@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 4:06 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
The following are comments are from the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group. We were not copied on early
meetings on this plan and we offer the following comments and recommendations
The following additions to subject plan will add a number of improvements made in Edmonds that should b added
to present draft.
The comments reflect experiences of the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group in past 25 years.
• in late 1990's Bike Lanes were identified and marked throughout the city •A number of Bike racks placed
throughout the city in past and followed by a focused effort by the business community to install approximately 16
new style racks marked "Ed!". In past year at least 10 additional bikes have been added in Edmonds -To improve
safe routes for bike riders and provide safe bike routes, way finding signs were engineered and placed along the
designed routes A concerted effort was taken to link bike routes in Edmonds with routes in Lynnwood and
Mountlake Terrace.
This program is called, `Bike to Health"
•A bicycle education program, "Let's Go" was started in Edmonds School District 15 years ago, for students in
grades 3 to 6. To date, this program has grown in 15 years to providing education for 5,000 students annually and
expected to grow in future years to 10,000 students.
-Consideration should be given to expanding the bike education in Edmonds schools, to a summer program for the
Boys and Girls Club. This addition would enhance the current school program called "Let's Go"
-The Interurban bike route connecting Edmonds and Lynnwood needs to be addressed. Especially the South end
connection to King county.(Shoreline near Costco).
-Olympic View Drive is a very unsafe bike route and is an important route for cyclist riding North towards
Perrinville/ Meadowdale and needs safety improvements.
Submitted by,
Peter Hallson
Member
Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group
Packet Pg. 263
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:34:47 AM
For Angie review.
From: Roselee Warren <roseleebw@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 2:54 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
Thank you for sending me the extensive schedule of meetings required to provide the best possible
outcomes. It suggests that there may be many committees required to provide a schedule that will
create progress and benefit the Edmonds community and potential visitors. The more information
about how committees are defined, the best way to prioritize the extensive focus of projects, will
enhance the success of each project. There needs to be priorities and budgets to reflect the success
of the scope of work. Roselee Warren/ Edmonds WA. 98026
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 1:49 PM reczone(@edmondswa.gov <EdmondsParks(@active.com> wrote:
Help shape the future of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services!
The City has completed a draft of the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan for the
future of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services and is requesting your input. The draft
plan is now available for review here and while it is a very large document, perhaps you are able
to review a few sections? Each piece of input is incredibly valuable.
Feedback can be emailed to PROSPlan(@edmondswa.gov and/or by attending and providing
comment during one of the upcoming Planning Board or City Council regular meetings when the
plan will be discussed. This is currently scheduled as follows:
• January 12, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document presentation and discussion
• January 26, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document Public Hearing
• February 1, 2022 - City Council - Plan Presentation*
• February 15, 2022 - City Council — Plan Public Hearing*
• February 22, 2022 - City Council - Plan Approval consideration*
*City Council meeting dates are tentative at this time. Check the City's Meeting Calendar for
specific dates, times and agenda packet materials available HERE.
The PROS plan is focused on providing equitable access to and investment in parks, recreation and
cultural arts facilities and programs and outlines future parks capital projects. The updated plan
will guide the city in providing high quality, community -driven parks, waterfront, and natural areas
and recreation programs. Vital to the success of the planning for the future is input from the
public, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Packet Pg. 264
5.A.b
Best regards,
Angie Feser
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director
FAC (Frances Anderson Center)
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA
98020
If you believe you have received this message in error or would like to be removed from our
subscription lists, you can unsubscribe by clicking here.
Packet Pg. 265
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Plan shortchanges Edmonds Underwater Park
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:41:48 AM
Angie for review.
From: Jacob Jurmain <jacob.cJurmain@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 7:09 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Plan shortchanges Edmonds Underwater Park
Hello,
I think the parks plan underrates the underwater park. It, and a few others like it, were significant
factors in my decision to move to Seattle, and this park is the primary reason I have to visit
Edmonds. The underwater park deserves recognition as a destination park. Not only for its
recreational value, which is significant and uncommon, but its scientific value as well. I am
personally conducting research and development in underwater ecosystem transformation and
cultivation, which, if successful, will lead to new technologies for the restoration and creation of
coral and cold -water reefs. If Edmonds supports the underwater park I will certainly acknowledge
the city in any scholarly publications which result.
Thank you,
Jacob Jurmain
715-379-5034
2621 2nd Ave
Unit 1805
Seattle, WA 98121
Packet Pg. 266
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: PROS Input
Date: Friday, January 14, 2022 2:51:38 PM
Angie for review.
From: Tashina Waters <tashina.s.waters@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 2:46 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PROS Input
Hello,
First and foremost, thank you, thank you, thank you for the multitude of beautiful parks in Edmonds!
I've lived up and down Western Washington from Olympia to Bellingham and in between and
Edmonds has the most parks out of anywhere I have lived.
Secondly, thank you for asking for community/resident input! Here are a few of our families most
wanted updates to Edmonds parks - with #1 being most desired.
#1 Yost Park Updates -
- Tree removal surrounding playground space: Removing trees surrounding the playground space
could be done prior to the planned playground replacement and would provide more sunlight to the
playground as well as limit any safety hazards with branches falling during windy times. The #1
reason most families I have talked to in our neighborhood (ourselves included) don't like utilizing
this playground isn't even the age of the equipment but the extreme lack of any sunlight in this area.
On a nice day, not many Washingtonians want to go to a dark playground space.
- Playground update: I see the playground replacement in the plan in another year or two. Getting
this playground replaced as soon as possible (even sooner than planned) would be greatly
appreciated! It is so aged and really needed! and I feel would increase the usage of the playground!
Many families do take advantage of it before/after swim lessons - more than possibly
thought/logged on the plan, depending on when the usage is surveyed, so I do think this park and
playground is worth investing in.
Trailhead Safety Fixes - Please, please fix the trails at Yost! You can not get safely/easily down to/ on
many of the trails to be able to enjoy them or walk them. The decline onto the trail is just too steep
for many, including young children. I believe some wood stairs inserted into the dirt paths could help
this issue. I feel like Yost is a fairly neglected park which is sad considering the trails and acreage and
woodsy feel it offers makes it one of Edmonds more unique/special sanctuaries.
Coyote Control - Lastly, please allocate more resources to getting some of the coyote population
away from Yost. It is not a safe area due to this. We aren't comfortable taking our young dog or
very small children to this park as much anymore due to the coyote issues. We even had a coyote
run through a whole in our fence and straight through our backyard coming from the direction of
Packet Pg. 267
5.A.b
the park mid day with our very young children playing in the yard. This is becoming a safety issue for
surrounding homes.
#2 Continuous Waterfront Beach Walk - I believe I saw a plan to connect the beach walk north and
south of the Edmonds Waterfront Ctr (making it one continuous waterfront walking path) during
construction but I don't believe this happened? It's been a while since I have walked it so I could be
mistaken if it's been done recently but having a continuous walking path along the beach from
Brackets to Marina Beach Park would be amazing! So many times I have been enjoying a wonderful
walk from Sunset to Marina Beach Park and had to detour up the parking lots to the sidewalks east
of Anthonys, etc to make my way.
#3 Dog -Friendly Beach Zone - Please think about providing a small section of the "normal" beach
areas in Edmonds as a dog -friendly space. Many responsible pet owners, especially during this Covid
era, would like the option of bringing their family pet to the beach on a sunny day in a socially -
distanced setting. Bringing them to the densely populated off -leash park doesn't allow for much
social distancing at all.
I understand irresponsible pet waste pickup has ruined this potential for most of us pet owners in
the past, but it's time to give it another shot. A great potential area could be just south of the Marina
Beach playground to the off -leash dog park. Signage could be installed stating "dogs allowed.
Leashes required. Pet waste pickup - strictly enforced" with possible fines for any pet owners not
following these rules. This area is close enough to the off -leash dog park that it would keep any
potential pet waste all in one zone for any environmental/puget sound concerns and it is far away
from the very nice/groomed Brakcets areas for any residents concerned with walking through
potential pet waste keeping all pets to one end of town. The city constantly says the off -leash park is
an option for any beach -loving pet users but this is not a solution across the board for all. It does not
serve every pet -owning Edmonds resident - many dogs are too old, too young, or not in good
enough health to visit what can be a wild off -leash dog area and as already stated, many aren't
comfortable using such a packed space with Covid concerns. I have wondered many times how
Edmonds can be such a dog -friendly (many restaurants and dog friendly spots, beautiful dog park
etc.) and such a dog -unfriendly town (zero dog tolerance on any beach outside of the dog park, no
dogs at farmers market, etc) at the same time?? Working towards a more "in the middle" approach
would be appreciated as Edmonds is growing younger by the day with many families (and their pets)
making up a larger portion of the Edmonds population year over year.
Thank you for taking our top 3 park desires into consideration!
Signed,
Nine-year Edmonds resident & young family
Packet Pg. 268
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: PROS Plan Comment one
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:08:38 AM
Angie for review.
From: Bruce Higgins <bruce.higgins@frontier.com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 4:43 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Tro Rex <megalotro@gmai1.com>
Subject: PROS Plan Comment One
Carrie Haslam / PROS Plan,
Over arching in the PROS Plan there is a neglect of Edmonds Underwater Park being a Destination Park
for divers from all over the Northwest and some even farther away.
Divers visit Edmonds specifically to visit the Edmonds Underwater Park.
The City's web site says:
Quote:
The Park was established at Brackett's Landing in 1970 by city ordinance as a Marine Preserve and
Sanctuary. It is the most popular of 10 underwater parks that make up Washington's underwater park
system. About 25,000 scuba divers visit the Edmonds park each year. Most are among the state's
250,000 trained divers, though 15 percent come from out of state, mostly from Portland and Vancouver,
B.C.
end quote:
So just because the survey did not rank the Edmonds Underwater Park of high interest only reflects that
the survey had limited representation by this user group in the survey. I would think that 25,000 users -
with many from out of the City - would account for something in the planning.
The Edmonds Underwater Park is after all 27 acres for a reason - elbow room for all the users of various
experience levels from Beginner to Advanced.
The Marine Sanctuary status had been very important to the importance of the Edmonds Underwater
Park regionally.
If you search on YouTube about Edmonds Underwater Park there are lots of videos showing / highlighting
the adventures users have had and features that are present underwater.
Granted you have to be a diver to visit them but since the Park's founding the City has been a leader in
providing a safe recreation site base on number of users/guests.
The whole Destination Park concept is that the park attracts visitors to a unique setting. This setting is
underwater. Dive publications and guides about diving the northwest highlight the Edmonds Underwater
Park.
For example.
The Northwest Dive Guide - Mike Hughes 2009 ISBN - 978-1-55017-476
Northwest Wreck Dives - Scott Boyd & Jeff Carr 2008 ISBN - 978-0-9821510-1-3
Shore Diving Near Seattle - Alexander Wallner, Maxwell Wallner, and Kent Wallner 2008 ISBN 978-0-
9648991-7-9
to mention some recent write-ups.
I would suggest that the PROS Plan reflect the important nature of this Destination Park in both it the
park's description as well as its ranking for attention during the next 6+ years. Lots of users and a
Packet Pg. 269
5.A.b
Marine Sanctuary should provide some status in the system plan.
More comments to come.
Smile,
Bruce Higgins -
Coordinator of the Volunteer Edmonds Underwater Stewards for now over 44 years
Our group host maintenance / projects dives in the Edmonds Underwater Park every Saturday and
Sunday at 9 AM year round. That has been our commitment to the Edmonds Park System for some time
now.
Packet Pg. 270
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: PROS Plan Comment Three
Date:
Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:04:13 AM
Attachments:
Edmonds Underwater Park Status Report2019.doc
Edmonds Underwater Park Status Report20180913.doc
Park Status Report 202008late.doc
Park Status Report 20210720.doc
Angie for review.
From: Bruce Higgins <bruce.higgins@frontier.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 7:59 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Tro Rex <megalotro@gmail.com>
Subject: PROS Plan Comment Three
Carrie Haslam / PROS Plan
I understand our Volunteer Stewardship effort at the Edmonds Underwater Park does not ask for funds
That has been our way since the 1980s.
But by basically zeroing out the Edmonds Underwater Park in planning then Bracketts Landing is
diminished as well.
If the Edmonds Underwater Park is grouped as a Regional Park as it had been in prior PROS effort there
is the chance for exploring regional funding to accomplish funding needs.
In reality our effort was recruited and supported by prior Mayors and Park Directors which has allowed us
to provide service to the City and scuba community. A review of prior PROS Plans (2008 and prior)
handled the waterfront and Edmonds Underwater Park in a much better light. If the level of visitation is
even close at 25,000 divers a year (from your web site) then a review of the handing of the Edmonds
Underwater Park in the current plan is in order.
We have been providing summaries of our long and on going effort / support to the Parks Director since
the 1990's. They should be on file.
Attached are some recent copies of that summary. Sorry the Parks Director has the suitable maps which
go along with the reports.
(We have a fairly current diver feature chart posted on the north side of the bathhouse.)
As a destination and regional resource - the Edmonds Underwater Park deserves some priority in the
PROS Plan.
See attached.
Bruce Higgins
Coordinator of the Volunteer Stewards of Edmonds Underwater Park
Packet Pg. 271
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: PROS Plan Comment Two
Date:
Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:08:11 AM
Angie for review.
From: Bruce Higgins <bruce.higgins@frontier.com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 5:28 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPIan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Tro Rex <megalotro@gmai1.com>
Subject: PROS Plan Comment Two
Carrie Haslam / PROS Plan
Subject: Trails / Paths / Wayfinding
Having a safe experience in the Edmonds Underwater Park has lead to providing the City with a trail
system underwater. With thousands of users guidance is needed.
The Edmonds Underwater Park is unique here in the Northwest with over 2.5 miles of diver trails to make
navigation within the Park safer.
The trails are ropes held in place by concrete blocks placed about every 3 feet. The blocks hold the rope
in place providing visual reference to the divers and act as a handhold during strong current conditions.
The trails have been arranged in a magnetic north -south and east -west orientation to simplify navigation
efforts for the divers using the Park. The form grid system which in general makes 200 foot on a side
squares on the sediment. Visibility underwater ranges from inches during plankton blooms to maybe 40
feet.
Like in the uplands the trails concentrate usage in a narrow region to limit use impacts on the
environment. The eel grass has been less impacted because we introduced the trail system and this
was also a motivational factor for us.
These trails have intersection markers at many intersections which are elevated above the bottom about
2 feet to be visible even with kelp growth. This concrete crosses reflect the same kind of cross symbol
used on a road intersection.
These trails have signs labeling the trail names consistent with the names on the maps that we post on
the bathhouse. This signs have been provided by our volunteer group and by Boy Scouts as Eagle Scout
projects. Not all the trails have received signage but we have been working on it as resources have
been available. The short letter count trails got attention first - like Jetty Way.
The trails require attention and we refresh the trails on nominally a 10 year cycle depending on
sedimentation.
Having the confidence that you are not going to wander too close to the ferry terminal has been an
important safety issue for us users and have reduced situations where divers wander too far south. The
trails help reduce long surface swims by divers returning toward shore.
The trail system does not run from feature to feature but provides infrastructure to guide users to and
from regions of the Park for their exploration. Many features are placed near the trails so users can find
them but they are not a feature to feature plan.
Packet Pg. 272
5.A.b
The maps posted on the bathhouse provide guidance to the users and the NOAA chart (from a 2001
sidescan sonar) on the City's web site indicates the trails as the lines on the sediment. Yes some are not
very straight and mother nature with our limited resources has provided a system which is not perfect but
very functional.
Assisting with an enjoyable experience has been a long standing goal of our volunteer efforts.
This effort started in 1983 and has continued ever since (granted with donated materials).
More to come..
Bruce Higgins -
Coordinator of the Volunteer Edmonds Underwater Park Stewards
Packet Pg. 273
5.A.b
From:
Haslam. Carrie
To:
Feser. Angie
Subject:
FW: PROS plan review comments
Date:
Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:26:41 AM
Attachments:
PROS plan review comments GF.docx
Angie for review.
From: greg ferguson <gghhff@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PROS plan review comments
Parks Department,
The PROS plan update should not be adopted as is. The plan does not demonstrate the
environmental stewardship leadership role that is required by the City of Edmonds.
• It includes no plan for reducing green house gas emissions.
• It includes no plan for dealing with sea level rise in the marine parks.
• It includes no plan for stream bank and steep slope erosion caused by intensifying
storms.
• It does not specify a tree planting plan.
• It does not include a plan for managing invasive plants.
• It does not include a plan for developing a comprehensive Marsh restoration plan.
More details and a chapter by chapter review is attached.
Regards
Greg Ferguson
425 765-0263
Packet Pg. 274
5.A.b
From: Enamann, Eric
Subject: Photos Associated with Public Commnent for Tonight's PB Meeting
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 4:39:43 PM
Hello Planning Board members.
Attached are photos Natalie Seitz wanted to provide to go along with public comment for tonight's
meeting.
Bcc: Planning Board Members
Regards,
Eric Engmann, AICP I Senior Planner
Development Services Dept
p. 425.977.9541
e. eric.engmonnPedmondswo.gov
From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitzPgmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Planning <Planning(@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Photo's to support public comment
Hello,
Good Afternoon. I plan to provide public comment at tonight's planning board meeting. In support
of my comments I would like to provide the attached photos. Would you please make these photos
available the board ahead of the meeting? I also plan to reference the draft PROS plan page 117
(CFP), page 61, page 169 (survey question #11), and page 165. Any advanced review of these items
by the planning board would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Natalie Seitz
Packet Pg. 275
5.A.b
c
a
w
L
NO
LPL
a
a�
u
Q.
c
m
a
O
08
c
0
:r
m
L
V
N�
LPL
L
a.
N
N
O
N
ti
N
O
t
3
O
L
t
ti
O
O
N
N
O
N
E
O
L
V
E
O
L
W
N
m
E
W
C
R
d
O
d
r
R
L
E
u
2
r
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 276
I Packet Pg. 277
5.A.b
From:
Marjorie Fields
To:
Haslam, Carrie; Feser, Angie
Cc:
Council
Subject:
PROS plan comment
Date:
Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:35:19 PM
Thank you very much for encouraging public comment on this important plan, which has so
much impact on our community.
I appreciate the inclusion of environmental goals for making Edmonds a better place to work
and play. However, the plan would be greatly strengthened by the addition of specific steps
for achieving those goals. This should include plans for implementing the Urban Forest
Management Plan, with specifics about how it will be implemented in each park. This should
include plans for removing invasives, kinds and number of trees to be planted — and where.
Although habitat conservation and conservation in general are listed as goals, we need specific
actions for those and other goals.
Major issues such as Climate change and water quality are mentioned, but not given the
emphasis needed. The plan would be improved by dealing with questions such as: How will
greenhouse gases be reduced? What are the plans for responding to rising sea levels? I know
that streambank erosion is of concern to the Parks department, but more should be said about
actions planned to address those concerns. These should include removing concrete structures
in Shell Creek at Yost Park, planting shrubs and trees to stabilize streambanks, and utilizing
stormwater retention ponds to trap increasing sediment loads.
The Edmonds Marsh/estuary seems to be the elephant in the living room, with little said about
it in the PROS plan. I understand that it is difficult to describe plans when there are so many
unknowns, but the plan would be strengthened, and the public concern alleviated, by providing
some detail about what is known and what is hoped for. Additionally, the incorrect wording
"daylighting Willow Creek" needs to be changed; instead we should be talking about restoring
a connection between the estuary and Puget Sound.
Perhaps these items recommended are actually planned, but just not listed in the PROS plan.
If that is the case, I encourage addition of that information so the public better understands
work of the Parks and Rec department.
Marjie Fields
Packet Pg. 278
5.A.b
Environmental Review of the PROS plan
1/10/22
Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................1
ChapterReview: ................................................................................................................. 2
Chap1. Introduction (p1)....................................................................................................2
Chap 2. Community Profile(p6)............................................................................................2
Chap 3. Community Engagement (p14).................................................................................2
Chap 4. Goals and Objectives (p20)......................................................................................3
Chap 5. Classifications & Inventory (p28)..............................................................................3
Chap 6. Parks and Open Space (p38)....................................................................................3
Chap 7. Recreation Programs(p98).......................................................................................4
Chap 8. Trails & Connections (100).......................................................................................4
Chap 9. Capital Planning and Implementation (p112)..............................................................4
Appendices(p121)..............................................................................................................4
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................4
Introduction
Environmental responsibility plays a minor role in Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
department planning. The PROS plan, in many cases, lists stewardship as a goal without
identifying implementation actions that would meet the goal.
How environmental issues will be dealt with by the Parks department can be divided into three
categories:
1. They are identified and dealt with through concrete actions.
2. They are identified but no actions to address them are planned.
3. They are not identified or are mentioned only in passing.
Class 1 includes:
• Pesticides are applied using strict protocols (p52).
• Irrigating before sunrise to account for climate change (p84).
• Shift to more drought tolerant species to address climate change (p85).
• Pedestrian and bike access to parks are thoroughly studied and improvements are
proposed (p100).
Class 2 includes:
• Reference to the Urban Forestry Management Plan as a guiding document (p5),
implementation is not addressed. Are trees to be planted in the parks? How many? Where?
What kind?
• Conservation is listed in several places, including on pi where it states that the Plan
creates a vision for parks that promotes environmental conservation. Habitat Conservation
is listed as one of the 8 primary goal of the parks department (p24). A few specific actions
are identified that encourage conservation but in most cases it is left as an aspiration. Also,
stewardship is more than conservation.
Packet Pg. 279
5.A.b
There are many more environmental issues in Class 3, where no action is proposed, than in the
other 2 categories. A general discussion of them (the results of term searches in the Plan) follows
and specifics are listed in the chapter by chapter review below.
Climate is mentioned briefly on 3 pages (p84, 85, and 91) in the document. Carbon is mentioned
once (P 85) and greenhouse gases are neglected completely. Climate is referenced more often in
the comments from citizens attached in the Appendices that in the plan itself. What are the plans
for how the department can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and for how to react to rising sea
levels and intensifying storms.
Water quality is addressed in only one location (p 20) where it's enhancement is mentioned as one
of the state Growth Management Act planning goals that "directly affect the development and
implementation of this plan". The serious streambank and steep slope erosion locations in the
parks that are damaging water quality are not identified. The PROS plan does not include any
evidence that improvements to water quality will be a part of future operations.
The Edmonds Marsh is mentioned as continuing as a high priority for protection and restoration.
The City has committed few resources to Marsh restoration in the past, a continuation of this
effort level will not help protect or restore the Marsh. What is the City's plan for restoring the
Marsh?
There is no mention of the impact of rising sea levels on our marine parks. These are important
parts of the park system and an assessment of their future and plans for addressing the effects of
seal level rise are missing.
Daylighting the Edmonds Marsh/Puget Sound connection has one sentence devoted to it (p141),
"Implement master plan to daylight Willow Creek". This major improvement to the health of the
Marsh (and Puget Sound) deserves planning attention and discussion.
The plan proposes many very specific actions like replacing boardwalks, upgrading bathrooms,
modifying bleachers, and adding trail maps. Specificity regarding environmental actions is lacking.
Multiple documents state that the City is taking a leadership role in moving toward sustainability
(Council resolution 1453 for example). The parks department has an opportunity through the
PROS plan to demonstrate that leadership by revising it to address environmental responsibility.
Chapter Review:
Chap 1. Introduction (pi)
• List the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee and ask them to provide planning input
(p4)•
• List the climate crisis as one of the ongoing challenges (p5).
• Study the City of Edmonds Sustainability Initiatives, list them as guiding documents,
include their directives in the plan, and implement them in future operations (p5).
Chap 2. Community Profile (p6)
Chap 3. Community Engagement (p14)
• Acknowledge the stakeholders who prioritize adding the Unocal property to the city parks
system in the future.
Packet Pg. 280
5.A.b
• Add that trees are also beneficial in sequestering carbon (p19).
Chap 4. Goals and Objectives (p20)
Add Goal 9, Environmental Stewardship, Provide a Park System that Demonstrates Environmental
Responsibility
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from park operations.
Improve area water quality conditions.
Increase carbon storage by planting more trees.
Improve pedestrian and bike access to parks.
Increase the total open space park area.
Chap 5. Classifications & Inventory (p28)
Chap 6. Parks and Open Space (p38)
• Explain how the Urban Forestry Management Plan will be implemented in each park.
• Describe plans for managing invasive plants in each park. For example the Marsh has
bittersweet nightshade, common reed grass, and Japanese knotweed (p51) invasions that
need control commitment from the department. Open space parks are infested with Scotch
broom, English Laurel, and holly along with the ivy and blackberry acknowledged in the
plan.
• Describe plans for addressing the clear shortage (p79) of open space parkland in Edmonds.
The UNOCAL property is one of the few large undeveloped parcels that could help meet this
need. The Community survey listed buying land for conservation and open space as the top
funding priority (p43).
• Commit to future support for the Edmonds Stewards program which has been responsible
for removing invasives from large areas in the parks and planting over 1,000 native trees
and shrubs (p85, 88).
• Under OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE include a section addressing greenhouse gas
emission reduction plans (p89).
• Specific actions to address climate change:
o Convert the vehicle fleet to electric within a specified time range.
o Commit to the conversion to electric tools and specify a timeline.
o Eliminate carbon emitting, water hungry, maintenance intensive grass areas where
they are not necessary and replant with carbon storing trees and shrubs.
o Develop a tree planting plan for existing parks.
o Assess the impact of rising sea levels on marine parks and develop a plan to deal
with that rise.
• Specific actions to address water quality:
o Stabilize streambanks with shrub and tree plantings.
o Stabilize steep slopes with shrub and tree plantings.
o Remove the concrete structures in Shell Creek at Yost Park that are causing
streambank erosion.
o Construct natural storm water retention ponds in the upper watersheds to trap the
increasing sediment loads created by climate driven weather changes.
• Other specific actions:
o Support volunteer efforts to control invasive plants in the parks with funding and
expertise.
o Assess impacts of rising sea levels to marine parks and develop a reaction plan.
o Create a comprehensive Marsh restoration plan that includes removal of invasives,
restoration of correct flow channels, addition of the UOCAL property, and daylighting
of Willow Creek.
Packet Pg. 281
5.A.b
Add an employee with a strong environmental and fundraising background to
manage the Marsh plan.
Chap 7. Recreation Programs (p98)
Chap 8. Trails & Connections (100)
Chap 9. Capital Planning and Implementation (p112)
Include a discussion of the Marsh Estuary capital facilities program. Capital costs for acquisition
and restoration are listed as TBD. An explanation of when these expected costs are likely to be
known and what they will might include is needed. Acquisition of the UNOCAL property and the
daylighting of Willow Creek will be the largest capital project undertaken by the department. As
such, it deserves some attention in the plan.
Appendices (p121)
Park Site Assessments (p121) do not include tree and native shrub planting, invasives removal,
stream bank stabilization, rising sea level impact, storm water control, or in general any
environmental related assessments.
P 197, under Recreation Opportunities & Needs, bullet 4 says "The 2016 Plan has a reference to
climate change". This is incorrect, the 2016 PROS plan makes NO mention of climate change.
Conclusion
Adoption of the PROS plan update should be delayed until environmental stewardship is listed as a
department goal and specific actions that demonstrate that stewardship are adopted and listed.
Packet Pg. 282
5.A.b
From:
Feser, Angie
To:
Rosen, Mike (Planning Board)
Cc:
Steve Duh
Subject:
RE: My PROS Plan Questions
Date:
Wednesday, January 12, 2022 4:36:51 PM
Mike,
Thank you for the thoughtful questions. The consultant Steve and I will be prepared to answer
these during tonight's meeting and the ones that are not asked, we will respond to after the
meeting. I will leave it to your discretion to choose which ones to you would like answered
during the discussion.
One note — there will be a pretty in-depth discussion around the capital program following the
PROS Plan presentation, so there will be quite a bit on the agenda tonight.
Thanks again and I look forward to tonight's meeting.
Angie Feser I Director I She/Her
Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell)
Website I Facebook I Instagram
The Frances Anderson Center and Meadowdale Clubhouse are closed to the Public until
further notice due to the ongoing pandemic.
EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
From: Rosen, Mike (Planning Board)
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 4:30 PM
To: Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: My PROS Plan Questions
Hi Angie,
I apologize for sending these so late. I hope the nature of the questions illustrates how great I
think the work is that you have done. There is so much to love about this plan.
Here are my questions, and I apologize if the answers are actually in the plan and I neglected
to note them.
Packet Pg. 283
5.A.b
PP 90 Goal #1- Formation of a council parks and recreation board — I am curious about the origin of
this goal. It suggests to me that there is a perceived unmet need that this would solve..
PP 220 — Did we weight the responses to reflect the demographics of the community?
PP 220 - What did cross tabs reveal especially against demographics like:
• Neighborhood
• Age
• Homes with children
• Owner occupied versus renter
• Language spoken
• Gender
• Etc.
I saw a reference to age, geography and kids on some of the sections in the research section — but
am curious about other demographics.
PP 51- These all seem child motivated — what if you isolated the demo of those with or without
kids?
PP 58 System analysis — I applaud the intended use of metrics that are actually measurable. These
seem to be measurable except maybe "condition of amenities" Can you provide a couple examples
of what that might look like?
PP 60 & 181— I know you have developed a recommendation to address the deficit. I am curious
about the data. How does this translate by neighborhood (Geographically) and does it take into
account distance from neighboring city/county parks? How did you arrive at the numb er 3 new
park sites for 99
PP 61- Condition of trails D — what specifically is the concern and is it real or perception? (Is there a
lack of consensus of what makes a good trail?
PP 61- Trail system access F —That doesn't intuitively feel right given the activities most people do.
Did everyone answer this question?
PP 84 - Survey responses — How many non-English were completed?
PP 84 - 1,958 responses were received - 501 from the mailed —1,449 from online —that is a gap of
8?
PP 85 — PP 93 — PP 110 The most popular activity is the beach and waterfront 83%. How do you
reconcile that with the recommendations — Biking isn't on the list (could be part of fitness as I
assume the pool is) P 93 - Goal 3 expanding bike connectivity —from where did that emerge Bike
riding on the chart on PP 110 is 12th on the list and on page 111 is rated the highest of all the
categories for having more than enough
PP 226 & PP 227 — it states "Of the specific list of amenities provided, 30% of respondents indicated
that the highest unmet need is for pedestrian and bike trails (84%) - but on PP 227 the graph
indicates Pedestrian & bike trails in parks indicate 21% well met though it has the largest somewhat
category but is also in the bottom half for those indicating unmet. Curious where the 30% comes
from?
PP 89 — Goals and Objectives There are 8 Goals and 55 Objectives listed and many of the objectives
have the word "and" in them. What is the process you will use to balance
prioritization/money/staff/timing?
Packet Pg. 284
5.A.b
General:
The word "restroom" shows up 74 times — I think this will yield huge benefits. My understanding is
that the great success story of turning around Bryant Park started with a discussion and a vision for
public restrooms.
I love the big bold images and the ratio of words to page/images - Draft — brackets landing — didn't
you remove that large beam? As cool as the picture is should you maybe use a more current
image?
I would move up the quantity of parks information I am guessing most people would underestimate
the number and size.
again... well done!!!!
MIKE ROSEN
Edmonds Planning Board, Chair
Packet Pg. 285
5.A.b
From: Katy Bigelow
To: Feser, Angie; Haslam. Carrie
Subject: Re: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Draft — Now Available for Review
Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 3:19:50 PM
Here are a couple notes from a brief run through of this document:
I live in unincorporated Shohomish county which includes north Edmonds!! These portions of
Edmonds are left off of every map and from every plan. This portion of Edmonds includes
Meadowdale Park. Unincorporated parts of Edmonds should be included in this plan!
P. 51 color coding is wrong for the numbers in the chart. Re. Brackett's Landing North- I beg
to differ that the waterfront area is in good condition = there is always trash, high tides are
now consistently pushing debris into parking areas and the function of any mitigation along
this area to reduce both issues is poor, waterfront vegetation is in poor condition. The
bathrooms are in VERY poor condition.
P. 121 in the 6 year Cap budget - absolutely NO plan for $ for Brackett's upgrades or
underwater dive park stewardship hiring? Is this an oversight?
Thank you,
Katy
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 12:20 PM Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser&edmondswa4Qy> wrote:
Help shape the future of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services!
The City has completed a draft of the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan
for the future of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services and is requesting your
input. The draft plan is now available for review here and while it is a very large document,
perhaps you are able to review a few sections? Each piece of input is incredibly valuable.
Feedback can be emailed to PRO SPlan&edmondswa.gov and/or by attending and providing
comment during one of the upcoming Planning Board or City Council regular meetings
when the plan will be discussed. This is currently scheduled as follows:
• January 12, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document presentation and discussion
• January 26, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document Public Hearing
• February 1, 2022 - City Council - Plan Presentation*
• February 15, 2022 - City Council — Plan Public Hearing*
• February 22, 2022 - City Council - Plan Approval consideration*
*City Council meeting dates are tentative at this time. Check the City's Meeting Calendar
for specific dates, times and agenda packet materials available HERE.
The PROS plan is focused on providing equitable access to and investment in parks,
recreation and cultural arts facilities and programs and outlines future parks capital projects
Packet Pg. 286
5.A.b
The updated plan will guide the city in providing high quality, community -driven parks,
waterfront, and natural areas and recreation programs. Vital to the success of the planning
for the future is input from the public, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Angie Feser
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director
v EDMONDSPARKS,
I RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
Katy Bigelow
206.351.1375
www.katybigelow.com
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist®
International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist PN-6039B
PNW ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Registered Consulting Arborist® #490
Member - American Society of Consulting Arborists
Find me on Facebook!
Packet Pg. 287
5.A.b
From: Mike Shaw
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: Re: PROS plan improvements needed
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2022 10:59:18 AM
Ms. Feser,
Apparently your priorities for Edmonds Parks are based primarily on the recent public survey.
I would question the validity of the survey itself. In several cases, the wording was either
misleading or at the very least poorly designed. For instance, to equate the enhancement and
restoration of the Marsh with public playgrounds is truly apples and oranges. As stated by
Governor Inslee himself, the reestablishment of salmon runs is a statewide priority! In the
Edmonds Marsh, we have a chance to do just that, and not with taxpayer dollars but with
numerous federal and state level grants. The Marsh represents an environmental enrichment
possibility for the state, not just Edmonds. To have the PROS plan reflect this so poorly does a
serious disservice to the City of Edmonds and the state of Washington. I would ask again that
you do some serious redrafting of the PROS plan to better reflect the environmental
responsibility and stewardship that the City of Edmonds and its Parks Department should
exemplify.
Sincerely,
Mike Shaw
71 year resident of Edmonds
From: Feser, Angie
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:21 PM
To: mikeshaw69@comcast.net
Subject: FW: PROS plan improvements needed
Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to review and submit your thoughtful comments on the draft
2022 PROS Plan. I have a few responses found within your original email below. Thank you for
taking the time to review and submit your thoughtful comments on the draft 2022 PROS Plan.
Your suggestions will be taken into consideration during the finalization of this planning
document.
Your email will be shared with both the Planning Board and City Council as they review the
draft document and provide their suggestions and recommendations on the Plan.
Just a reminder that there are more opportunities to watch additional presentations and
related Board and Council discussions on the PROS Plan as well as provide public comments.
These meetings are currently scheduled as follows:
• January 26, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document Public Hearing
Packet Pg. 288
5.A.b
• February 1, 2022 - City Council - Plan Presentation
• February 15, 2022 - City Council — Plan Public Hearing*
• February 22, 2022 - City Council - Plan Approval consideration*
*These City Council meeting dates are tentative at this time. Check the City's Meeting
Calendar for specific dates, times and agenda packet materials available HERE.
Thank you again for your interest and effort in commenting on the draft PROS Plan, your
feedback is appreciated.
Best regards,
Angie Feser I Director I She/Her
Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell)
Website I Facebook I Instagram
The Frances Anderson Center and Meadowdale Clubhouse are closed to the Public until
further notice due to the ongoing pandemic.
4EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
From: Mike Shaw <mikeshaw69@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:05 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PROS plan improvements needed
I am very disappointed in the draft PROS plan as it exists today. I see nothing about
environmental responsibility and stewardship. Shouldn't these factors be intertwined with
the PROS plan on nearly every page? Shouldn't they be part of the very mission statement of
the Parks and Recreation Department? Please add/ introduce this language as pointedly and
frequently as you can.
I also see little mention of the Edmonds Marsh in the PROS plan. The marsh is listed in the
PROS Plan the same manner as all other city -owned park properties. Isn't this a valued
addition to Edmonds Parks? Aren't more, and healthier salmon runs a statewide goal? Then
why is there so little mention of the Edmonds Marsh in the PROS plan? What ideas does
Edmonds Parks and Recreation have to help the Edmonds Marsh wildlife sanctuary became a
fully functional marine wetland/estuary? Please update the PROS plan to include the
Edmonds Park & Rec Dept. plans and vision for the Edmonds Marsh. The plan(s) and vision for
the Edmonds Marsh are done through a community -driven process in the form of a Master
Plan. This Master plan is listed in the Capital plan in 2025 for a cost of $273,000.
Packet Pg. 289
5.A.b
The acquisition, planning and restoration of the Marsh project is listed in the proposed capital
project list, which is very significant. The capital program is a large component of the PROS
Plan implementation.
Also, question #13 of the community survey asked the Edmonds community to rank and
prioritize a list of 6 improvements and facilities. The purchase and expansion of the Edmonds
Marsh ranked #6 behind improve existing parkland, complete the Waterfront Walkway, buy
additional parks for conservation and open space, build a new aquatic center and buy
additional parkland. This indicates residents prioritize a number of capital projects higher than
the Marsh project. (see attached).
Many thanks,
Mike Shaw
71 year resident of Edmonds
Packet Pg. 290
5.A.b
From:
Sharon Sneddon
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
Re: PROS Plan
Date:
Wednesday, January 12, 2022 4:54:20 PM
Angie,
The Open Spaces section discusses invasive plant control, water conservation, etc. in those areas, but it isn't clear if
those
measures also apply to all the parks. Introducing drought -tolerant plants and monitoring riparian areas alongside
creeks for erosion
potential in open spaces as well as parks are a couple of measures that come to mind.
Careful monitoring of all the parks and open spaces would take more people power than your dept. probably has
right now. Perhaps
a campaign to enlist citizens to monitor their neighborhood parks and open spaces would help. Increasing awareness
of all Edmonds
parks and open spaces would be the first step. Different parks highlighted in the Beacon each week? Workshops for
volunteers giving
guidelines for monitoring their neighborhood park might generate interest in maintaining them and increase usage.
The importance of
maintaining trees in that space for wildlife and people, with input from a birder and/or tree board person, would
increase the
impact of that committee.
The Edmonds Marsh, in particular, would benefit from a citizens' committee to monitor and remove invasives
(following
guidelines from parks or City staff). Designating the marsh as a wildlife sanctuary would be an important first step,
opening the door to funding opportunities and increased public awareness. Joint meetings with this citizens
committee
and park or City staff would increase effectiveness toward reaching restoration and enhancement goals.
That's all I can think of right now. Thank you, Angie, for all your hard work on this plan and all you do. You've
taken
on a huge job.
Sharon Sneddon
> On Jan 12, 2022, at 3:12 PM, Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser@edmondswa.gov> wrote:
> Sharon,
> Thank you for your feedback on the plan.
> Would you be able to provide examples of what you would prefer to be included in the document? Are there
specific goals and objectives? Are there certain actions or initiatives you recommend.
> The Open Space section, pages 82 - 85 does discuss and encourage stewardship of natural areas and systemwide
concepts of water conservation, plant selection, invasive species management and stormwater management
practices.
Packet Pg. 291
5.A.b
> Thank you,
> Angie Feser I Director I She/Her
> Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020
> 425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell)
> Website I Facebook I Instagram
> The Frances Anderson Center and Meadowdale Clubhouse are closed to the Public until further notice due to the
ongoing pandemic.
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Sharon Sneddon <sksneddon@frontier.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:02 PM
> To: Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser@edmondswa.gov>
> Subject: PROS Plan
> After reading over the PROS plan, I was surprised that there isn't any reference to mitigation for the affects of
climate change on Edmonds Parks. Warming temperatures, rainfall patterns and other environmental variations
need to be included in this plan before it can be accepted.
> I noticed that increasing access to parks for all community members is covered. But, as it is now, the plan sounds
like a generic parks planning document without reference to issues affecting those parks and all of Edmonds at the
present time. Changing environmental challenges will only increase and Edmonds needs to have a plan to address
them.
> Thank you and your staff for all your hard work on this plan, but it is not acceptable as it is now.
> Sharon Sneddon
> Edmonds Resident
Packet Pg. 292
5.A.b
From:
Ron Eber
To:
LaFave, Carolyn; Feser, Angie
Cc:
Council
Subject:
Comments about the Draft PROS Plan
Date:
Friday, January 21, 2022 3:25:55 PM
Attachments:
PROS Plan Comments.docx
Attached are the comments I submitted today to the Parks Department.
Ron Eber
Edmonds
Sent from Mail for Windows
Packet Pg. 293
5.A.b
January 21, 2022
To: Edmonds Planning Board
From: Ronald Eber —Edmonds
RE: Comments on Proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan
I strongly urge the Planning Board to not adopt the so-called PROS "Plan" because it does not
adequately inventory or identify the needs for each specific park and recreation program or include
specific policies on how these needs will be achieved. It needs to clearly commit or require The City to
do specific tasks. Without this information is not a "plan." The draft also does not provide goals for the
overall environmental stewardship of Edmonds Parks or for the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. Much more
detail is needed to address the acquisition or restoration needs for the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. The
draft needs significant additions and revisions before it is even ready for any serious public review.
Lack of Adequate Identification of Park and Recreation Needs & Implementing Policies
The draft document is best described as a background or inventory report about the City's Parks and
Recreation programs. It has information about the existing parks and programs, the public outreach
completed and summaries of the community surveys. While there is mention of overall park and
recreation program needs throughout, there are no specific findings that identify the parks system's
"future" facility and service needs for specific parks or programs. Appendix B does not constitute such
findings. It says it is an "Assessment" of each park but only includes a list of amenities and maintenance
considerations. It does not specify the needs or how they can be achieved.
The Plan must include a specific list of the needs for each park and program, an explanation about how
these needs can and will be met and enforceable implementing policies that commit the City to meet
these needs.
Responsible Environmental Stewardship and the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary
There are eight (8) Goals and Objectives (pp. 20-27) proposed for adoption. However, there needs to be
two other Goal with Objective statements. One needs to address the City's overall responsibility for
environmental stewardship for the park system and the second needs to provide guidance for the
critically important ongoing efforts to protect and restore the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. I support the
specific proposal for an environmental stewardship Goal submitted by Save Our Marsh. A proposed
Goal for the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary is provided with these comments.
Packet Pg. 294
5.A.b
Need for More Open Space Lands
The draft "Plan" identifies a deficit and need for more land for Open Space (p. 78-79) but does not
address how these lands can be acquired. This is especially important for the Marsh -Estuary where
there is an ongoing effort to acquire the adjacent UNOCAL/WSDOT property and the proposed plan
does not mention this or commit to this specific acquisition. The CFP chart includes a category for the
Edmonds Marsh -Estuary (p. 117) and line items for "acquisition" and "restoration" but does provide any
discussion about what the City intends to do. The Plan needs to include an overall Goal for the
protection and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary and additional policies about its acquisition
strategy and specifically what it means by restoration. Again, the community group SOM has provided
you with specific restoration objectives that need to be included in any adopted plan.
Finally, the draft "plan" needs to be much more specific on exactly what the City intends to do and how
it plans to achieve these goals and objectives. There is much good information in the draft but it needs
significant revisions to highlight the identified park and recreation needs for each specific park and
program as well as specify with enforceable policies how these needs will be achieved.
Here is the proposed Goal ad Objectives for the Marsh consistent with what has been submitted by SOM
that I am recommending:
Protect and Restore the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary
Goal: Establish a regional wildlife sanctuary and recreation area in public ownership on the
southern end of the Edmonds Waterfront that includes the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary, the old
Unocal property, and Marina Beach Park.
Objectives:
1. Connect the Sanctuary Area with a tidal channel from Puget Sound to the Edmonds
Marsh, nature trails, pedestrian bridges, and boardwalks throughout all three areas for
outdoor recreation, bird -watching and nature viewing (including migrating salmon).
2. Restore the Marsh -Estuary to an ecologically functional tidal wetland;
3. Manage the regional wildlife sanctuary for aquatic and avian wildlife protection and
enhancement, outdoor recreation and environmental education programs, and other
activities consistent with and as secondary uses to wildlife conservation.
Packet Pg. 295
5.A.b
From:
Save Our Marsh
To:
Feser, Anaie
Cc:
Council; Nelson, Michael
Subject:
Comments on draft 2022 PROS Plan
Date:
Friday, January 21, 2022 12:42:03 AM
Attachments:
SOM Comments on PROS Plan.odf
Attached and below are the Save Our Marsh community group comments.
To: Director Angie Feser
Subject: Comments on the draft 2022 PROS Plan
The Save Our Marsh (SOM) community group recommends the PROS Plan be revised to better reflect
the environmental responsibility and stewardship that the City of Edmonds should exemplify. City Parks
and Open Spaces should be managed to preserve and enhance natural areas for wildlife and people who
seek the "outdoor experience" in urban areas as well as providing community playgrounds where
applicable. The priority for open space acquisitions should be the enhancement and preservation of the
remaining natural areas in our City.
We request that the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary be clearly identified in the PROS Plan as the ONLY wildlife
reserve in this City and that the Plan recognize its unique status as one of the few remaining pocket
estuaries in Puget Sound. Acquisition of the old Unocal property using state and federal grant funds
should be a priority in the PROS Plan. The CFP table on page 117 should be revised to reference
acquisition of the Unocal property (not the Marsh which is already City owned).
As you should be aware, the City is undertaking a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process that will
redefine land use for the old Unocal property possibly under City ownership. The SOM has asked to
have the following goal replace the defunct ferry terminal relocation language in the Comp Plan and this
should be acknowledged and incorporated into the PROS Plan.
Establish a regional wildlife sanctuary and recreation area in public ownership on the
southern end of the Edmonds Waterfront that includes the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary, the
old Unocal property, and Marina Beach Park. The Sanctuary Area will be interconnected
with a tidal channel from Puget Sound to the Edmonds Marsh and nature trails,
pedestrian bridges, and boardwalks throughout all three areas for outdoor recreation,
bird -watching and nature viewing (including migrating salmon). The Marsh -Estuary will be
restored to an ecologically functional tidal wetland and the Regional Wildlife Sanctuary
will be managed for aquatic and avian wildlife protection and enhancement, outdoor
recreation and education, and other activities that can be accomplished consistent with
and as secondary uses to wildlife conservation.
We also request that a Responsible Environmental Leadership Goal be added to the list of goals in the
PROS Plan as follows.
Goal 9: Manage parks and open spaces to improve environmental conditions for the local and
regional community.
Objectives:
9.1 Establish goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for park operations and take steps to
meet those goals by converting the vehicle fleet from gas/diesel to electric.
Packet Pg. 296
5.A.b
9.2 Improve stream water quality by stabilizing eroding stream banks with riparian vegetation,
removing barriers to salmon passage and remnant concrete structures in Shell Creek.
9.3 Increase carbon storage by adopting an annual plan that specifies the numbers, locations,
and kinds of trees to be planted consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan and expand
park areas that can support tree canopies.
9.4. Evaluate the impact of rising sea levels on marine parks and take steps to prepare for those
impacts.
9.5 Create a comprehensive Edmonds Estuary restoration plan that includes removal of invasive
plants, restoration of functional flow channels, addition of the UNOCAL/WSDOT property, and
placing an open tidal channel between the Marsh and puget Sound.
9.6 Replace invasive plants with native plant communities that benefit native insects, amphibians,
birds, fish, and mammals and support community volunteers to conduct the work.
9.7 Prepare for intensifying storm and drought conditions caused by climate change by
evaluating the construction of settling ponds in the upper watersheds of local creeks.
9.8 Improve pedestrian and bike access to the parks along with providing safety, education, and
health information.
9.9 Manage the use of pesticides and herbicides to prevent harm to park visitors, fish, wildlife,
reptiles and amphibians.
9.10 Restore natural areas to ecologically functional condition.
We found that the assessment of needs in Parks and Open Spaces is woefully deficient in addressing
restoration and enhancement of natural functions that we, as a society, should be preserving in our
Parks. For example:
• The Edmonds Marsh-Estuary/Wildlife Sanctuary is in dire need of restoration and that
should be spelled -out in the Plan. The SOM (a stakeholder) sent you a list of community
driven restoration objectives that should be included in the PROS Plan.
• The 'valley' in Yost Park is suffering from serious erosion on the bluffs, tree loss, lack of
succession, eroded streambed and riparian area from excess stormwater inputs into the Park,
stream blocking concrete structures causing serious streambank erosion - - and none of these
environmental problems nor possible 'fixes' are even mentioned in the Plan.
• The City's Willow Creek property near the Hatchery has eroded banks and siltation
buildup (from excess stormwater) to the point that no discernable creek channel or streambed
exists any more in the lower area.
The PROS Plan should be explicit on exactly where and how many trees will be planted to fulfill the City's
obligations under the Urban Forest Management Plan. This should be included in the CFP on page 117.
The CFP table on page 117 needs accompanying text that describes exactly what is proposed to be done
with the dollars proposed over the 6-year period for each item listed The CFP table or accompanying text
should also reference where in the document the reader can find the discussion of the priority for the item
as compared to other (unfunded) needs identified in the assessment section of the document. The
Master Plan Development for the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary should be changed to "Comprehensive
Restoration and Enhancement Plan" (the Marsh is zoned as Open Space not Master Plan development
as stipulated for the old Unocal property).
Lastly, we are troubled that the draft is extremely difficult to follow and understand what is actually being
planned or recommended(?) and the basis for doing some things and not others. Use of the terms "could
Packet Pg. 297
5.A.b
be implemented" "could be added" "would be helpful" leaves the reader wondering what is actually
planned and what is a 'wish list' that will not be implemented. We are also concerned that some aspects
of the survey responses are priorities and others are left silent. We caution how much emphasis is
placed on developing actions or priorities based on responses to certain survey questions and not
others. It is known that the construct of survey questions can and do bias the survey results. Where and
when the surveys/interviews were conducted (e.g., near Hwy 99 verses at Edmonds City Park, the Marsh,
or the waterfront) can also cause bias in results.
Packet Pg. 298
5.A.b
To: Director Angie Feser
Subject: Comments on the draft 2022 PROS Plan
The Save Our Marsh (SOM) community group recommends the PROS Plan be revised to better reflect
the environmental responsibility and stewardship that the City of Edmonds should exemplify. City Parks
and Open Spaces should be managed to preserve and enhance natural areas for wildlife and people who
seek the "outdoor experience" in urban areas as well as providing community playgrounds where
applicable. The priority for open space acquisitions should be the enhancement and preservation of the
remaining natural areas in our City.
We request that the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary be clearly identified in the PROS Plan as the ONLY wildlife
reserve in this City and that the Plan recognize its unique status as one of the few remaining pocket
estuaries in Puget Sound. Acquisition of the old Unocal property using state and federal grant funds
should be a priority in the PROS Plan. The CFP table on page 117 should be revised to reference
acquisition of the Unocal property (not the Marsh which is already City owned).
As you should be aware, the City is undertaking a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process that will
redefine land use for the old Unocal property possibly under City ownership. The SOM has asked to
have the following goal replace the defunct ferry terminal relocation language in the Comp Plan and this
should be acknowledged and incorporated into the PROS Plan.
Establish a regional wildlife sanctuary and recreation area in public ownership on the
southern end of the Edmonds Waterfront that includes the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary, the
old Unocal property, and Marina Beach Park. The Sanctuary Area will be interconnected
with a tidal channel from Puget Sound to the Edmonds Marsh and nature trails, pedestrian
bridges, and boardwalks throughout all three areas for outdoor recreation, bird -watching
and nature viewing (including migrating salmon). The Marsh -Estuary will be restored to an
ecologically functional tidal wetland and the Regional Wildlife Sanctuary will be managed
for aquatic and avian wildlife protection and enhancement, outdoor recreation and
education, and other activities that can be accomplished consistent with and as secondary
uses to wildlife conservation.
We also request that a Responsible Environmental Leadership Goal be added to the list of goals in the
PROS Plan as follows.
Goal 9: Manage parks and open spaces to improve environmental conditions for the local and
regional community.
Objectives:
9.1 Establish goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for park operations and take steps to meet
those goals by converting the vehicle fleet from gas/diesel to electric.
9.2 Improve stream water quality by stabilizing eroding stream banks with riparian vegetation,
removing barriers to salmon passage and remnant concrete structures in Shell Creek.
Packet Pg. 299
5.A.b
9.3 Increase carbon storage by adopting an annual plan that specifies the numbers, locations, and
kinds of trees to be planted consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan and expand park
areas that can support tree canopies.
9.4. Evaluate the impact of rising sea levels on marine parks and take steps to prepare for those
impacts.
9.5 Create a comprehensive Edmonds Estuary restoration plan that includes removal of invasive
plants, restoration of functional flow channels, addition of the UNOCAL/WSDOT property, and
placing an open tidal channel between the Marsh and Puget Sound.
9.6 Replace invasive plants with native plant communities that benefit native insects, amphibians,
birds, fish, and mammals and support community volunteers to conduct the work.
9.7 Prepare for intensifying storm and drought conditions caused by climate change by evaluating the
construction of settling ponds in the upper watersheds of local creeks.
9.8 Improve pedestrian and bike access to the parks along with providing safety, education, and
health information.
9.9 Manage the use of pesticides and herbicides to prevent harm to park visitors, fish, wildlife, reptiles
and amphibians.
9.10 Restore natural areas to ecologically functional condition.
We found that the assessment of needs in Parks and Open Spaces is woefully deficient in addressing
restoration and enhancement of natural functions that we, as a society, should be preserving in our
Parks. For example:
• The Edmonds Marsh-Estuary/Wildlife Sanctuary is in dire need of restoration and that should
be spelled -out in the Plan. The SOM (a stakeholder) sent you a list of community driven
restoration objectives that should be included in the PROS Plan.
• The `valley' in Yost Park is suffering from serious erosion on the bluffs, tree loss, lack of
succession, eroded streambed and riparian area from excess stormwater inputs into the Park,
stream blocking concrete structures causing serious streambank erosion - - and none of these
environmental problems nor possible `fixes' are even mentioned in the Plan.
• The City's Willow Creek property near the Hatchery has eroded banks and siltation buildup
(from excess stormwater) to the point that no discernable creek channel or streambed exists
any more in the lower area.
The PROS Plan should be explicit on exactly where and how many trees will be planted to fulfill the City's
obligations under the Urban Forest Management Plan. This should be included in the CFP on page 117.
The CFP table on page 117 needs accompanying text that describes exactly what is proposed to be done
with the dollars proposed over the 6-year period for each item listed The CFP table or accompanying text
should also reference where in the document the reader can find the discussion of the priority for the item
as compared to other (unfunded) needs identified in the assessment section of the document. The
Master Plan Development for the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary should be changed to "Comprehensive
Restoration and Enhancement Plan" (the Marsh is zoned as Open Space not Master Plan development
as stipulated for the old Unocal property).
Lastly, we are troubled that the draft is extremely difficult to follow and understand what is actually being
planned or recommended(?) and the basis for doing some things and not others. Use of the terms "could
be implemented" "could be added" "would be helpful" leaves the reader wondering what is actually
planned and what is a `wish list' that will not be implemented. We are also concerned that some aspects
of the survey responses are priorities and others are left silent. We caution how much emphasis is
placed on developing actions or priorities based on responses to certain survey questions and not others.
Packet Pg. 300
5.A.b
It is known that the construct of survey questions can and do bias the survey results. Where and when
the surveys/interviews were conducted (e.g., near Hwy 99 verses at Edmonds City Park, the Marsh, or
the waterfront) can also cause bias in results.
Packet Pg. 301
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces Plan Comments
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:38:31 AM
Angie for review.
From: Rachel C. <rchamberlainl4@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 2022 Parl<s, Recreation & Open Spaces Plan Comments
Dear City of Edmonds,
As an Edmonds resident, I thank you for completing this draft under the challenging
circumstances of the pandemic. I would also like to voice my concern over several
items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
Packet Pg. 302
5.A.b
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
With nature in mind,
Rachel Chamberlain.
Packet Pg. 303
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Comment on PROS plan
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:22:10 AM
Angie for review.
From: Lisa Weber <45.lisa@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:03 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Comment on PROS plan
Dear City of Edmonds,
Edmonds is a place I cherish for its natural beauty and open space. As a frequent
visitor, I thank you for completing this draft under the challenging circumstances of
the pandemic. I would also like to voice my concern over several items in the plan.
I am a citizen scientist who has participated for several years in surveying bird activity in Edmonds
Marsh for Pilchuck Audubon. Through these surveys and Pilchuck Audubon field trips to Edmonds
parks and beaches, I've developed a love for the area since I moved to WA in 2015. 1 care deeply
about habitat conservation for all species, and understand the unique value of the habitats in
Edmonds, especially the Marsh.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
Packet Pg. 304
5.A.b
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations.These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Lisa Weber
15026 40th Ave W Apt. 4-303
Lynnwood, WA 98987
650-888-9087
Packet Pg. 305
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
FW: Comment on the Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
Date:
Monday, January 24, 2022 7:14:59 AM
Angie for review.
From: Brooks Bennett <brooksbennett79@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 9:42 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Comment on the Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
Dear City of Edmonds,
Edmonds is a place I cherish for its natural beauty and open space. As a frequent visitor,
thank you for completing this draft under the challenging circumstances of the pandemic.
would also like to voice my concern over several items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the three
additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The plan
lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address them. The
plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands, and water quality
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and managed
as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible way. The creek
should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have its surface
connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not to be
used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff is the
primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode streams and
damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the city
and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -leash dog
area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the Puget Sound
according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these recommendations. The
plan should include a discussion of available funding, how much additional funding is
needed, and specific recommendations on where to get additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations should
Packet Pg. 306
5.A.b
not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the site for open
space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be independent because a
Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Brooks Bennett
brooksbennett79&amail.com
Packet Pg. 307
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Comment on the Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:22:34 AM
Angie for review.
From: Daniel Sloan <sloanlda@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:52 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPIan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Brian Zinke <director@pilchuckaudubon.org>
Subject: Comment on the Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan
Time is short. The City of Edmonds suffers from water quality issues that rival Flint, MI,
Malibu Pier, CA, Noble Beach, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and thousands of other communities
in all 50 states that have chosen to prioritize fun over stewardship fundamentals.
Heavy rainfall, which is worse with every atmospheric river, causes all
Edmonds water sources to be polluted with raw sewage and poisonous,
non point source runoff.
• January 3rd's closure of Puget Sound waters is a drop of fecal material
in the bucket. https:,L/nugetsoundkeener.org/nollution-I
• It is irresponsible and a dereliction of responsibilities for city leaders to
prioritize playgrounds and picnic places when clean water is in
increasingly short supply.
Sincerely,
Daniel Sloan
4638 Seahurst Avenue
Everett, WA 98203
425-512-9369
Packet Pg. 308
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Comments for park plans in Edmonds
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:22:44 AM
Angie for review.
From: Virginia Haver <ginnyandgerry@centurylink.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:56 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Comments for park plans in Edmonds
Dear City of Edmonds,
Edmonds is a place I cherish for its natural beauty and open space. As a frequent
visitor, I thank you for completing this draft under the challenging circumstances of
the pandemic. I would also like to voice my concern over several items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
Packet Pg. 309
5.A.b
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Virginia Haver
Packet Pg. 310
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: Comments
Date:
Monday, January 24, 2022 7:25:18 AM
Angie for review.
From: amearns@aol.com <amearns@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:24 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Comments
Survey Destination Park and Open Space Users.
The priorities in the PROS plan draft are driven by community members via an online survey and various
live venues. That is perhaps as it should be except for two things: (1) parks that are not well-known by
Edmonds citizens and (2) disregard of people beyond the city who use parks as destinations.
Many of my neighbors are not aware that there is a 25 acre marsh within the city. Some ask me where it
is. They would not rank the The Edmonds Marsh -Estuary wildlife area as a priority if they were not aware
of it, let alone visit it. By contrast, most are aware of the beach parks, and many residents are frequent
visitors.
Edmonds Marsh and the Underwater Dive Park are major destination parks for hundreds of non -
Edmonds -city residents. During my frequent visits to the Marsh and to Brackett's Landing I encounter
"users" who come from other areas in the County, other cities in Washington and the Northwest and from
other states and Canada. These folks include wildlife photographers, bird and wildlife watchers and scuba
divers, many from well known organizations such as state and regional Audubon clubs, and local,
regional, state in national scuba clubs. These people contribute to the Edmonds economy while dining
and shopping in Edmonds, and by "spreading the word" about their experiences here.
On reading the PROS Plan draft it is not clear to me that there has been any effort to reach out to people
and organizations outside Edmonds who frequent the Marsh and Underwater Park ... for their views,
concerns, and opinions. If there has been such an effort, please include the results in the next draft. If
not, please immediately expand outreach and invitation to regional groups such as NGOs (eg., State
Audubon, State Sierra Club) and Diver groups (eg., Emerald Seas Dive Club, Seattle Dive Tours) report
their comments, and incorporate in the priority rankings.
I clearly understand that Edmonds citizens pay for Edmonds Parks services and maintenance. But by
connecting with destination users funding for Edmonds Marsh restoration and for Underwater Dive Park
enhancements can come from grants and other outside funding.
Tribes?
I could find no reference in the draft plan to input or recommendations from Tribes. The Tulalip Tribe is
mentioned only once (p 227). Were they specifically asked for their input on Edmonds parks and open
spaces, especially Edmonds Marsh?
Be Specific About Enhancement of Natural Areas
All Edmonds parks and open space areas should exhibit and engage visitors in nature, whether they go
there to play soccer, to swim. to picnic, to make love, to converse, or to just get out of the house and
unplug from technology. The PROS plan draft does not adequately, let alone specifically, address how
the City plans to enhance natural experiences in parks. There is no mention of how many trees and
Packet Pg. 311
5.A.b
shrubs will be planted, how much forest canopy will be increased. Parks and open spaces should be
managed to preserve and enhance natural areas for wildlife and people who seek the "outdoor
experience" in urban areas as well as providing community playgrounds. Please offer specific actions
Thank you
Alan Mearns
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 312
5.A.b
From:
Martin, Michelle
To:
Martin, Michelle
Cc:
Feser, Angie; Chave, Rob
Subject:
FW: Draft Park Plan
Date:
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:25:13 AM
Hello PB,
Forwarding comments received this morning.
Bcc: PB email list
Tkn[Ai2 Uou,
Michelle Martin
City of Edmonds
Planning Work Group
425-771-0222
From: vince barnes <vgbarnesPhotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:14 AM
To: Planning <Planning(@edmondswa.g_ov>
Subject: Draft Park Plan
Dear Planning Board,
I have received the draft parks plan. Because it is so comprehensive, it is hard to consume and
digest in its entirety. As I live near and use Yost Park on a daily basis, I thought I'd focus on that
park with some observations about things I did not see in the Draft, but which I have
communicated to parks and recreation before, without an adequate response. Here are my
concerns:
1. There are dangerous trees in Yost Park. Of particular concern is the main trail through the
middle of the park, as that is the most widely used. On at least three occasions, via email and
in person, I have warned that the dead and dying trees along the main path pose a significant
risk. My concerns have been dismissed, and I was even told that the trees are inspected by an
arborist weekly. One must question the veracity of this statement or the competence of the
arborist, as since then, several large trees have fallen over the main trail and numerous lethal
sized branches have fallen on it. Indeed, the side of the trail is littered with trunks and
branches that have fallen on this path. Just go take a look! Many dangerous trees and
branches remain. If the city can afford to come and cut up and clear the fallen trees and
Packet Pg. 313
5.A.b
branches, why can't it engage in mitigation first? A large truck with a tall cherry picker could
clear much of the danger in a day or two. I just don't get why we are waiting for a serious
injury or death, when the danger is so obvious and the solution so simple. This matter should
have been included in the Draft Plan.
2. Mountain bikes are using the trails of Yost park more and more often. I expressed my
concern about this to individuals responsible for the park. I received no answer. Some
mountain bikers have even constructed berms and jumps. In the upper northeast corner,
there is evidence of extensive construction, which thankfully has been discontinued. But bikes
do continue to use the other trails and attempt to build new trails. This leads to increased
erosion and inevitably conflict. The Parks commission should not continue to sweep this
matter under the rug. This matter should have been addressed in the Draft Plan. In my view,
except for the main trail through the middle, Yost Park is not an appropriate place for
mountain bikes.
3. 1 don't understand why the Girl Scouts were allowed to post ugly plastic signs throughout
the park warning about erosion on so-called social trails (unofficial trails). Clearly, the main
problem with erosion is the existing trails, which, as the Draft notes, are graded down slope
and don't have water diversions, like on trails in national forests. Who gets to approve the
installation of such signs? As I said, they are ugly and some have fallen off, leaving only the
posts.
Perhaps these other matters could be included in discussions about the Draft:
4. There're no recycling containers in Yost Park.
5. Park employees continue to use gas powered leaf blowers, even to blow off trails, even
though these are known to be high emitters of CO2.
I'm sorry, but I can't attend the virtual meetings, so I hope my words here will be included in
your considerations.
Regards,
Vince Barnes
Packet Pg. 314
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 11:28:22 AM
Attachments: innaae001.Dna
Angie for review.
From: Lindsey Echelbarger <Lndsey@ech-cpm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 11:23 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Chapin, Frances <Frances.Chapin@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
On page 36 of your proposed plan you list arts and cultural assets in the city but don't list Cascadia
Seems like we should be mentioned.
Mr. Lindsey Echelbarger
Cascadia
Art
Museum
President
Cascadia Art Museum
190 Sunset Avenue South
Unit E
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.cascadiaartmuseum.org
Dedicated to the Legacy of Northwest Art
Packet Pg. 315
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: Draft+ PROS+ Plan+ Feedback
Date:
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 7:37:42 AM
Angie for review.
From: Matthew Shawhan <mgshawhan@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:23 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Draft+PROS+Plan+Feedback
Hello,
my name is Matthew Shawhan and I would like to talk with you a little about the Edmonds
Underwater Park at brackett's Landing North. I heard the six -year Pros Plan was coming out
and I just wanted to make sure that the Underwater Park was being recognized. I personally
use it for recreational scuba diving, and citizen science projects. Such as young of Young of
Year Rockfish surveys, and help keep track of how many Lingcod nests there are each year.
I'm involved with multiple scuba groups from all over Washington, Oregon, and as far as
Canada that also use the Underwater Park frequently along with Open Water swimmers. With
this being Edmonds second largest park I was hoping some of our concerns could be
addressed in the Pros Plan. Some of those concerns are readdressing the signage in the park,
specifically the scuba maps on the side of the bath house. Along with educational information
on the Marine birds so people know why dogs are not allowed on the beach. Better signage
that dogs aren't allowed on the beach and educational scuba related signage. This is a
wonderful park, and a great regional resource. I think that some updated signage would help
people use the park safer and more efficiently.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you,
Matthew Shawhan
Packet Pg. 316
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds PROS Plan
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:24:42 AM
Angie for review.
From: Bill McClain <billcarolmcclain@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 9:42 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds PROS Plan
As lifelong residents of the area, and former residents of Edmonds, we are frequent
visitors to the city and greatly appreciate the beauty and opportunities on offer. We
also appreciate the tremendous work and diligence that have gone into completing
this draft, and we thank your team for such a comprehensive document.
We would like to bring attention to the need for greater emphasis on native plants. As
we have come to better understand the science regarding native plants, we have
come to realize that their importance extends far beyond preserving our northwest
heritage. Native plants are critical to habitat protection. By increasing the use of
native plants, we add to the volume and diversity of native species and the health of
our ecosystem. More importantly, to address the loss of species diversity, the use of
native plants must take place throughout our cities, not only in our open spaces. An
excellent resource on this is Nature's Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation
That Starts in Your Yard, by Douglas W. Tallamy, Professor and Chair, Dept. of
Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, Univ. of Delaware. There are references to native
plants under objectives 5.2 and 8.4, but we feel the Plan would be strengthened by
more proactive objectives encouraging use of native plants to the extent feasible and
practical in all parks and open spaces, and to provide outreach, education and
encouragement to property owners to do the same.
We would also like to add our endorsement of the points raised by the Pilchuck
Audubon Society, below.
Thanks for the tremendous work and thought that has gone into the development of
the Draft Plan, and for your consideration of our input.
Carol and Bill McClain
Lynnwood, WA
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
Packet Pg. 317
5.A.b
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Packet Pg. 318
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Edmonds PROS Plan
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:25:30 AM
Angie for review.
From: C Stay <cstay@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:37 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds PROS Plan
Dear City of Edmonds,
As an Edmonds resident, I thank you for completing this draft under the challenging
circumstances of the pandemic. I would also like to voice my concern over several
items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
Packet Pg. 319
5.A.b
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Chris Stay
Packet Pg. 320
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
FW: Edmonds" PROS Plan
Date:
Monday, January 24, 2022 7:24:30 AM
Angie for review.
From: Kate Lunceford <kurlykate888@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:33 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds' PROS Plan
I am writing as a frequent visitor to Edmonds, a favorite place to visit many
friends, shop, and to breathe some sea air. I appreciate your diligent work on
planning for parks and open space. I offer the following points:
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar
size, Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in
favor of the three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water
quality. The plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in
how to address them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our
streams, wetlands, and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary
and managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically
responsible way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the
marsh should have its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas
are not to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In
Edmonds, roadway runoff is the primary source of water pollution and increases
in peak flows that erode streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiencv of Darks in the north end of the citv that the Dian
does not address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the
north end of the city and the City should look into available options there.
The Dian needs to address the Dollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The
off -leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in
the Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be
addressed in the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding,
how much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on
where to get additional funding.
Thank you again for your hard work and for considering these remarks.
Packet Pg. 321
5.A.b
Sincerely,
Kate Lunceford
"Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better,
do better." Maya Angelou
Packet Pg. 322
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Environmental content in PROS plan
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:27:07 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Marjorie Fields <mvfields@me.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Environmental content in PROS plan
I want to acknowledge that the PROS plan does contain important environmental and conservation statements.
For instance, I was pleased to see acknowledgement of the value of our 76 acres of open space, supporting trees,
wildlife, clean air and reduction of pollutants in stormwater. Similarly, the plan is strengthened by the emphasis on
conserving unique natural areas such as wetlands and forested areas in open space. Protection and restoration of
riparian corridors and adjacent wetlands is another strength of the plan.
However, the plan would be improved by plans for dealing with climate change and rising sea levels. More focus on
the Urban Forest Management Plan would also enhance the PROS plan. And some plan for restoring the Edmonds
Marsh seems needed; this wildlife sanctuary has the potential to be a major gem of the Edmonds parks system.
The PROS plan illustrates how vast and complicated the local park holdings are. The parks department is to be
commended for their work.
Marjie Fields
Packet Pg. 323
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Importance of conservation, environmental goals in plan
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:24:22 AM
Angie for review.
From: dmm98020@comcast.net <dmm98020@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:07 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PRCSPIan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Importance of conservation, environmental goals in plan
Edmonds City Council and Parks and Recreation Director, Angie Feser
In the significant PROS Plan, which will impact our community for the considerable
future, we want to be part of the green economy, a model of sustainability.
The proposed Goal 9: "Manage parks and open spaces to improve environmental
conditions for the local and regional community", needs implementation, more than
consideration. The ten items specified here will protect and enhance The Edmonds
Marsh -Estuary/ Wildlife Sanctuary as well as the 'valley' in Yost Park and the city's
Willow Creek property.
These Goal 9 objectives do protect against Climate Change, a warming planet and
acknowledge the future reality, that we want to leave behind a culture of care for our
planet as well as our posterity.
Thank you for your careful deliberation, choice to protect and conserve our parks and
open spaces.
Dianna Maish
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 324
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: Plan with health of environment
Date:
Friday, January 21, 2022 1:38:20 PM
Angie for review.
From: Joan Smith <joan.a.smith@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Plan with health of environment
Please consider planning for the long term with the health of the environment to the forefront.
Creating park land out of the old tank farm, daylighting the Marsh and getting funds through grants
from DNR to do so would greatly benefit the health of the environment as well as that of the
residents of Edmonds!
Thank you,
Joan Smith
14106 64th Ave W, Edmonds, Wa 98026
Packet Pg. 325
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Proposed Plan for Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:25:08 AM
Angie for review.
From: Mary Sinker <msinker999@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:02 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed Plan for Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces
Dear City of Edmonds,
Edmonds is a place I cherish for its natural beauty and open space. As a frequent
visitor, I thank you for completing this draft under the challenging circumstances of
the pandemic. I would also like to voice my concern over several items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
Packet Pg. 326
5.A.b
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Mary Sinker
Packet Pg. 327
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: PROS draft
Date:
Monday, January 24, 2022 7:23:05 AM
Angie for review.
From: Suzanne Cunliffe <osuzannahh@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Pilchuck Audubon Society <director@pilchuckaudubon.org>
Subject: PROS draft
Hello Carrie,
I was sorry that I could not participate in the PROS plan when you first asked for volunteers. Sadly, I had to
go to Ohio for 6 weeks to help my sister who had surgery in September. It was a full time nursing/house
management job. This is not meant as an excuse, it is just life.
We are proud that Edmonds has begun to evaluate the need for an overall plan for the parks and open
spaces, and believe that your initial plan has begun to develop an insight to the needs of the community
Given the current rise in population in our community, we think that support for a more specific and
comprehensive plan is necessary.
We are members of the Pilchuck Audubon Society, and as such have read their Action Alert. We are in total
support of what they are requesting; everything they are requesting.
This is the Great Northwest. The reason it is great is because of the natural beauty that exists here. The
pristine forests, the wildlife, the coastline and open spaces are all important assets to our community. To
become true stewards of these assets, we must treat them with the cultivation and care that they deserve.
We have to help people recognize the financial contribution nature makes when people are considering
whether to invest in or make their home in Edmonds. We believe that our community needs extoll the
virtues of our parks and open spaces and take measures to nurture and enhance that natural beauty.
Yours,
Suzanne and Stephen Cunliffe
809 14th St SW
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 328
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: PROS Plan - use the SOM recommendations
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:26:52 AM
Angie for review.
From: Laurie Sorensen <laurietuza@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 5:10 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PROS Plan - use the SOM recommendations
Please include the Edmonds Marsh -estuary goals suggested by the SOM group as another priority for
the PROS Plan.
As a member of Pilchuck Audubon (responsible for the 10 year ongoing bird habitat study in the
Marsh -Estuary), I was invited to attend the SOM meeting of local scientists. The suggestions made by
the group are spot-on for lifting the PROS Plan to the next level.
In reading the draft of the PROS Plan and attending the Jan. 12th presentation to the Planning
Board, it is clear to me that more planning is needed for climate change, preservation and
acquisition of wild spaces.
The suggestions of the SOM group can be used as an easy fix for the PROS Plan. Please use it. This is
an urgent request to help preserve what little remaining natural wild land we have in the city and in
the near shore. Most people in Edmonds are unaware of what a critical issue this is because they do
not fully understand the science of climate change nor the politics of land acquisition. The surveys
used in the draft of the PROS Plan did not take this into account. We need leadership from our city
government in protecting what is left of our natural environment.
Many thanks,
Laurie Sorensen
Edmonds resident
Packet Pg. 329
5.A.b
From: Haslam. Carrie
To: Feser. Angie
Subject: FW: PROS Plan Comments
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:27:54 AM
Angie for review.
From: Anastasia Korochanskaya <xxbalaaxx@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:35 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PROS Plan Comments
Good afternoon!
I am thankful to be a resident in such a beautiful forward thinking community such as Edmonds. I
have only recently had a chance to sit down with the Edmonds PROS plan to review it carefully. I
believe the PROS Plan as it stands could use some clarification before it is adopted. My thoughts are
reflected below.
I feel the plan goes to great lengths to address many pressing concerns of our community when it
comes to the scope of parks management. I was happy to see that Edmonds is looking to prioritize
acquisition and creation of new green spaces and parks to expand parks access to all members of
our community, especially those that are underprivileged. Preserving and expanding green spaces
will only continue to grow as a critical action item in order to successfully face and mitigate the ever
growing threats that climate change poses for our natural spaces and by extension everyone that
lives here!
While this sentiment seemed to be expressed strongly by the public in the survey and meetings held
and echoed throughout the document as a priority, the PROS Budget (P.115/117) does not seem to
reflect this priority, with only a small fraction of the capital going towards acquisition.
I also very much appreciated reading that Edmonds prepared an Urban Forestry Management plan
in 2019 and this seemed to be mentioned several times in the plan. I was however left feeling very
unclear just what will actually be implemented as reflected in the PROS Plan. While the Urban
Forestry Management Plan is listed as a guiding document, no specifics are provided in the
document itself. Such as:
• How will individual parks benefit from the plan?
• Where are trees to be planted?
• How many?
• With increasingly hot summers, who will care for these newly planted trees that will require
watering in our now very hot dry summers?
The only specific thing I saw mentioned was that the type of tree planted would have to take climate
change into consideration.
Volunteers from the community as frontline workers are also critical in helping to maintain and
Packet Pg. 330
5.A.b
beautify our parks (specifically removing invasives, replanting with native plant species in forested,
wetland, and critical freshwater waterways). Many of these volunteers work with local non -profits
that coordinate these invaluable efforts. Having spoken with the staff of one such organization I
was dismayed to learn that very little funds were allocated towards empowering these groups to
grow the reach of their efforts.
The importance of community participation in helping steward our green spaces is also mentioned in
several places in the PROS document, but again specifics as to how volunteer efforts will be
facilitated and aided are not made clear.
• How will Edmonds encourage and empower expanding active volunteers and their efforts?
• Will this be reflected in Parks planning budgeting?
• Has Edmonds considered creating a dedicated position to help Edmonds be more focused and
coordinated in its conservation efforts? IE someone dedicated to working as an interface
between the city and the community including schools and active volunteer groups?
Additionally this person could work with other city program coordinators to help grow existing
environmentally minded programs for the public.
In addition specifics for what the city plans to do to manage stormwater run-off are unclear. Does
the city plan to use green spaces to build retention ponds to help water -run off and erosion that
impacts critical salmon waterways (such as Shell Creek)?
• If so, what would the budget for something like this look like?
• Will the city remove man-made barriers that contribute to bank erosion and impact salmon
populations? (such as the concrete structure in Shell Creek at Yost?)
• Will the city consider building rain gardens in existing green spaces and through their mere
presence create outreach to educate and inspire citizens to do the same on private property?
Some other general suggestions that could be included in the PROS plan:
• considering moving towards an electric vehicle fleet for parks vehicles
• limiting the use of heavy machinery in park spaces (soil compaction kills trees!)
• placing a heavy focus on carbon sequestering efforts (planting and protecting existing trees,
restoring marsh habitats )
• clear focus on preserving critical wildlife habitats such as forests and salmon waterways.
• Clarified plans for what actionable things can be done to mitigate rising sea levels which will
almost certainly impact our delicate marine parks.
• Add Conservation to the title of the City Parks Department: IE Edmonds: Parks. Arts,
Recreation & Conservation
Our beautiful city has the incredible fortune of having many beautiful natural spaces. This is our
most precious heritage and in an increasingly environmentally uncertain future we must do
everything we can to protect and grow these spaces. Edmonds as a city has the capacity to lead by
example; to reflect these values in action. It would be inspiring if this was even more reflected in the
PROS plan.
Thank you all for your hard work to put this plan together! There is much thoughtful forward
Packet Pg. 331
5.A.b
thinking action outlined in it and if anything just working to clarify these few points will only
strengthen what is already a powerful roadmap for the future of our parks!
Thank you for your consideration and passionate hard work on behalf of all the citizens of Edmonds
With Appreciation,
Anastasia Korochanskaya
Packet Pg. 332
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
FW: PROSPIan
Date:
Friday, January 21, 2022 9:11:26 AM
Angie for review.
From: David Richman <tithonia65@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 5:17 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PROSPlan
Dear Council Members:
I am quite surprised that the Edmonds Marsh part of the new PROSPlan does not specifically
mention wildlife conservation, as this should be the primary purpose of the Marsh. The use for the
public is very important, but in order for there to be something for the public to see, photograph,
hike along and generally enjoy, it is much better if the Marsh is a working ecosystem in its own right
This should be part of the overall effort to restore Puget Sound to where humans and wildlife can
share the land and water. It is important in this regard to return Willow Creek to being a spawning
and growth area for salmon.
I urge you to accept the suggestions made by the Save Our Marsh (SOM) group and modify the plan
accordingly.
Sincerely,
David B. Richman, Ph.D.
College Professor and Curator of the Arthropod Museum Emeritus
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Currently living in Edmonds at 534 2nd Ave, N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Pg. 333
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Recreation & Open Spaces (PROS) Plan
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:24:58 AM
Angie for review.
From: John Spencer <jmspencer@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:38 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Recreation & Open Spaces (PROS) Plan
Dear City of Edmonds,
As an Edmonds resident, I thank you for completing this draft under the challenging
circumstances of the pandemic. I would also like to voice my concern over several
items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
Packet Pg. 334
5.A.b
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
John Spencer
22620 93rd PI W
Edmonds WA 98020
Packet Pg. 335
5.A.b
From:
Chave, Rob
To:
Feser. Angie
Cc:
Burley, Shannon; Martin, Michelle
Subject:
Fwd: Alicia Crank - Urgent need for revision for PROS Plan draft
Date:
Monday, January 24, 2022 9:57:07 AM
Attachments:
SOM Comments on PROS Plan.odf
Rob Chave
Planning Manager, City of Edmonds
Begin forwarded message:
From: Laurie Sorensen <laurietuza@gmail.com>
Date: January 24, 2022 at 9:55:36 AM PST
To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>, alicia@alicia4edmonds.com, Alicia
Crank <aliciainedmonds@gmail.com>
Subject: Alicia Crank - Urgent need for revision for PROS Plan draft
Dear Ms Crank,
At the Jan 12th Planning Board meeting I heard you and another Board member
say that the Edmonds Marsh is a priority for you. Unfortunately, the current draft
of the PROS "plan" has no plan for the marsh -estuary or for impending climate
change in our city. A local group of scientists, Save Our Marsh (SOM), met on
Jan 17th to make concrete suggestions to add to the PROS Plan to make it more
viable. I have attached those suggestions and the letter to Angie Feser, written on
behalf of the SOM group.
Please consider taking a leadership role in recommending that the Edmonds
Marsh -estuary goals suggested by the SOM group become another priority in the
PROS Plan. It will truly enhance the overall plan. This vision for our community
is important to the whole community present and future.
Please actively encourage city staff, in their planning process, to include goals,
such as the ones suggested by SOM, that will serve the community in years to
come.
This is an urgent request to help preserve what little remaining natural wild land
we have in the city. Most people in Edmonds are unaware of what a critical issue
this is because they do not fully understand the science of climate change nor the
politics of land acquisition. Neither do most people have a vision of what the
marsh -estuary could and should be. The community surveys that staff conducted
did not take this into account. Responsibility for environmental leadership is in
your hands too.
Packet Pg. 336
5.A.b
Many thanks for all of your service,
Laurie Sorensen
Edmonds resident
Attached and below are the Save Our Marsh community group comments. Please
feel free to share this with other Planning Board members.
To: Director Angie Feser
Subject: Comments on the draft 2022 PROS Plan
The Save Our Marsh (SOM) community group recommends the PROS Plan be revised to
better reflect the environmental responsibility and stewardship that the City of Edmonds
should exemplify. City Parks and Open Spaces should be managed to preserve and
enhance natural areas for wildlife and people who seek the "outdoor experience" in urban
areas as well as providing community playgrounds where applicable. The priority for open
space acquisitions should be the enhancement and preservation of the remaining natural
areas in our City.
We request that the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary be clearly identified in the PROS Plan as the
ONLY wildlife reserve in this City and that the Plan recognize its unique status as one of the
few remaining pocket estuaries in Puget Sound. Acquisition of the old Unocal property
using state and federal grant funds should be a priority in the PROS Plan. The CFP table
on page 117 should be revised to reference acquisition of the Unocal property (not the
Marsh which is already City owned).
As you should be aware, the City is undertaking a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
process that will redefine land use for the old Unocal property possibly under City
ownership. The SOM has asked to have the following goal replace the defunct ferry
terminal relocation language in the Comp Plan and this should be acknowledged and
incorporated into the PROS Plan.
Establish a regional wildlife sanctuary and recreation area in public ownership
on the southern end of the Edmonds Waterfront that includes the Edmonds
Marsh -Estuary, the old Unocal property, and Marina Beach Park. The
Sanctuary Area will be interconnected with a tidal channel from Puget Sound
to the Edmonds Marsh and nature trails, pedestrian bridges, and boardwalks
throughout all three areas for outdoor recreation, bird -watching and nature
viewing (including migrating salmon). The Marsh -Estuary will be restored to
an ecologically functional tidal wetland and the Regional Wildlife Sanctuary
will be managed for aquatic and avian wildlife protection and enhancement,
outdoor recreation and education, and other activities that can be
accomplished consistent with and as secondary uses to wildlife conservation.
We also request that a Responsible Environmental Leadership Goal be added to the list of
goals in the PROS Plan as follows.
Goal 9: Manage parks and open spaces to improve environmental conditions for
the local and regional community.
Objectives:
Packet Pg. 337
5.A.b
9.1 Establish goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for park operations and
take steps to meet those goals by converting the vehicle fleet from gas/diesel to
electric.
9.2 Improve stream water quality by stabilizing eroding stream banks with riparian
vegetation, removing barriers to salmon passage and remnant concrete structures
in Shell Creek.
9.3 Increase carbon storage by adopting an annual plan that specifies the
numbers, locations, and kinds of trees to be planted consistent with the Urban
Forest Management Plan and expand park areas that can support tree canopies
9.4. Evaluate the impact of rising sea levels on marine parks and take steps to
prepare for those impacts.
9.5 Create a comprehensive Edmonds Estuary restoration plan that includes
removal of invasive plants, restoration of functional flow channels, addition of the
UNOCAL/WSDOT property, and placing an open tidal channel between the Marsh
and puget Sound.
9.6 Replace invasive plants with native plant communities that benefit native
insects, amphibians, birds, fish, and mammals and support community volunteers
to conduct the work.
9.7 Prepare for intensifying storm and drought conditions caused by climate
change by evaluating the construction of settling ponds in the upper watersheds of
local creeks.
9.8 Improve pedestrian and bike access to the parks along with providing safety,
education, and health information.
9.9 Manage the use of pesticides and herbicides to prevent harm to park visitors,
fish, wildlife, reptiles and amphibians.
9.10 Restore natural areas to ecologically functional condition.
We found that the assessment of needs in Parks and Open Spaces is woefully deficient in
addressing restoration and enhancement of natural functions that we, as a society, should
be preserving in our Parks. For example:
• The Edmonds Marsh-Estuary/Wildlife Sanctuary is in dire need of
restoration and that should be spelled -out in the Plan. The SOM (a
stakeholder) sent you a list of community driven restoration objectives that
should be included in the PROS Plan.
• The 'valley' in Yost Park is suffering from serious erosion on the bluffs, tree
loss, lack of succession, eroded streambed and riparian area from excess
stormwater inputs into the Park, stream blocking concrete structures causing
serious streambank erosion - - and none of these environmental problems nor
possible `fixes' are even mentioned in the Plan.
• The City's Willow Creek property near the Hatchery has eroded banks and
siltation buildup (from excess stormwater) to the point that no discernable creek
channel or streambed exists any more in the lower area.
The PROS Plan should be explicit on exactly where and how many trees will be planted to
fulfill the City's obligations under the Urban Forest Management Plan. This should be
included in the CFP on page 117.
Packet Pg. 338
5.A.b
The CFP table on page 117 needs accompanying text that describes exactly what is
proposed to be done with the dollars proposed over the 6-year period for each item listed
The CFP table or accompanying text should also reference where in the document the
reader can find the discussion of the priority for the item as compared to other (unfunded)
needs identified in the assessment section of the document. The Master Plan Development
for the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary should be changed to "Comprehensive Restoration and
Enhancement Plan" (the Marsh is zoned as Open Space not Master Plan development as
stipulated for the old Unocal property).
Lastly, we are troubled that the draft is extremely difficult to follow and understand what is
actually being planned or recommended(?) and the basis for doing some things and not
others. Use of the terms "could be implemented" "could be added" "would be helpful"
leaves the reader wondering what is actually planned and what is a `wish list' that will not be
implemented. We are also concerned that some aspects of the survey responses are
priorities and others are left silent. We caution how much emphasis is placed on
developing actions or priorities based on responses to certain survey questions and not
others. It is known that the construct of survey questions can and do bias the survey
results. Where and when the surveys/interviews were conducted (e.g., near Hwy 99 verses
at Edmonds City Park, the Marsh, or the waterfront) can also cause bias in results.
Packet Pg. 339
5.A.b
From: Chapin, Frances
To: Haslam, Carrie; Feser, Angie
Cc: Joanne Otness
Subject: PROS plan comments sent to Frances
Date: Friday, January 21, 2022 4:37:17 PM
Comments from Joanne Otness:
I found one small edit under Cultural Services (thought this section was pretty short actually, could
include more ...) but anyway just a missing word:
Page 26--Cultural Services
6.3 Continue to offer, facilitate and promote community events, such (as) movies, concerts,
(Missing `as')
And just a couple of opinions:
6.1. — The Community Cultural Plan is very important for providing a roadmap for the future
— regular updating of the plan should be listed as a separate objective.
6.1a Utilize.... cultural issues and implementation of Community Cultural Plan goals.
6.1b Update the Community Cultural Plan approximately every 6-7 years to ensure that the
City and community are working together to strengthen local arts and culture.
Would a picture of a Concert -In -the -Park, WOTS, or Hazel Miller Plaza event better represent the
Cultural Services section? The picture used on page 26 looks like a recreation program and doesn't
seem to represent the Arts Commission programs.
Packet Pg. 340
5.A.b
From: Natalie Seitz
To: Plannina
Cc: Feser, Anaie
Subject: Information for the Planning Board
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:53:38 PM
Attachments: 20220124 Information for Plannina Board.Ddf
Hello,
Good Afternoon. Would you please distribute the attached document to the planning board
for consideration during their deliberations of the PROS plan?
I am having word processing issues so I would appreciate your understanding of any mis-
spellings.
Thank you,
Natalie Seitz
Packet Pg. 341
5.A.b
I would like to provide an area analysis and several observations from the Draft PROS plan to
assist with the Planning board deliberations. I plan to make seporate public comments at the
public hearing. I would appreciate your consideration of the following:
I would appreciate your consideration of the following:
• Support for Investments in the CFP - I would like to express my support for the
following investments identified in the Draft PROS Plan CFP:
o Interurban Trail
o Mathay Ballinger Park
o Neighborhood Park —SE1
o Neighborhood Park—SR99
o Neighborhood Park —SE2
Support for investment reduction — I would like to provide the following infromation on
investments that I do not believe fit the goals and objectives of the Draft PROS plan.
Would you please consider the following:
o Downtown (17% of the City 2020 census population) is served by more then 100
acres of park assets and facilities (roughly half the entire park system that is
located directly in the downtown area — see attachment 1 for a city-wide
compairison).
• Cultural Corridor - This is a high -dollar investment (exceeds the identified
investment for all three neighbourhood parks combined) in a special use
park downtown. Downtown is already served by 38.62 acres of special use
park which far exceeds the 8.22 acres currently in all other areas of the City
combined. The cultural corridor is not located in the commercial center of
the city or associated with the international district which are both in the
SR99 area. This does investement does not align with equity goals or the
rationale for the revised level of service proposed by the Draft PROS plan.
• Edmonds Marsh Estuary —This potential investment is located in an area
that is currently well served by open space resources. There are 26.46
acres of open space in the downtown area which exceeds both the current
and proposed service levels for that areas population. When "buy and
expand the Marsh property towards woodway" was ranked with other park
investments it was identified as the lowest and second lowest priority by
the online and mail in surveys respectively. See Dedicated Open Space
Opportunity Fund for South Edmonds and SR99 Corridor.
• Waterfront Walkway - this is a large expenditure $1.25M for a small
section of walkway (ADA accessibility issue) associated with the Edmonds
Marine Walkway and located Downtown. This expenditure is not
associated with a park classification, therefore the city has provided no
comparison of this trail gap in relation to other gaps and ADA accessibility
issues. Completion of this walkway is not identified as a "trail and pathway
recommendation" (Draft PROS plan pg. 110).
• Pine Street Park —This park is identified in good condition (1.1 condition
assessment, 1.0 is the best rating possible) with all assets rated as being in
good condition. This park is also located within a 1/2 mile of City Park and
has a "good" neighborhood composite rating and "excellent" community
park composite rating. Investments should be prioritized in areas of
Packet Pg. 342
5.A.b
greater need and in association with the equity goals and objectives as well
as priority towards asset maintenace
• Greenhouses - Primarily used for downtown beautification. The downtown
beautification program is an improved ROW that is not identified (with the
associated acers) in the PROS plan classification system. Thereby
eliminating it from compairsion with other investments. Investments
supprting the beautification program are not in allignment with equity
goals and objectives.
Other Areas
• Yost
• Tennis courts - identified as being in "good condition" in the condition
assessment.
■ Pool - The random mailed survey identified that building a new
aquatic was not prioritized - the majority of people identifying that it
was low or not a priority (23.2% identified it as top priority, 19.3%
identified it as high priority, 24.3% identified as low priority, 33.3%
identified it as not a priority). This is the highest unfavorability rating
of any of the investments identified by the survey. In the follow-up
community meeting "no pool" was not provided as an option when
discussing what type of pool to build. $4-6M for a local -outdoor pool
received 36% support, with $15-20M indoor pool receiving 39%
support. Recommend reduce the investment from a $15-20M local -
indoor pool to a $4-6M for a local -outdoor pool (which is the same
amenity that is currently provided).
Support for increased investments: I would like to provide the following information on
investments that I feel would further enhance the goals and objectives identified by the
Draft PROS plan. Would you please consider the following:
o Dedicated Open Space Opportunity Fund for the South Edmonds & SR99 areas -
South Edmonds and the SR99 Corridor have zero open space acres and
comparable population densities to downtown. "Buy additional parks for
conservation & open space" was ranked by both the online and mail in survey
above "buy and expand the Marsh property towards woodway." At the 2nd
Community meeting participants were asked what three areas should be
prioritized for open space investments, 81% prioritized Highway 99 Corridor and
Southeast Edmonds each, whereas 15% prioritized Downtown (location of the
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Project). Providing open space investment in the South
Edmonds and SR99 areas align with identified service gaps, equity goals and
objectives, identified investment priorities and public feedback.
• Lake Ballinger Marsh Enhancement and Opportunity Fund - Lake Ballinger is
the only water resource within the City that is identified by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife as being gradient accusable to Chinook
(SalmonScape) and is document as having coho and steelehad as present. I
am identifying this oportuntiy to demonstrate that salmon habitat can be
provided by open space investments in underserved areas. At the first
community meeting Lake Ballinger access and wetland and marshlands
generated a combined response of 45% which (when combined) would be
above all other responses.
Packet Pg. 343
5.A.b
Increasing funding for Neighbourhood parks in underserved areas - The draft
PROS plan identifies that 3-5 neighbourhood parks (16.7 acres) are needed to
aquire the park -land needed to meet the proposed level of service for the
City. The investments identified in the CFP fall far short of the funding needed to
achieve this goal and would result in parks that are far below the city-wide
average for the neighborhood parks (4 acres). This will limit the amenities that
are provided and limit or eliminate the potential for any of the park acquisitions
to provide sports field -type recreation or community events like the uptown
market. Additional money should be added to acquisition line items for
Neighborhood Park - SE1, Neighborhood Park SR99 and Neighborhood park SE2
and an opportunity fund should be included to expand the size of all
Neighbourhood parks to a minimum of 3 acers consistent with the currently
adopted neighborhood park definition in the ECC (not used by the Draft PROS
plan).
Community Park and Community Center Investment in underserved areas - Map
3 clearly depicts significant service gaps for community parks in eastern portions
of the City and does not identify any investments to meet the 22-acers of
identified additional Community Park need. An acquisition strategy and fund
should be set aside to provide this resource to underserved areas. Additionally,
Francis Anderson is the "home" to City -provided recreational programing. A
communtiy center is necessary facility to allow for the equitable distribiton of
park programing. Please note that the Map 3 under -represents the interlocal
agreement and communtiy park investments in Meadowdale Playfied as a
Community Park serving the North Edmonds Community.
North East of Five Corners - This location is the most densely populated census
track within the City with a significantly higher non -white population then the City
as a whole. Development of a nature play area or conversion of a portion of this
open space to a neighbourhood park, or special use park with a play structure
should be considered to better serve this community. If necessary this
investment should be prioritized above the significant improvement to the swing
set that is currently identified at Maplewood Hill Park to better serve more of the
Five Courners area population.
• Support for implmentation of adopted city code and washington administrative code
in the PROS plan: would you please consider the following -
o The draft PROS Plan has not used park definitions adopted by Edmonds City Code,
not defined service areas for all park assets consistent with the growth
management act (WAC 365-196-440), and has inconsistently applied service areas
and condition assessments in the draft PROS plan. The overwhelming effect of
errors and planning choices is to under represent services provided Downtown
and inflate services provided to other areas. A subset of error examples are
provided below:
• Downtown Examples - Pine street park has been identified as having a
"moderate" level of amenities even though it has a baseball/softball field;
Civic Center Park is assigned no condition in the condition assessment due
to construction, but is identified as "fair" condition in the mapping which
has the effect of reducing the composite scores of the Downtown; service
area maps under -represent the 1/4 service area for Downtown Community
Parks.
Packet Pg. 344
5.A.b
• SR99 Examples - The bench at the Lake Ballinger access is identified as
being in "fair condition;" the section of the utility corridor west of Mathay
Ballinger Park with no park improvements (unlike the beautificaiton
program) and posted with no trespassing is signs is identified as a special
use park serving this area; the basketball court is identified as being in
"good" condition (see photos below).
Objections to the revised level of service standard: would you please
consider the following:
The City is proposing a new level of service standard that eliminates consideration
of Waterfront and Special Use Parks. This represents over 50 acres of park
investments in the Downtown area that are effectively "hidden" from being used
as metric to evaluate the provision of park services. The anticipated effects of the
proposed classification:
• Open space, neighbourhood and community parks should receive a higher
priority for investment since the will be the measurements of "service."
However, this is not the case for investments identified in the current CFP
which identifies more investment in waterfront and special use parks then
neighbourhood parks. Demonstrating that that special use and waterfront
parks would likely still be used to provided park services to well resourced
areas.
• "Special use parks" like community centers and waterfront parks would
likely receive less of a priority since they would not be a measurement of
"service." this would functionally affect the ability of underserved areas to
achieve proper resources like community centers, waterfront areas and
plazas to support the commercial center of the City (SR99 area) and
comiserate with comerical land use classificantions.
• Result in the prioritization of further investment downtown in the form of
neighbourhood parks.
• Set service levels that cannot be locally achieved in areas outside of
Downtown for open space and community parks. Because levels of service
for open space and community park are less then what is currently
provided to the downtown area. When the new levels are applied City-
wide this will result in areas outside of Downtown being unable to locally
achieve the level of service in their area without creating critical deficits in
other non -Downtown areas. The City could address this equity issue by (1)
siting population growth within the Downtown area (not within the scope
of the PROS plan), (2) strategicly abandoning Downtown park resources, or
(3) implementing the recomendaitons below.
Recommendations:
• Anaylze and define the level of service by what is equitable, which should
be the city's goal of what is to be achieved. This would require defining
service areas for all assets and setting levels at equivalent rates or greater
then what is provided to well resourced areas.
• Include a policy that prohibits investment above a 25% grant match for
acquisition of new properties in areas where the city-wide level of service
are exceeded.
Packet Pg. 345
5.A.b
• Create a LOS classification that has clear distinctions and is inclusive of all
park resources including but not limited to resources classified as special
use, waterfront and trails.
■ Special Use sub -classifications proposed by public comment
• Community center/Pool/City owned buildings leased to
recreation service providers (e.g. boys and girls club) - The City
currently owns a number of facilities (maintained through
taxpayer funds) that are then leased at below market rates to
non-profit recreation service providers. However these are
functionally not counted in the level of service analysis or
service area mapping. These resources should be included in
the analysis as they are tax -payer supported and the City
functionally controls use through lease agreements.
• Single -use recreation - e.g. skate park, underwater park,
community garden
• Trails - all trails require some form of City -property interest
(ownership/easement/use permit/ROW, etc.). This area should
be consistently accounted for. The Draft PROS plan currently
counts unimproved ROW as acers of special use park provided
for the SR99 corridor and not the easement for the waterfront
walkway - this should be a standard across the city so that
appropriate comparisons can be made (including ADA
compairisons).
• Waterfront - should be limited to uses directly connected to the
waterfront natural resource. Development of unrelated
recreational uses at these locations should shift the
classification to neighbourhood or community park (e.g. Marina
Beach). In order to facilitate equitable resource distribution in
alignment with Objective 2.1, waterfront park should be a sub-
classification of Special Use.
• Plazas - associated with commercial areas that provide spaces
for people to congregate, visit, rest and opportunities for street
performances.
• Viewpoints
• Beautification Areas - This should be defined on maps, with
associated improved ROW acers and identified more fully in
maps and the analysis as a park service provided to a specific
area (Downtown).
■ Neighbourhood Park - Use the definition adopted by the ECC, a 3 acre
minimum is needed to achieve sports -field recreation with the
implementation of modern stormwater and permitting requirements,
lesser standards will result in currently underserved areas being
denied sports -field type recreation uses
■ Community Park - Use the definition adopted by the ECC with a 2-
mile maximum service area for community parks that have parking
facilities. Community parks without parking facilities (i.e. Civic Center
should have a smaller service area).
Packet Pg. 346
5.A.b
Open Space - open space is not active recreation. Active recreation
within open space such as play structures (e.g. proposed for
Maplewood Hill Park) should be segregated from open space into a
adjoining park with either a special use or neighbourhood park
classification. Yost should also be re-evaluated into a park complex
with portions that function as a community park, special use park
(definition currently includes aquatic center) and open space.
Packet Pg. 347
5.A.b
Area Comparative Analysis
Packet Pg. 348
5.A.b
A - North
B - Five
C - Downtown
D - South
Edmonds
Corners
Edmonds
Open space (1)
7.96
41.16
26.46
0
Community Park (1)
12.05
45.27
21.88
0
Neighborhood Park (1)
12.26
1.22
5.26
5.61
Special Use/Waterfront
4.06
0
54.96
10
Park (1)
2020 Census Population 19,939(2) 113,172(3) 7418 (4)
2020 Census —80% White —70% White —85% White
Demographics (white (7)
alone, rounded to nearest
5%)
Total Park / 1,000 2.85 3.53 11.47
population (10)
Total Open Space / 1,000 0.80 3.12 3.57
population
Draft PROS plan proposed $1,103,600 $25,441,100 $17,481,400
r
vestment (9)
$9,871,600 (8)
Notes
(A) N of Caspers St / Puget Dr
(B) S of 196th St SW, N of 220th St SW, E of 9th Ave
(C) W of 9th Ave, S of Caspers St
(D) S of 220th St SW, W of Esperance
(E) S of 220th St SW, E of Esperance
E - SR99
Corridor
0
0
1.82
4.16(6)
12,324(5)
—70% —60%
White White
0.94
0
$9,474,400
(1) Based on parks as they are identified in Draft PROS paln Figure 5. City -owned Parks & Open Space
(2) Census tracts 502 and 503. Census tracts don't directly line up and include small portions of
neighboring jurisdictions so this is a slight overestimate.
(3) Census tracts 504.02, 504.03, 504.04
(4) Census tracts 505.01 and 505.02
(5) Census tract 508 which would support the calculation for both South Edmonds and the SR99 Corridor
include unincorporated Esperance. This total is an estimate based on City of Edmonds total 2020
population minus the tracts associated with area A, B and C. In 2020, South Edmonds is more populous
than the SR99 Corridor. The South Edmonds/SR99 combined population is a slight underestimate since
the population for Area A is a slight overestimate (see note 2).
(6) Includes unimproved and closed ROW
(7) area demographics range considerably from 80.3% white alone to 63.7% white alone
(8) Civic Center - separated out from Downtown total
(9) Includes total for Marina Beach which may have been paused, does not include Marsh acquisition
(10) Please note that these areas were calculated based on solely on resources located within area
boundaries identified by the PROS Plan public engagement map. In some cases areas like Downtown
would experience higher City -provided park services then what is reflected in this table since it is located
is within the 2-mile service area for Yost Park.
Packet Pg. 349
5.A.b
Photos
1 — Un-improved utility ROW that is closed to public by "no trespassing" sign is
currently identified as a special use park
2 — Basketball court identified as being in "good" condition in the condition assessment
(park also missing bowl swing identified as present in draft PROs plan), and saturated
turf is identified as "good" condition
Packet Pg. 350
5.A.b
3 — Bench identified as bing in "fair" condition
Packet Pg. 351
5.A.b
From: Natalie Seitz
To: Plannina
Cc: Feser. Anaie
Subject: Additional Information for Planning Board consideration
Date: Sunday, January 30, 2022 8:10:52 PM
Attachments: 20220130 Community Center Su000rt Document.odf
Hello,
Good Evening. I would like to provide additional information in support of my 3rd bullet
under "Support for increased investments:" Community Park and Community Center
Investment in underserved areas. Since I had a bit more time before the planning board
reconvened on the PROS plan I would like to provide the following
supplementary documentation to better support the development of a multi -cultural
community center as a priority for the SR99 area. Would you please include the attached
document in your review?
I think I got my word processor issues figured out so I hope that there are a lot fewer spelling
errors in this document!
Thank you,
Natalie Seitz
Packet Pg. 352
5.A.b
Consideration of Growth and Development
ASK: I am providing this information in support of the development of a multi -cultural
community center serving the SR99 community (ref: stakeholder outreach with the Korean
Community Services Center, Pg. 206)
The Draft PROS plan and CFP would benefit from additional consideration of growth and
development in relationship to Objective 2.1: Address accessibility barriers (socio-economic,
language, physical, geographic, transportation) to parks and programs and allocate
resources to address known gaps and anti -displacement strategies. The consideration of
growth and development is inherent in development of the Parks and Recreation element:
"Level of service standards should focus on those aspects that relate most directly to factors
influenced by growth and development, to allow for counties and cities to more clearly
identify the impact on the demand for park facilities resulting from new development"
(WAC 365-196-440). Growth and Development should be a key consideration in the CFP.
There was not sufficient information provided in the Draft PROS plan to illuminate where
growth currently proposed within the City (see map from Slide 12 of the buildable lands
report presentation provided to the Planning Board on 13 October 2021— Edmonds Pending
shown in blue). This map does not include issued land use applications like GRE Apartments
(193 New Residential Units). There is significant growth already approved and targeted to
the SR99 corridor.
N
1.Ll
3.6 �
�'-
[=I Edrnaads CITY Boundary
Edmonds MUGA
_ Edmonds R@ ding
M sn«c Fiat
- Fdmal Fiat
Multlfaml fr
Mixed -Use
i& -
Ew+cn.a..,nip.hlaps Cc+r,ipyt,r,.c�„ef 5t,«„Errp. 1&,9 cotx. wa Saab. Parlrf C45 Ern C—dx Esc
NERF G.rrrirt SafeGraph INCPEMM91 MET1�iYl5q USGF, B&.rau of [r Marttgvnen4 EPA MPS US
Census Dxeau USDA Sown Esn Adrotn D5. USC6. Ptak WA. CU+IR N Rcuinson NCEAS. Nt.S CIS
NIVA Guo L y4san %okw"wWat 66A i5vW l FEMk In myp an0#,u GiS uwrcxr*nunity
Packet Pg. 353
5.A.b
The University of Texas Uprooted Project' provides tools for evaluating and preventing the
likelihood of displacement. This tool kit has been used in the Puget Sound region to
develop anti -displacement policies2. In 2016, the SR99 condor was identified as a moderate
risk for displacement, all other areas of Edmonds were identified a low risk'. I believe that
the risk factors for displacement in the SR99 community may be higher than 2016 due to:
the redevelopment plans for SR99, Light Rail station, buildable lands report, and existing
approved and pending land use applications. The University of Texas Uprooted Project
developed the following risk factors:
Who is most vulnerable
tO displacement? 9
Persons of People 25 and Renters People making at or Households
Color alder without a below 8G% Median with children
Bachelor's degree Family Income in poverty
The 2015-2019 American community survey narrative profile for tract 5091 (east side of Hwy
99, Edmonds) identifies that:
• For people reporting one race alone, 57.7 percent were White; 3.2 percent were
Black or African American; 0.7 percent were American Indian and Alaska
Native; 11.7 percent were Asian; 1.4 percent were Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, and 12.6 percent were some other race. An estimated 12.7 percent
reported two or more races.
• 36.2 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher
• Renters occupied 56.5 percent of occupied housing units
• Median income of households was $65,948 and median earnings for full-time year-
round workers was $47,664
• 17.7 percent of children under 18 were below the poverty level
Many anti -displacement strategies are critically dependent on centering community voices
in City re -development processes, matching anti -displacement strategies to neighborhood
conditions and long-term investment. A multi -cultural community center serving the
serving the SR99 community is a needed resource both to fill a recreation deficit but would
also be a key investment that would support the city implementing anti -displacement
strategies in this area. Please prioritize a multi -cultural community center serving the
SR99 community in the PROS Plan CFP.
i University of Texas Uprooted Project: https://sites.utexas.edu/gentrificationpromect/
2 Skyway -West Hill and North Highline, King County: https:Hkingcounty.gov/—/media/depts/community-
human-services/housing-homelessness-community-development/documents/Plans%20and%20Reports/KC-
SkywayWHill-NHln-ant-dsplcmnt-stratrpt.ashx?la=en
3 Puget Sound Regional Council:
httr)s://Dsreecncl.mar)s.arceis.com/aDDs/MaDSeries/index.html?aooid=1769d732e3de4905ba0bf5ffaf75f602
4 https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/narrative-
profi les/2019/report. ph p?geotype=tract&tract=050900&state=53&county=061
Packet Pg. 354
5.A.b
From:
Patricia O"Neill
To:
Haslam, Carrie
Cc:
Feser, Angie; Burley, Shannon; Chapin, Frances
Subject:
Comments on the PROS Plan 2022
Date:
Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:22:13 PM
To: Angie Feser,
Director of Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Department
From: Patricia O'Neill, Edmonds Resident
Re: PROS Plan 2022
Thank you for all of the work you and others have done on the PROS plan for 2022.
The background information and overview of the City of Edmonds Department of
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services was very informative and the
process by which you engaged the community and various stakeholders clarified how
you came up with the goals for the coming decade. I would like to comment on three
areas of concern that I feel did not get enough attention in the specific action plans
recommended: 1. the integration of arts and culture in the plans for parks, open
spaces and city managed property and facilities; 2. recognition of the importance of
the library, including the Plaza room and surrounding property, in supporting the goals
of equity, inclusion, and access for the entire city of Edmonds; 3. the need to preserve
and enhance Edmonds marsh and acquire more open lands..
Since moving to Edmonds in 2016, 1 have served on the Arts Commission and been a
member of the senior center and the Pilchuck Audubon society. I am also a great
walker and make frequent visits to all of the city parks near downtown as well as
working with Earthcore to remove invasive plants from Hutt park. Therefore, I am very
grateful for all of the work and thought that you and your staff do. The PROS plan
shows your continuing commitment to enhancing the human and natural habitat of
Edmonds. The following three paragraphs explain aspects of the plan that I think
need further consideration.
Understandably, most people do not associate the arts or cultural activities with parks
and recreation. So the feedback from surveys and meetings focus on the outdoor
environment. The PROS plan is clear, however, about acknowledging P&R's
responsibility for cultural development and community engagement through the arts,
including activity that goes beyond individual physical health. The draft is still lacking
specifics about how the arts will be incorporated in the development of new parks or
in the beautification of the city beyond "branding" through better designed signage. If
one of the goals of the plan is to create a "pedestrian friendly community and
opportunities for integration of public art elements), look no further than the removal
of the hideous former book drop in front of the library. This eye sore has been left for
Packet Pg. 355
5.A.b
years, blocking the street view of the library building, when it could be a site for a
small park area or a public art work. Since this site is only a couple of blocks from the
new civic park, it would be good if the designs and public art that are being developed
for the entrance to the park could be extended to the library grounds as well. This
would be an opportunity to give some coherence to that part of the downtown that is
oriented to the residents of Edmonds rather than to the tourists who gather mainly at
the waterfront. In the interest of enhancing city property that we already have, P&R
should remove the book drop and reclaim this space as a site for civic pride.
I think the PROS plan misses an important opportunity to address the issues of
equity, inclusion and access for all when it ignores the library. Imagine Edmonds
without a library! Although P&R is not responsible for the library's day to day
operations, the neglect of the library building and grounds hinders the effectiveness of
the library in its mission to provide free services that support and engage the entire
community. The people who use the library include every demographic, yet the space
is cramped, and given the inferior construction of the plaza room roof, the library itself
is in danger of water leaks. The library is well suited to help the city announce events,
recruit volunteers, and support community events; therefore, the P&R dept should
invest in audio/visual equipment in the plaza room so that the library and other
organizations can make more effective use of it. I realize that maintenance for the
building may be under Public Works, but it should still be recognized as an important
facility for P&R, especially given all of the City sponsored events that happen there,
for example, Write on the Sound. If P&R is committed to the value of the arts and
cultural activity, then the library and the Frances Anderson Center should be central
to the plan.
The PROS plan mentions the overwhelming public support for the Edmonds marsh
and for conserving waterways and open space areas. The P&R department is aware
of the need to balance the conservation of wildlife and natural habitat with the desire
to allow the public access to trails and activities like bird -watching and environmental
programs. The plan needs more specifics, however, especially with regard to the
ways in which parks and natural areas will be protected from pollutants such as
roadway runoff. The Plan does not address how it might insist on the cleanup of
corporate property that is adjacent to the marsh. As the PROS plan suggests, it
makes more sense to acquire and restore land that is adjacent to property the city
already manages. Therefore, restoring the marsh to a fully functioning estuary, and
establishing its connection to Puget Sound should be a high priority. Why doesn't the
PROS plan make any concrete proposals to do this?
Again I want to express my gratitude and admiration for all the work that has gone
into the PROS plan. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to support
your efforts.
Packet Pg. 356
5.A.b
From: Natalie Seitz
To: Council
Cc: Feser. Angie; Planning
Subject: Draft PROS Plan Comments to Council
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 10:12:53 PM
Attachments: 20220131 Draft PROS Plan Comments.pdf
Hello,
Good Evening. I understand that the Council will begin consideration of the Draft PROS plan
tomorrow. Would you please review and consider the attached comments on the Draft PROS
plan during your deliberations? I will be using the information in this document to support
many of my upcoming public comments. I would appreciate the opportunity to virtually meet
with Council members at your earliest convenience to go over the recommendations and
answer any questions you may have.
I would also appreciate your review of Attachment 2: Consideration of Growth and
Development (included in the file below) with regard to the long-term staffing need for a
REDI program manager.
Thank you,
Natalie Seitz
Packet Pg. 357
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Brackett"s Landing North - Edmonds Underwater Park Are One in Same for Divers
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:04:43 AM
Angie for review.
From: Annie Crawley <annie@anniecrawley.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:04 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Leach, Jennifer <Jennifer.Leach @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Brackett's Landing North - Edmonds Underwater Park Are One in Same for Divers
Greetings,
Please accept this as a clarification to my last email.
When we refer to Edmonds Underwater Park, we also mean Brackett's Landing North. Most divers
group the two together. Although the city might make the distinction between the two, many
people do not and I think that needs to be taken into consideration when anyone is reading any of
the comments about Edmonds Underwater Park via emails.
The fact that nobody knows or understands what is under the park is a testament that not enough
is done at Brackett's Landing North to connect people to the underwater world. I walked through the
park with Jennifer Leach more than 6 months ago and the signage and displays are really old and the
entire place needs a lift. She told me I could create something for it, but there was no budget. With
Edmonds Underwater Park as a destination park, that means Brackett's Landing North is the face of
the park where everyone enters.
Also, let me repeat this... everything we do on land impacts our waterfront. The quality of our water
is tied to what we do on land including our streets, our sewage, our runoff, and keeping a healthy
watershed.
Again, thank you for listening and leading. I'm here to serve you in any capacity I can.
Keep Diving Into Your Imagination!
Annie Crawley
Author, Photographer, Producer, & Keynote Speaker
www.AnnieCrawley.com
www.EdmondsUnderwaterPark.com
When you reach a child, you change history. Give the gift of the Ocean today!
Packet Pg. 358
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Comment on the Edmonds 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces (PROS) Plan
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7:32:45 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Jonathan Blubaugh <aracfi@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 11:59 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: allen gibbs <agibbspr@gmail.com>; jahbirds@comcast.net; vice-
president@pilchuckaudubon.org; Brian Zinke <director@pilchuckaudubon.org>
Subject: Comment on the Edmonds 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces (PROS) Plan
Delete objectives 2.3 & 2.4 - Nobody needs public art in the park and nobody wants to pay for it.
Nobody knows what DEI for staff even means and nobody wants to pay for it.
I assume it's some type of travel orjunket, or training on city time at city expense. DELETE THEM
Divorce cultural services from park services (Goal 7) Who is paying for it? Are cultural services
draining resources from the Parks Dept? Are so-called cultural services PART
of the Parks Dept?
Where in the goals is the priority to keep homeless encampments and ancillary waste away from the
parks? (and schools)?
Hold the line on ADA expenditures to the minimum required by law. People are abusing the ADA for
the purpose of extortion, by threatening frivolous lawsuits.
On page 79 the reduction of aspirational park acreage from over 11 per 1000 to less than 7 per 1000
is excessive. Try for no less than 10 ac/1000. Park growth should be tied to
development. Developers must pay city fees for park acquisition commensurate with the amount of
population their development will accommodate.
Jonathan Blubaugh
425-244-7633
Sent from Mail for Windows
Packet Pg. 359
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Comment on underwater park
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:16:17 PM
Angie for review.
From: Andrew Creighton <andycreighton@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7:50 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PRCSPIan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Comment on underwater park
Hello
I am a resident and SCUBA diver and would like to make a comment on the PROS plan
related to the Edmonds Underwater Park. This specific park is known nationwide as one of
the best dive sites in Puget Sound. The protections the city has given the park and the
associated life make it such that you are practically guaranteed to see some really special
underwater animals while diving the park. Edmonds Underwater Park is a regional gem and
is known to regional divers for this reason. Just last weekend a large group from Bellevue
had a Meetup at the park. It is highly advisable to treat the park as such in whatever ways
are practical. The park is not functionally a city or local park, it is really more of a regional
amenity. Please consider changing the Edmonds Underwater Park into a Regional Park in
the PROS plan.
Andrew Creighton
Edmonds
360-550-7062
Packet Pg. 360
5.A.b
From: Haslam. Carrie
To: Feser. Angie
Subject: FW: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:25:48 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Lily Peterson <peterli100I@edmondsI5.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:35 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
Hello Neighbors -
I would love to see Southwest county park become part of the edmonds park system. This lovely green space
could use some marked and mapped trails, stream restoration, and invasive plant removal. This place has a great
potential to enhance our community.
Tyler Peterson
This message was sent by a student from the Edmonds School District.
The contents of this email are governed by applicable laws and the board policies of the Edmonds School District.
For more information visit www.edmonds.wednet.edu<http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu>.
Each student
learning every day!
Packet Pg. 361
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Edmonds Parks Planning
Date: Friday, January 28, 2022 7:33:16 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Dan Ritchie <ohopdiver@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 4:06 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Parks Planning
Dear Park planners,
I am an 81 year old diver and a life long resident of the Seattle area.
My first dive at the Edmonds Underwater Park was in Sept 1970.
1 helped to install the first wreck, Alitak, and spent many weekends in the
70's maintaining the safety rafts in the park.
I have made multiple dive trips there every year since.
A trip to the park often includes stops at the dive shop, hardware store,
restaurants and car and boat parts stores. Here's how it works for me. If I
need a car part or some hardware I can go to a store closer to me in
another direction but if I'm going to Edmonds to dive anyway I prefer to stop
at an Edmonds store on the way. I may even put off going to the store until
I'm making an Edmonds dive trip.
The familiarity of local business learned from my dive trips has also resulted
in family trips to other shops in Edmonds for birthdays Christmas and travel
planning.
It is not uncommon to meet people in the park from as far away as Oregon
or British Columbia who have come to dive the famous underwater park.The
Edmonds Underwater Park is a uniquely wonderful recreational gem and a
magnet for local businesses.
It may come as a surprise but many people who do not live in Edmonds
identify with the park and feel it is part of our community.
I hope to continue dive trips to the park and local businesses for many more
Packet Pg. 362
5.A.b
years.
Respectfully,
Dan Ritchie
Packet Pg. 363
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Draft Plan comments
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:24:35 AM
Angie for review.
From: slabel@aol.com <slabel@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 5:52 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Draft Plan comments
Dear City of Edmonds,
As an Edmonds resident, I would like to voice my concern over several items in the Edmonds Parks,
Recreation & Open Space Draft Plan.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The plan lists the GMA's
goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address them. The plan needs specific
recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands, and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and managed as such.
Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible way. The creek should be able move as
it naturally would, and the marsh should have its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -leash dog area at the
Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the Puget Sound according to the Department of
Ecology. This needs to be addressed in the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these recommendations. The plan should
include a discussion of available funding, how much additional funding is needed, and specific
recommendations on where to get additional funding.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space and thoughtful consideration of my
comments.
Sincerely,
Steve
STEVEN L. ABEL
61OF DALEY STREET
EDMONDS WA 98020-3000
slabel e_aol.com
Packet Pg. 364
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds PROS Plan
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:04:19 AM
Angie for review.
From: Elise Puch <diverelise@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:52 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPIan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds PROS Plan
Dear Edmonds City Council,
As the City of Edmonds is reviewing and updating its park plans, I would like to bring
your attention to the importance of Edmonds Underwater Park. Edmonds Underwater
Park is not only a dive destination for locals and tourists, but it is also an important
marine conservation area for animals and plants where they can thrive in a protected
area. Local divers can enjoy seeing native PNW animals that have had a chance to
grow without human disturbances like fishing.
Currently, this park is described in the plan but the perspective of divers is
underrepresented. I would like to suggest you consider putting more resources into
preserving the park such as by maintaining the underwater features, protecting the
water quality (especially from sewage overruns), and keeping Brackets Landing park
clean and accessible to divers. As a teen resident and diver in Edmonds, it is
important to me that this park will be there for me as I grow up and for future
generations to enjoy. Along with many fellow divers I love this park and it is one of my
favorite places to dive. I learned how to dive in this park and I see many new people
learning to dive here too. This dive park is important to our community and needs
your support.
Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Elise Foot Puchalski
diverelise&yahoo.com
Packet Pg. 365
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds under water park in the future
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:15:38 PM
Angie for review.
From: Cara Alferness <alfernessc@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:11 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds under water park in the future
Dear Park Planning Committee,
Just wanted to let you know how much the Underwater Park means to me and my family and
friends. We scuba dive at the park several times a year as a small group (4 to 6 divers at a time). We
travel many hours by car to get to the park, usually 2 people per car but sometimes up to 4. We
always get something to eat after and always take the ferry to and from the park. We want the
Underwater Park to not become underrepresented in your future plans. Thank you for your time,
Cara and Jason Alferness
Olalla, WA
Packet Pg. 366
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds Underwater Park Missing From Pros Plan
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 6:23:16 PM
Attachments: SCD0421 Edmonds BruceHiaains.pdf
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Annie Crawley <annie@anniecrawley.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 5:29 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Leach, Jennifer <Jennifer.Leach @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Underwater Park Missing From Pros Plan
Greetings Planning Committee,
I'm writing to you on behalf of a larger community of kids, teens and families from our region, as
well as a national and international dive community. I'm an underwater photographer, filmmaker
and author who moved to Edmonds more than a decade ago.
During 2020 Edmonds Underwater Park celebrated its 50th year as a marine protected area. I'm not
sure you realize how important this is. There are no other parks in our region like Edmonds
Underwater Park and if you read about the history of the park, the Mayor and the City Council
valued the land underwater. It's become a refuge for species recovery, habitat restoration, and a
bird sanctuary. The eelgrass bed in the park is the largest and healthiest I have dived in the PNW. In
the past two years, we could not gather and celebrate the 50th anniversary because of the
pandemic (see attachment as I'm including a PDF for evidence of destination park) but I did
everything in my power to help put it on the map as well as share with our community. Attached is
the article that ran in Scuba Diving magazine about our underwater backyard in April 2021. It
features Bruce Higgins, the stewards that take care of the park, and Santiago Ramirez who is one of
our divers.
We not only have an incredible underwater park that needs continual protection from people (as a
no take zone, no boaters, no fishing and no motorized vehicles), but this park needs recognition as a
destination park. People travel from across the United States and Internationally to dive in our
waters. I believe Edmonds Underwater Park at Brackett's Landing North is completely
underrepresented in the planning document. I believe this potentially is because the underwater
world is often underrepresented and misrepresented in our daily lives. I would like to support a
larger inclusion of Edmonds Underwater Park and Brackett's Landing North in your plans.
Most of you on this committee probably have not thought about what lies below the surface in our
underwater backyard or what actually happens here, yet everything we do on land impacts our
environment. After 10 years as a resident, I realized this, and during the height of the pandemic I
Packet Pg. 367
5.A.b
created a service project for our community. Together with the kids, teens, and young adults on my
Dive Team we created a website about the park so everyone could see what divers, snorkelers and
swimmers see.
You can visit it at www.EdmondsUnderwaterPark.com
Our kids/teens/divers were also honored by PADI as Ambassadivers for scuba diving. This is a
worldwide recognition and features our underwater park at Brackett's Landing North.
Underwater Sports Seattle has six retail dive stores throughout our region from Tacoma, Federal
Way, Seattle, Bellevue. People from all over our state dive in our community at Edmonds
Underwater Park. I know of more than a dozen dive stores from our state and surrounding states
that visit on a regular basis. The people in the water diving the day of the Tsunami warning were
from Montana. Other groups come from Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and California.
Because of the West Seattle Bridge structural problems, on any Saturday or Sunday, for the past year
there are more open water and cold water swimmers using the park. There are scientists working on
kelp, mussels, and eelgrass studies, groups from California and NOAA do research on Rock Fish here,
there are birders who travel here to observe herons, eagles, and other shore birds.
Our ocean is responsible for more than 50% of the oxygen we breathe and acts as a carbon sink.
During the first two weeks of 2022, the beaches were closed out of safety for the public as there was
fear of untreated sewage entering the Sound and impacting those of us who use the park. I believe
we must consider all of the runoff from our region as it dumps straight into our water and figure out
ways we will protect the Edmonds Marsh and our entire unique waterfront. The water/ocean/Sound
that are part of our parks needs an environmental stewardship plan. Everything drains straight into
our streams/rivers and the runoff from our community right into our underwater backyard. Nothing
in the plan addresses any of this.
The park serves more than just our residents and brings revenue dollars to our community. I believe
this needs to be a bigger part of the pros plan as it's my understanding this money is allotted for the
next 6 years. I can name many businesses who benefit and rely on destination divers and other
groups outside of Edmonds citizens who travel to our city to use our waterfront. The hotels,
restaurants, coffee and donut shops, as well as retail stores benefit from Edmonds Underwater Park,
the Marsh, and our waterfront.
I truly believe and hope that some of what I've shared here helps you understand what a unique
park Edmonds Underwater Park and Brackett's Landing North is to our community and how
underrepresented it is in the current proposal. I'm traveling the first two weeks of February, but
would love to offer any assistance I possibly can in the development and addition of what I'm hoping
will happen at tonight's meeting and during the next few weeks.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Keep Diving Into Your Imagination!
Packet Pg. 368
5.A.b
Annie Crawley
Author, Photographer, Producer, & Keynote Speaker
www.AnnieCrawley.com
www.OurOceanAndYou.com
When you reach a child, you change history. Give the gift of the Ocean today!
Packet Pg. 369
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
FW: Edmonds Underwater Park
Date:
Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:16:03 PM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Cameron Budnick <budnick07@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:01 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Underwater Park
Hello,
I'm writing this to add another voice in support of the underwater park and ask that you carefully consider the value
of the park. I am currently attending the webinar and have already heard the overwhelming support for the park but I
don't feel right not sharing my support as well. The value of this park as a destination point within the city is under -
appreciated.
I know 3 people who have come from out of state and across the country to pursue scuba diving and have made
Edmonds their home because of this park. To echo Monica (attendee of the meeting) a friend of mine visits
Washington quarterly for work and they bring their dive gear every single time because they know they're going to
be stopping at the park.
I also ask for your support of the ecological value of the continued support for this park. The structures that lie on
the bottom provide excellent habitat for a large variety of fish, crab, shrimp, squid, and other marine life. If anybody
working for the city like fishing or crabbing they know how quickly the bulk of the animals can be caught. The
added structure and material within the park provide a significant benefit to these creatures that a marine preserve
alone doesn't. In turn this can help support the crab population and increase the volume of crabbers coming through
the town (you know people with boats have lots of money..) I have a personal connection to the park as well. I have
dove all over the state and the US and this park still remains in my top 10.1 believe the biodiversity alone is cause
for funding and support of this ecologically distinct area. I am a scuba instructor and this park has been invaluable to
me as an instructor and as a wildlife enthusiast. I also have well over 100 dives here and most of those end with a
meal and a drink from somewhere in the bowl.
The continued support of this park is important to me and thousands of people in Edmonds, the Salish sea, the state,
and the country.
Thank you,
Cameron Budnick
Packet Pg. 370
5.A.b
From: Haslam. Carrie
To: Feser. Angie
Subject: FW: HELP the salmon. IMPORTANT!!! Draft PROS Plan Feedback
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:25:36 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Emily Peterson <kaloheprincess@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:31 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: HELP the salmon. IMPORTANT!!! Draft PROS Plan Feedback
To whom this may concern —
I speak for the salmon and ALL of Southwest County Park and it's inhabitants, both big and small!
We need to include and protect this special piece of earth, and make it more accessible through maintenance,
sustainability and preservation!
I demand this park to be considered as an Edmonds asset, we need to include it within the Edmonds Parks System,
not tomorrow but today!
With deep concern —
Emily Peterson
An avid earth lover.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Ghandi
Packet Pg. 371
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Now is the Time for Southwest County Park
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:30:01 PM
Angie for review.
From: Sandy Gilbert <sgg435@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:19 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Now is the Time for Southwest County Park
I am one of the working participants of the Edmonds Ivy League - quick reference
- we pull ivy at the SWCP every Saturday morning from 9am to Noon. (to save
trees) Please drop in and lend a hand. It might provide you all with a new
perspective of what a tremendous resource the city of Edmonds has in SWCP and so
far ignored. I noticed only one name on your information - a consultant. Was he
provided direction to visit each park, including SWCP. Have those of you making this
decision actually visited the park? It provides an additional 120 acres which
increases the park space by 50 per cent. 76 to 120 acres.
For the 6 year plan for Parks, recreation, and open spaces - Please include
SWCP on your list of priorities.
Additional reasons:
• Currently the park is in a state of neglect, but the city has no control over it.
The Perrinville Creek watershed has serious erosion issues, which, for
instance, led to Talbot road being blocked by sand from the creek last winter
In its current state it is also impossible for Salmon to run up the creek.
-There is no map, which makes it difficult to use and navigate the park - most
visitors stay on the south side of Olympic View Drive. The lack of a (current)
map also encourages social trails.
• The park is underused, both because of the map situation and because it
receives no marketing. Even though it is in the middle of Edmonds, it is not
mentioned on the city's web site.
-The park is of historical interest to the City of Edmonds, since it was part of the
shingles industry that built the city and there are still trails using those same
100+ year old paths, but nothing is being done to retain or document that
history.
• Invasive plants are slowly taking over (though there is strong volunteering
activity trying to address this).
• If the city takes over the park, it will add significant open space and trail miles.
The city will also, finally, own the destiny of the park and surrounding areas,
and can integrate it with other areas to make a holistic plan for our outdoor
spaces, salmon preservation, etc.
The county has been wanting the City of Edmonds to take over the Park for years.
Please include the SWCP in the list of priorities. NOW IS THE TIME.
Thank you for your consideration.
Packet Pg. 372
5.A.b
copies provided to mayor and all council members
Sandy Gilbert
206 551 1402
Packet Pg. 373
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Please add Southwest County Park to your list of priorities for the new 6-year PROS plan.
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:26:27 PM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Thomas Bedner <tombed ner@frontier.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:01 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please add Southwest County Park to your list of priorities for the new 6-year PROS plan
I am disappointed that the acquisition of Southwest County Park (SWCP) is not on the current list
of priorities for the 6-year PROS plan soon to be finalized. It fits very well with the identified
priorities such as the need for more Open Spaces. It also will help to address the stated need to
add more trails and to tie together the city's parks.
Points to consider:
• SWCP is the largest park in Edmonds at 120 acres. It would increase our total park space
by over 50% and our Open Space would grow from 76 acres to 196 acres.
• Currently, the park is in a state of neglect, but the city has no control over it. The Perrinville
Creek watershed has serious erosion issues, which, for instance, led to Talbot road being
blocked by sand from the creek last winter. In its current state, it is also impossible for
salmon to run up the creek.
• There is no map, which makes it difficult to use and navigate the park, Most visitors stay
on the south side of Olympic View Drive. The lack of a (current) map also encourages
social trails.
• The park is underused, both because of the map situation and because it receives no
marketing. Even though it is in the middle of Edmonds, it is not mentioned on the city's
website. The park is an urban forest containing many trails and opportunities to view
native wildlife.
• The park is of historical interest to the City of Edmonds since it was part of the shingles
industry that built the city and there are still trails using those same 100+ year old paths,
but nothing is being done to retain or document that history.
• Invasive plants are slowly taking over (though there is strong volunteering activity trying to
address this).
• If the city takes over the park, it will add significant open space and trail miles. The city will
also, finally, own the destiny of the park and surrounding areas, and can integrate it with
other areas to make a holistic plan for our outdoor spaces, salmon preservation, etc.
The county has been attempting to convince the city to take over the park for years. Now is the
chance to make this happen. The acquisition of SWCP would greatly enhance the city's park
holdings at a minimal cost. Please seriously consider this course of action now. Waiting for the
next 6-year plan to act would be an unfortunate mistake.
Packet Pg. 374
5.A.b
Thomas Bedner
concerned citizen and frequent user of SWCP
member of the Edmonds Ivy League (devoted to invasive species abatement (laurel, holly, and
ivy) in SWCP)
Packet Pg. 375
5.A.b
From: Haslam. Carrie
To: Feser. Angie
Subject: FW: Please add SWCP to our Parks Dept!
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:24:18 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Rita Ireland <irelandri@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 3:42 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please add SWCP to our Parks Dept!
The giant park near Perrinville deserves tender loving care.
If this beautiful, natural area in both sides of Olympic View Drive is incorporated into your master
plan/care .... you've supported these three strengths:
returning salmon, stronger plant n tree growth to stop slides, and a healthier community!
Bring in historical interpretive signs - it's part of our shingle mills history.
Add good hiking maps online.
Stop relying on about 8 of us volunteers pulling invasive ivy snd holly.
It's a win win win for all- as our local woods - this unique environment— is too precious to ignore any more.
Thank you.
Rita Ireland
Seaview neighbor
425-330-9294
Sent from my iPhone
Packet Pg. 376
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Please put SWCP on the plan February 15th.
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:31:59 PM
Angie for review.
From: Clara H <clarahsu1@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 8:55 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>; viidoves@live.com
Subject: RE: Please put SWCP on the plan February 15th.
Edmonds Council - Please put SWCP on the agenda February 15th for planning.
• SWCP is the largest park in Edmonds at 120 acres - it would increase our total park space by over 50% and
our Open Space would grow from 76 acres to 196 acres.
• Currently the park is in a state of neglect, but the city has no control over it. The Perrinville Creek watershed
has serious erosion issues, which, for instance, led to Talbot road being blocked by sand from the creek last
winter. In its current state it is also impossible for Salmon to run up the creek.
Respectfully,
Clara N. Hsu
Packet Pg. 377
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Public Comment: PROS plan
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:04:00 AM
Angie for review.
From: Abbey Dias <abbey.dias@outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:49 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment: PROS plan
Dear Council Members,
My name is Abbey and I am Zooming to the current council meeting about the PROS plan. I'd like to
offer you my comments on the plan.
I am thrilled to see a push for efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and justice within our Edmonds
community. I believe the PROS plan will be strengthened with more value placed on Edmonds
Underwater Park.
My love for the ocean began at Edmonds in the second grade, and now 20 years later, I am pursuing
graduate school for marine biology.
Our Edmonds community serves as a role model for coastal communities because we have a
unique marine protected area at the base of our city.
Edmonds Underwater Park is an incredible tourist destination —as folks during the public
commented for scuba diving, birdwatching, beach -going, swimming, etc. —but it is also a prime
example of how protecting our marine resources can have huge impacts on the ecosystem.
Edmonds Underwater Park is a no -take zone, and the life it protects is truly incredible (please see
this website I worked on: https://www.edmondsunderwaterpark.com/ ). I grew up with this park as
my backyard, but now as I explore the rest of the world, I realize how valuable it is to have a marine
protected area in our community. For whatever reason people are drawn to Brackett's Landing
North, Edmonds Underwater Park impacts everyone whether or not they know it. Just one example
is that the park protects a large eelgrass bed which is responsible for trapping atmospheric carbon. I
continue to reference Edmonds Underwater Park in my scientific studies and hope to see it valued
by our community with allocation of resources. Prioritizing this park as an international destination
will protect the longevity of this amazing resource.
I urge you to allocate resources in the PROS Plan to Edmonds Underwater Park. Thank you very
much.
Sincerely,
Abbey Dias
Packet Pg. 378
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Southwest county park
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:24:55 AM
Angie for review.
From: JENNINGS Scott <Scott.Jennings@northcoast.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 8:04 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest county park
Why on earth would you not add this space to your open space plan.
Please do so
Scott Jennings
425-210-8615
Packet Pg. 379
5.A.b
From: Haslam. Carrie
To: Feser. Angie
Subject: FW: Southwest county park
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:25:18 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Catherine Jhung <catherinejhung@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 8:08 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest county park
Please add Southwest County Park to the roster of priorities for Open Spaces.
It is a large park, in a state of neglect. The Perrinville creek had erosion issues. If the city takes over the park, it will
add miles to the open spaces and can integrate it for conservation efforts.
Thank you,
Catherine Nutting
17902 72nd Ave W
Edmonds WA 98026
Packet Pg. 380
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:32:09 PM
Angie for review.
From: Shirley Stallings <shirleystallings2447@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 8:41 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Southwest County Park
Please include SWCP in the overall plan for Edmonds parks. It is a big reason for why we
moved to Edmonds. Unfortunately we found that it wasn't as usable as we expected. There are
essentially no trails in the very large area to the north of Olympic Park Drive. After getting
turned around and basically lost in the south side, I was eventually able to find a map online so
I could understand the layout of the trails. SWCP is a beautiful, large, undeveloped area and it
has been disappointing to learn that it is pretty much ignored by the city and the county. Please
include it in your plan.
Shirley Stallings
8125 186th St SW (formerly lived on Andover)
Packet Pg. 381
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 11:44:47 AM
Angie for review.
From: David Matthews <drmatthewsusa@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 11:35 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Wendy Raphaela Zieve <wzieve@gmail.com>
Subject: Southwest County Park
We have noticed that in your 6 year plan there is no priority given to this beautiful and precious
wooded area.
This is the largest park in Edmonds and has a unique variety of flora and fauna, and yet it is
neglected and would benefit highly from City park management.
There's history (old shingle resources), a stream that could support salmon, and miles of trails at
many different levels for folks with different abilities.
We ask that you include this park as a priority in your new 6 year plan.
Thank you,
David Matthews
Wendy Zieve
546 Walnut St Apt 102
Edmonds, WA 98020
206-272-0580
Packet Pg. 382
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:27:03 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Janan Dean <janandean@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 10:59 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park
I am writing you to ask that you consider putting SWCP on the list of priorities, since it fills the needs of the Open
Spaces. A 6 yr plan is getting g ready to be approved for parks and open spaces. SWCP is the largest part in
Edmonds. It needs to be cleaned up, maps made. The park is under used because of marketing. It has historical
interest because of the shingles industry that Edmonds was built around.
The city needs to take over this park now, so park space could increase by 50%.
Please put it on the list!!
Janan Dean
Sent from my Wad
Packet Pg. 383
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:25:58 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Philo Calhoun <island@luxsci.me>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:52 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park
I am writing you to ask that you consider having Southwest County Park become an Edmonds City Park.
As you know, I brought this up with Mayor Nelson as well as the chief of the Edmonds Park system in a zoom call.
The park is poorly managed by the county and often a site for vandalism and petty crime. I mapped the trails but the
county will not allow any maps to be put up or even current accurate information about the trails on their website.
Fallen trees often block the trail and litter is rarely removed. People walking in the park often feel lost and the EMT
and police do not have current maps of the area, which poses a safety issue. I have spoken many times to Snohomish
County Park management, and they are unwilling to address this, even though in their original acquisition agreement
when they obtained the land from the University of Washington, they are obliged to maintain trails, remove litter,
and provide a safe experience for those who use the park.
Southwest County Park is a beautiful area and unique to the Edmonds area. It is the larges park in Edmonds at about
117 acres. It has a rich history, originally as a hunting and fishing ground for the Snohomish People and later as the
first permanent lumber area on the east side of Puget Sound. The territorial University of Washington bought the
land in 1861 and kept it until 1972, using it for teaching ecology and horticulture. In the early 1900's, a railway
crossed the park and one of the first steam donkeys was used to remove lumber. There are still remains of the
original logging from the late 1800s and early 1900s in the park. During the pandemic, it has been frequently used
by hikers, dog walkers, and people interested in the fauna and flora of the park. If the city takes over the par, it will
add significant opens space and trail miles to Edmonds. Edmonds is in a much better position than the county to
maintain the park and protect Perrinville Creek, even potentially bringing back salmon to the stream and addressing
the erosion and flooding issues with directly affect people on Talbot Road.
Respectfully,
PHILO CALHOUN MD
Packet Pg. 384
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:30:28 PM
Angie for review.
From: Terry Rudensey <terry.rudensey@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:09 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park
Dear City of Edmonds,
As part of the 6 year plan for Edmonds parks, I ask you to please think about adding
Southwest County Park. As a local resident, I have used this wonderful forested area dozens
of times over the years. It is a fantastic park to hike, walk dogs, run, and observe nature. It
seems like the park is well used by lots of people and animals even though it is poorly
maintained by the county. Southwest County Park would add significant acreage to Edmonds
Open Space which is one of the city's identified priorities. With a little work and not much
money, the city of Edmonds could significantly improve the park. This would include better
trail signage and trail maintenance and reducing the erosion of Perrinville Creek so that
salmon can use it. There are already many dedicated volunteers such as the Ivy League who
help to maintain the park by pulling out invasive plants like ivy and holly. Southwest County
Park is an area that I and many other residents cherish and could be a jewel in Edmonds Open
Spaces. Please consider adding it to the Edmonds park system.
Sincerely,
Terry Rudensey
Packet Pg. 385
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:26:51 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: Thom Wert <grauwert49@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 5:54 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>; Tibbott Neil <connect@neiltibbott.com>
Subject: Southwest County Park
Dear Neil and Open Space planners,
It has come to my attention that the open space plan in process to be presented to the city council does not take into
consideration South County Park.
While I realize that it is a county park and not a city park, I am concerned that it is not mentioned or included in this
plan for open spaces within Edmonds.
This park on both sides of of Olympic View Drive is a very important open space amid local residential areas. It has
provided local residents with wide open spaces to walk their pets, to walk with one another, and to explore the
wonders of our environment. It has, for many of us who live in the area, also provided a most necessary space to
safely connect with others and our world in the last two years of this pandemic.
While I am not certain of the technicalities of the plan being proposed, I think it's vital that this open space be a part
of any plan that seeks to protect the open spaces that support the wellbeing of our city, citizens, families, and indeed
our climate itself.
Thank you for your consideration of my concern.
Dr. Thomas G. Wert, D. Min.
18707 78th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Sent from my iPhone
Packet Pg. 386
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: SWCP should be part of the PROS plan
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 6:18:18 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Mikael Ohman <mikael.h.ohman@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:59 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: SWCP should be part of the PROS plan
I had an opportunity to speak at the PROS plan hearing last week. Thank you for listening! I
thought I would reiterate my message here and add a few points.
The PROS plan is quite an extensive document, and clearly identifies priorities, such as the
need to add trails and Open Space, and to coordinate and tie together our parks, because
that is what the citizens identify as their priorities. It is strange then, to see that the
conclusion is to ignore the single largest parcel of land that the city can acquire, in favor of
1/2 acre and acre parcels in south and southeast Edmonds. They do not fill the same need,
not by a longshot. And two more reflections on this:
1. a 1/2 acre or 1 acre park is something that should be made a condition for a developer to
get a permit.
2. The county wants to give SWCP to the city, because they understand they are not the
right stewards of it - they have 120 other parks, with 12,000 acres that need their attention.
SWCP is the largest park in Edmonds at 120 acres - it would increase our total park space
by over 50% and our Open Space would grow from 76 acres to 196 acres. I have
volunteered my efforts in the park since 2005, clearing fallen trees, pulling ivy etc. and I am
a park ambassador for the park with the County. In 2018 1 organized a volunteer group, the
Edmonds Ivy league, and we are currently working in the park for a few hours every
Saturday. Through my volunteering, I have spoken to the County many times and have
learned that the County has been trying to get Edmonds to take over the park for many
years, since they know they are not the right stewards for it. My understanding is that the
County wants to give the park to Edmonds.
Currently the park is in a state of neglect, but the city has no control over it. The Perrinville
Creek watershed has serious erosion issues, which, for instance, led to Talbot road being
blocked by sand from the creek last winter. In its current state it is also impossible for
Salmon to run up the creek.
This park is full of sensitive wetlands, two creeks - both eroding their banks, beautiful fir,
pine and cedar forest full of deer, foxes, coyotes, owls, raccons, the occasional bear,
eagles. It is large enough to allow visitors to be immersed in the nature experience - I
believe it is the only park in Edmonds, and one of only a few in the Seatac metroplex that
lets you get lost in nature.
Packet Pg. 387
5.A.b
There is no current map, which makes it difficult to use and navigate the park. The only
map posted, covers only some of the trail on the south side of Olympic View Drive. As a
result, most visitors stay on the south side of Olympic View Drive, which means they miss
the real experience. This lack of an official map also encourages the creation of social
trails.
Still, the park is sadly underused, both because of the map situation and because it
receives no marketing. Even though it is in the middle of Edmonds, it is not mentioned on
the city's web site.
An aspect of this park that I think is missed by most, is its historical connection to the City of
Edmonds. It was part of the shingles industry that built the city and there are still traces of
horse cart trails and narrow track railway, with some trails still using those same 100 - 150
year old paths, but nothing is being done to retain or document that history. While doing
trail maintenance last winter, we found many railroad spikes and other traces of the cedar
shake industry.
If the city takes over the park, it will add significant open space and trail miles. The city will
also, finally, own the destiny of the park and surrounding areas, and can integrate it with
other areas to make a holistic plan for our outdoor spaces, salmon preservation, etc.
Even if the management of the park remains exactly the same, I still think it is better that it
becomes an Edmonds park. The city can have significant positive impact on the park with
some very low cost efforts, such as incorporating it in the City of Edmonds marketing,
putting up a current map/navigation system and adding one (main parking lot) or a couple
(west entrance) of waste bins.
I would hope though, that the city engages in the Perrinville Creek watershed as a priority
A lot of people are willing to help, but the planning and engineering can't be done by
volunteers.
If you made it through this long and winding email, thank you for your time & attention.
Hopefully it left you with some new thoughts.
I'll leave you with an offer to take you on a tour of the deeper parts of the park, so that you
can have the full experience.
Sincerely
Mikael Ohman
425 772 7576
Packet Pg. 388
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: SWCP
Date:
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:32:24 PM
Angie for review.
From: cindy barr <cindysbarr@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 8:39 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: SWCP
I am writing to ask that the city consider the importance of adding SWCP to the roster
SWCP is the largest park in Edmonds. It would increase our total park space by
about 50% and greatly increase our open space. The park is currently pretty
neglected with erosion issues, no trail maps, social trails that may be doing damage,
invasive plants, etc.
This park could be a great asset to Edmonds but it's largely underused because of it's
condition. By having Edmonds own this park, it will help to ensure that it is
maintained and more people will become aware of what a beautiful space this is.
Thank you,
Cindy Barr
206-930-3683
Packet Pg. 389
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
FW: SWCP
Date:
Monday, January 31, 2022 7:26:26 AM
Angie for review.
-----Original Message -----
From: kim.eli <kim.eli@frontier.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 6:37 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: SWCP
Just a quick email to encourage your committee to put SWCP on the roster to consider for the plan for parks in
Edmonds.
It's a great forested area used by many living in Edmonds!
Thank you,
Kim Eli
Sent from my Whone
Packet Pg. 390
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: SWCP
Date:
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 6:18:44 AM
Angie for review.
From: Kim Prater <kim.prate r2@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 5:57 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: SWCP
Please add SWCP to the list
Packet Pg. 391
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: The importance of Edmonds Underwater Park
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:04:57 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Kirsten Foot <kirstuw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:23 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: The importance of Edmonds Underwater Park
Dear City Council,
In reviewing the City of Edmonds Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan, I noticed
that the viewpoint of divers was not reflected in the passages pertaining to Brackett's
Landing and the Edmonds Underwater Park. It seemed that relatively few
respondents to the public survey that helped inform the PROS Plan were themselves
divers. So I'm writing to provide my perspective on the importance of the Edmonds
Underwater Park.
I have been a resident of Edmonds for over 20 years. A few years ago at the age of
50(!) 1 decided to learn to scuba dive in the Edmonds Underwater Park (EUP),
because I could access it relatively easily and I had heard wonderful things about the
marine life thriving under the surface of the water right along our city's waterfront. My
hopes were exceeded as I have encountered innumerable fishes, invertebrates,
crustaceans, and marine plants during every dive in the EUP. It is an underwater
garden, full of life!
Even as a relatively new diver, I realized quickly how much labor has gone into
creating the EUP-- and how much work is required to maintain it. Having now dived in
Mukilteo, British Columbia, and several places in California, I've come to appreciate
what a treasure the EUP is! There truly is no other place like it along the whole west
coast of the US and Canada. The fact that it is so easily accessible from Brackett's
Landing makes it a draw for residents like me, and an increasingly-reknown
destination for divers from across the US and other countries. To illustrate, the last
year I have seen it described in glowing terms in two international dive magazines.
In my view, the ecological care for and maintenance of the EUP needs to be a priority
for the City of Edmonds, both because of its inestimable value for the city and its
residents and because of the appeal it holds for dive tourists. Funding the
maintenance of the EUP would ensure that the literally thousands of hours of
volunteer labor that has gone into creating and developing it will not go to waste.
Greater protections from storm runoff and sewage spillovers is also key to protecting
Packet Pg. 392
5.A.b
the EUP and the divers who swim in it.
I hope this brief message conveys my appreciation for all who have contributed to the
creation and maintenance of the EUP-- and my concern that the importance of the
EUP be recognized by the Council and reflected in the City's PROS Plan and budget.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Foot
Edmonds resident
Packet Pg. 393
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: write letter t oparks
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:25:09 PM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: esskar@aol.com <esskar@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:15 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPIan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Fwd: write letter t oparks
Dear Parks Department
I reviewed the document entitled Parks and Recreation Planning Forward.
On page 146 of the document, it stated that
"Nature play area could be added."
I believe this is a terrible idea and should not be pursued.
As you know, Pine Ridge Park is a quiet nature preserve. Mostly adults enjoy the park for the quiet
solitude of having a rural experience in the middle of Edmonds. It is a known bird watching location, and
often we have observed birders viewing or photographing birds.
Adding a nature area would totally destroy the quiet ambiance of Pine Ridge Park. Regardless of where
it is located, the cacophony of young voices would destroy the experience of the park for most of the
adults that access it. Children by nature are noisy individuals, and with parental guidance and
supervision generally lacking in modern society, one can be assured there will be children there
screaming and shrieking on top of their lungs destroying the experience for everyone else.
The city has numerous other parks where there are all sorts of facilities for children. They can go there
for a play area. Adults need their space also, and away from children. Adults are a larger percentage of
Edmonds than most cities, and they should also be accommodated.
Please dismiss this proposal and leave Pine Ridge Park the way it is.
Eric Soll
Packet Pg. 394
5.A.b
From: Daniel Sloan
To: Feser. Annie
Cc: Bruce Higgins; Brian Zinke
Subject: Re: 2021 - 2022 Edmonds Underwater Park Ling cod egg nest catastrophe in progress
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 11:55:52 AM
Hi Angie,
And thanks for your response.
Respectfully, 4 paragraphs citing 4 RCWs out of a 235-page document, are insufficient
to accomplish any of those goals. Not even close.
Daniel
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:48 AM Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser(&edmondswa.gov> wrote:
Daniel,
Thank you for the conversation. I also wanted to add that Goal 5 in the plan on page 24 does
contain language supporting the preservation and protection of critical habitat/unique natural
features that in turn support places for flora and fauna to exist.
I heard and appreciate your comments related to your environmental concerns and
sustainable practices as they relate to parks and open space planning, development, use and
maintenance.
Angie Feser I Director I She/Her
Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell)
Website I Facebook I Instagram
The Frances Anderson Center and Meadowdale Clubhouse are closed to the Public until
further notice due to the ongoing pandemic.
EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 395
5.A.b
From: Daniel Sloan <sloanlda(i�umail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser(aedmondswa.gov>; Brian Zinke
<director (&,pilchuckaudubon.org>; Bruce Higgins <bruce.higgins(afrontier.com>; Kirby
Johnson <kirbywj 1 &gmail.com>
Subject: 2021 - 2022 Edmonds Underwater Park Ling cod egg nest catastrophe in progress
Good morning Angie,
Less than a decade ago, I was a year-round, once or twice each week, Underwater
Park SCUBA diver volunteer. I still swim a mile in the park several times each week.
Every year for decades, divers counted lingcod egg nests. Between 2010 and 2015,
on average we counted an impressive 190 nests. This was a worthy, remarkable
success created by 2.5 miles of underwater trails and 22 acres.
Over the past 5 years, the precipitous decline in the number of lingcod and lingcod
egg masses parallels Bracketts' Landing's steep declines in bird
populations, baitfish, crustaceans, mollusks and the extinction of sea stars. The
count this year the egg mass nest count was 30.
These Edmonds Park System realities are matters of fact. The
2022 PROS Plan omits all of them.
Hundreds of thousands of bird watchers and SCUBA divers - literally from all
over the world - bring millions of dollars annually into downtown Edmonds to
see what was once a robust Edmonds waterfront ecosystem. The PROS plan
turns a blind eye to these revenue opportunities and the cost of lost revenues.
Surely there is time to remedy these oversights before February 22, 2022. I will call
you to follow up.
Sincerely,
Daniel Sloan
4638 Seahurst Ave.
Everett, WA 98203
Packet Pg. 396
5.A.b
425-512-9369
c
a
w
L
NO
LPL
a
a�
u
Q.
c
m
a
O
Ca
c
0
:r
m
L
V
N�
lid
LPL
L
a.
N
N
O
N
ti
N
O
t
tm
3
O
L
t
ti
O
O
N
N
O
N
E
O
L
V
E
O
L
W
N
m
E
W
C
R
d
O
w
d
r
R
L
E
u
2
r
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 397
5.A.b
From: Daniel Sloan
To: Feser. Angie; Brian Zinke
Subject: Re: FW: Comment on the Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 11:34:48 AM
Good Morning Angie,
I appreciate your prompt response. I ask that you and the 2022 PROS planning team
consider this very specific example of failed, Edmonds Park planning.
By embracing consensus as a primary Parks decision tool, the City of Edmonds,
in collaboration with Off Lease Area Edmonds (OLAE), created the waterfront,
off -leash dog park. It remains a travesty. This permanent and perpetual source
of fecal pollution is permanently marked on the State of Washington Coastal
Atlas Beach Closures page:
®❑ wimming advisory. Children, the elderly, and those in ill health are
advised not to swim. Increased levels of bacteria are present. In Seattle alone,
dogs and cats produce around 50,000 pounds of pet waste per day.
• Pet manure from dogs and cats is a persistent source of pollution in Snohomish
County. https: L/snohomishcountMa.gov/3366/Pet-Waste Feral, free -roaming
cat poop kills as many birds as their predatory behavior does.
The solution to pollution is not dilution. Time is short. We must do everything we
can do today to protect and enrich the habitat birds, humans, fish, and other animals
require to live good -quality, healthy lives.
Daniel Sloan
4638 Seahurst Ave.
Everett, WA 98203
425-512-9369
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:58 PM Feser, Angie <Angie. Feser&edmondswa. gov> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to review and submit your thoughtful comments on the draft
2022 PROS Plan. Your suggestions will be taken into consideration during the finalization
of this planning document.
Your email will be shared with both the Planning Board and City Council as they review the
draft document and provide their suggestions and recommendations on the Plan. Please note:
because your email was received after the January 26 Planning Board meetings a� cket
submittal. it was compiled separately and will be shared directly to Board members through
their email prior to the meeti
Just a reminder that there are more opportunities to watch additional presentations and
Packet Pg. 398
5.A.b
related Board and Council discussions on the PROS Plan as well as provide public
comments. These meetings are currently scheduled as follows:
• January 26, 2022 — Planning Board Draft Document Public Hearing
• February 1, 2022 - City Council - Plan Presentation
• February 15, 2022 - City Council — Plan Public Hearing*
• February 22, 2022 - City Council - Plan Approval consideration*
*These City Council meeting dates are tentative at this time.
Check the City's Meeting Calendar for specific dates, times and agenda packet materials
available HERE.
Thank you again for your interest and effort in commenting on the draft PROS Plan, your
feedback is appreciated.
Best regards,
Angie Feser I Director I She/Her
Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell)
Website I Facebook I Instagram
The Frances Anderson Center and Meadowdale Clubhouse are closed to the Public until
further notice due to the ongoing pandemic.
4EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
From: Daniel Sloan <sloanlda&gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:52 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan c&edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Brian Zinke <director&nilchuckaudubon.org>
Packet Pg. 399
5.A.b
Subject: Comment on the Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan
Time is short. The City of Edmonds suffers from water quality issues that rival Flint,
MI, Malibu Pier, CA, Noble Beach, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and thousands of other
communities in all 50 states that have chosen to prioritize fun over stewardship
fundamentals.
• Heavy rainfall, which is worse with every atmospheric river,
causes all Edmonds water sources to be polluted with raw sewage
and poisonous, non point source runoff.
• January 3rd's closure of Puget Sound waters is a drop of fecal
material in the bucket. hht -ps:,L/nugetsoundkee ep r.org/nollution�
• It is irresponsible and a dereliction of responsibilities for city
leaders to prioritize playgrounds and picnic places when clean
water is in increasingly short supply.
Sincerely,
Daniel Sloan
4638 Seahurst Avenue
Everett, WA 98203
425-512-9369
Packet Pg. 400
5.A.b
From:
Chrissy Roberts
To:
Feser, Angie
Subject:
Re: FW: Feedback for the PROSPlan
Date:
Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:45:42 PM
Hi Angie,
"Outdoor education program" would work. (If they need an age clarification school -aged
outdoor program?)
Thanks again. I know it seems minor but it relates to some concerns that were brought up last
year and we found it was important to clarify that our programs were quite different.
Thanks,
Chrissy
Sent by Chrissy Roberts
Pronouns: She/Her
Owner/Director
Quiet Heart Wilderness School
(425) 951-0861
auietheart.org
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:39 PM Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser&a.edmondswa.=> wrote:
Chrissy,
Thank you for the feedback and input. How would you prefer your program be referenced?
Angie Feser I Director I She/Her
Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell)
Website I Facebook I Instagram
The Frances Anderson Center and Meadowdale Clubhouse are closed to the Public until
further notice due to the ongoing pandemic.
Y EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 401
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:19 PM
To: Feser, Angie <Angie.Fesernedmondswa.gov>
Subject: FW: Feedback for the PROSPlan
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Chrissy Roberts <chrissy.roberts&quietheart.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:14 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan&edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Feedback for the PROSPlan
Hi,
I apologize for the delay in this email. I have only been able to sit down and read the entire
plan this afternoon. I am so impressed with the hard work that went into it and how
thorough it is. I found the information to be incredibly interesting and enlightening and
agree with all of the recommendations. (And I found myself wonder how I as a citizen can
help advance the goals presented.)
My only comment is so minor that I hope it's not bothersome! I am the Owner of Quiet
Heart Wilderness School. On page 3 in the first paragraph, the plan references agreements
with two outdoor preschools. Is Quiet Heart one of those agreements? If so, I'd like to
clarify that we are not an outdoor preschool. In fact only a very small percentage of our
students are of preschool age (we serve ages 4 to teenager). I know this may seem minor,
but there has been some confusion in the past, lumping us in with the other outdoor
preschool. We navigate the land in a much different way than an outdoor preschool would.
I hesitate to bring up anything so minor after so much work has been done, but I would hate
for my silence to come back and create issues in the future.
Packet Pg. 402
5.A.b
Thank you again for all of your work.
Chrissy Roberts
Sent by Chrissy Roberts
Pronouns: She/Her
Owner/Director
Quiet Heart Wilderness School
(425) 951-0861
auietheart.org
Packet Pg. 403
do
TEXT BY AMANDA CASTLEMAN PHOTOS BY ANNIE CRAWLEY
i v
LI F
HOW ONE MAN
TRANSFORI
SEAT
i
M'.
y �
i
16
.1k.r .
48/APRIL 2021 SCO BAD IV ING. COM
' Packet Pg. 404
5.A.b
Five-foot lingcod flit near fields
of plumose anemones, white frills
waving in the emerald waters of
Puget Sound, the "notch" of west-
ern Washington's mitten shape.
Nearby divers explore an ocean-
ic playground, where guide ropes
web between purposely sunk
boats, an obstacle course and a
sword in the stone.
Life teems everywhere: abundant,
vibrant and gloriously defiant of the gun-
metal -gray surface on the area's 226
cloudy days each year.
The popular Edmonds Underwater
Park, 17 miles north of Seattle's down-
town, mightjust be sand, rocks and an old
shingle mill's cedar bark and debris, if not
for one man. For Q years, Bruce Higgins
has led teams that sculpted this patch of
ocean floor and submerged glacial mo-
raine into a dive wonderland. Today the
27-acre site and marine sanctuary boasts
2.5 miles of trails, populated by some of
the region's densest marine life.
Since 1970, the EUP has sprawled
outward from the open-air park of
Brackett's Landing North, beside the
Edmonds -Kingston Ferry Terminal. "The
underwater park was originally a com-
mercial site," Higgins recalls. "When
I first dove there, it had an anchor for
a log boom plus a couple of shopping
carts. At first we were jockeying that
stuff around. But then we started put-
ting in features that made sense for the
parks department, like ajungle gym. Ev-
erybody knows what a jungle gym is —it's
not a hard sell!"
Higgins' low-key but persistent ap-
proach resulted in a titanic amount of
volunteer work, knocked out weekend
50/APRIL 2021 SCUBA DIVING. GO
by weekend for more than four decades,
all in an understated Pacific Northwest
way. "Let's do stuff instead of yak about
it," says the park's long-time impresa-
rio. "No one needs to sit in a lab and talk
about how to place a buoy. Get on a boat,
put the shackles together, throw the an-
chor over the side and do it! Then you'll
understand what it's all about!"
That approach appealed to Tro Rex
Ota, a PADI dive instructor who became a
park steward. "Initially I'd been interest-
ed in helping out at the Seattle Aquarium,
but I wanted something more hands-on
and community -oriented." She took the
plunge at EUP around 18 months ago and
has done almost 300 descents, primari-
ly building features and rockfish habitats.
"I get to observe different animals and
interactions each time. Not only do I see
every single part of the park, but I get to
watch firsthand how fast and abundant-
ly life moves in when we make changes,"
Ota says. "We were connecting a section
of trail and had put up some structure,
and within the week, what had been a rel-
atively uninhabited patch was now teem-
ing with perch and juvenile rockfish and
hermit crabs. It's magical!"
Shaylin Higgins —a park steward who
is Bruce Higgins' niece —got involved in
2016. "The natural topography is sand
with the occasional glacial erratic," she
says. "Without the rock piles and oth-
er odd structures that make up the park,
only a fraction of the marine life would be
there. Once I started to appreciate the
incredible impact EUP stewards have, I
wanted to be more involved."
Because there is always something to
do, the group is always diving. "It brings
purpose to go diving, even with less -
than -favorable conditions," Shaylin Hig-
gins says. "Cold day? We'll haul cinder
blocks to refresh an old trail. Poor visibil-
ity? We'll go dig rocks to build cairns for
NEED TO KNOW
WHEN TO GO
Brackett's Landing North park
is open for shore diving 6 a.m.
to 11 p.m. May to September
and 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. October to
April. It has restrooms, a dry -
changing area, a shower and a
foot -wash station. Park steward
dives are 9 a.m. to noon every
Saturday and Sunday.
DIVE CONDITIONS
Water temps climb from 4YF in
February and March to 58°F from
July to September. Locals prefer
well -fitting 7/7 min wetsuits or
drysuits with fleece undergar-
ments. The 27-acre park has a
max depth of 40 feet and a very
shallow slope. Navigation is done
by compass and naturally by
using the park's features.
OPERATOR
For a tour of the park or to pur-
chase a map, contact Under-
water Sports' Edmonds shop at
underwatersports.com.
Bruce Higgins dives the Edmonds Underwater
Park year-round, rain or shine, leading a
dedicated team of volunteers who build and
maintain the park's ever-expanding features.
" Packet Pg. 405
5.A.b
"Bruce is a force of nature, and his commitment is contagious.
It is never about himself... which is why we are happy to help."
A diver peers at a giant lingcod beneath the
Lopez Pontoon, an animal safe -haven added
to the park in 2009. Below: The bow of the
wooden boat Triumph attracts schooling fish.
the fish. The best part: Anyone can join;
you just have to show up!"
Bruce Higgins has been leading stew-
ardship efforts in the park since the late
1970s. Rain, shine or snow, he's at the
park at 9 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday,
ready to dive.
"Bruce is a force of nature, and his
commitment is contagious," says Jack
Schacher, a steward since 2009. "The
projects change from season to season
and year to year, but the one constant
is his drive to maintain and enhance the
park. It is never about himself. All of us
who volunteer know that, which is why
we are happy to help."
EUP's standout features include the
325-foot De Lion Dry Dock —the park's
southern delineator. Purpose -sunk boats
include the 94-foot tug Alitak, as well as
the 70-foot Triumph, scuppered in 1999.
The nutrient -rich inland waters support
a riot of subaquatic flora and fauna, in-
cluding cabezon, spotted ratfish and var-
ious greenlings and rockfish, along with
gobies, flounders, sailfin sculpins, Dunge-
ness crabs and occasionally giant Pacific
octopuses. "On sunny late -summer and
early fall days with good visibility, fish
school, and swimming above them is like
a tropical dive," Schacher says. "Also, the
expansive 3D structure called Tube Henge
is like the golden age of EUP construction
to me. That was before my time, but I'm
told it took three years of dives to build."
No one knows the park better than its
progenitor. But anyone capable of even
an hourlong descent can soak up the es-
sence. "Don't do just one loop. Explore!"
Higgins says.
DIVING THE PARK
The Puget Sound area of the Salish Sea
climbs from a frigid LIWF in February and
0
March to a cool 58°F from July to Sep-
tember. "Even for seasoned divers, the
cold can be a challenge," says Shaylin
Higgins. "Eat a good breakfast!"
Bruce Higgins says air movement
plays a big role in visibility. The inland
ocean of Puget Sound often reacts like
a lake. If the wind blows from the south,
it stacks water up in the north. This
can create a strong seiche—French for
"back and forth" —fluctuation, in addi-
tion to the tides, waves and river dis-
charge. "You can wind up with shear —
the surface current going north and the
bottom one going south," Shaylin Hig-
gins warns.
For all the park's complexity, it attracts
around 25,000 visitors annually, many of
them beginners. The biggest challenge
typically lies in finding convenient park-
ing at Brackett's Landing North, or maybe
in trundling cold -water dive gear down to
the beach and surface -swimming it out,
Cont'd on pg. 56 »
52 i APRIL 2O21 SCO BAD IV ING. COM
eI"I Packet Pg. 406
5.A.b
The nutrient -rich inland waters of Puget Sound at Edmonds
Underwater Park support a riot of subaquatic flora and fauna.
EYE SPY
Top, from left: A male red rock crab
protects a small female while she
is molting before they mate; golden
eggs of the whitespotted greenling
reveal tiny eyes; a spotted ratfish
t
glides through the water; a black-
eyed hermit crab carries its home on
its back; the purple ochre sea star is
a keystone species. Center, from left:
r
Red rock crabs feed on the carcass
of a dead lingcod; the lion's mane
jellyfish is one of the largest jelly-
fish species in the world; lingcod are
top predators of the park; hooded
1111111 will
nudibranchs filter -feed in eelgrass;
a sailfin sculpin comes out at night.
Bottom, from left: A burrowing green
anemone sits in the sand; a cabezon
�..•
rests atop eggs; a predatory moon
snail has drilled a hole through this
butter clam's shell; the giant plumose
anemone looks like a flower but is
a voracious predator; a white -lined
dirona nudibranch on red algae.
�f
M•
•Fv
S
AW
le
4
M
7__i
�•x
F
OC
4
—
r
w�
•3
r •
541APRIL 2021 SCUBA DIVING.CUM
— Packet Pg. 407
THE COOL KIDS
Annie Crawley —a PADI
AmbassaDiver who is a Scuba
Diving monthly training colum-
nist as well as this story's pho-
tographer —has run a dive team
in the Pacific Northwest since
2013. Edmonds Underwater
Park is one of the group's favor-
ite training sites. More than 60
families have participated, and
many contributed to the park's
new website at edmondsunder
waterpark.com.
Her team's youngest diver is
10; the oldest has graduated from
college and is a divemaster.
Twelve -year -old Santiago
Ramirez started blowing bubbles
two years ago. He's now a junior
PADI rescue diver who enjoys
macro photography and can navi-
gate the park by compass. "I speak
up for the ocean because it helps
our world live," he says. "It gives a
lot of things in life. It gives us food,
water and good times."
Crawley and her crew also
travel to dive —in nonpandemic
times —but remain passionate
about the EUP. "We want people
to realize the importance of this
marine reserve, so Edmonds
and the Department of Natural
Resources continue to support
it," Crawley says. "We have to
take care of our backyard."
56/APRIL 2021 SCO BAD IV ING. COM
As a dive volunteer at Edmonds Underwater
Park for the past 43 years, Bruce Higgins has
overseen numerous projects, such as helping
to restore the site's native kelp beds.
>> Cont'd from pg. 53
which can wind divers new to the EUP.
But the main safety consideration is
avoiding the Edmonds Ferry Terminal.
Volunteers have made that easy, build-
ing trails and enticing features leading
north, away from it.
Expect a workout if you rock up for a
park steward dive —they're not unoffi-
cial tours. Volunteers lug lift equipment
and materials down to the shore, in addi-
tion to their own kit. Afterward they must
kick all the gear back to the beach and re-
verse that odyssey. "Those rock piles, rail
ties, culvert pipes, cement blocks and
ropeways don't get there by themselves,"
Schacher says. "I dive a drysuit, but lots
of times my undergarments get wet. It's
not because I have a leak; it's because I
work so hard that I sweat!"
Fancy a descent that burns fewer cal-
ories? Schacher recommends explor-
ing the EUP as the sun descends. "All the
structures make night diving special, and
the trails make navigation easier." (A per-
mit is required for night diving but is easi-
ly obtained from the city of Edmonds.]
BIRTH OF A SUPERHERO
Bruce Higgins never set out to be a dive
legend.
"As an undergrad, I ended up work-
ing as an electronics specialist and sort
of a scientific liaison on a research ves-
sel that had some dive operations going
on. I thought that would be a good thing
to add to my repertoire. So the following
year, when the University of Michigan had
its first big scuba program, I was able to
sign up and complete that in 1970."
Eventually Higgins shifted into a dive -
safety officer role for the Great Lakes
Research Division. He went on to grad
school at Oregon State in the ocean en-
gineering department.
"I wanted to stay in the Northwest, so
I ended up teaching oceanography and
electronics at Shoreline Community Col-
lege,"just north of Seattle.
In 1976, the state wanted to build a
fishing pier in the adjacent city of Ed-
monds and needed to reroute divers from
the area next to the port. A university ac-
quaintance was tasked with making the
A�
*PSI Packet Pg. 408
structural components work and roped
him in. Tragically, as the planning moved
forward, the underwater park had a cou-
ple of fatalities, so the mayor formed a
safety committee.
Dive training and gear were still in
their nascent stages, Higgins explains.
Fortunately he knew how to help make
diving in the area safer —and had willing
hands to start making that happen. To-
gether they strung buoys to better sep-
arate boaters from divers, and helped
install rest floats funded by the scuba
community.
Since then, hundreds have joined his
push to improve the park. They've tak-
en a variety of approaches: structures
that attract marine life, mitigation reefs
that restore habitat, and diver reefs for
the sheer joy of exploration. "One size
doesn't fit all," he says. "It's kinda like
when you go to an art museum and say,
'I don't like that photo or painting, but
I like this one.' We've tried to do a wide
range of stuff."
Higgins has taken a hyper -focused —
some might even say "Zen hermit" —
approach to the EUP. "I'm getting worse,"
the recent retiree laughs. "I dive the park
58/APRIL 2021 SCUBAU IV ING. CUM
5.A.b
A kelp crab hangs from a marker buoy line with
the catch of the day: a lion's mane jellyfish.
Opposite: A young diver attempts to pull a
sword from a stone sunk at the park.
every day and pretty much only dive the
park, aside from an annual trip to Salt
Creek Recreation Area in Port Angeles,"
85 miles northwest of Seattle.
"In 2020, 1 did the math and discov-
ered I only made 351 dives in the park.
I got aced out for almost two weeks.
My truck didn't have snow tires on it,
so I couldn't drive anywhere. But I did
walk to the park so I could see what was
going on!"
Once he finally got underwater, he
Bruce Higgins has
taken a hyper -
focused —some
might even say "Zen
hermit" —approach
to the EUP.
discovered that a LIO-foot tree had
whooshed down the Snohomish River,
its giant root ball wiping out one of the
buoys. That type of damage is routine
in the Pacific Northwest —he's also seen
boats and their detached equipment land
in the EUP during rough storms. Higgins
and his team return the gear and overlook
emergency encroachments on the ma-
rine sanctuary, where possible. "I never
want to punish people who are trying to
be safe and do the right thing," he says.
"Plus, we already have a 500-pound Dan-
forth anchor. We don't need two!"
In 2OD7, the city renamed the path
system the "Bruce Higgins Underwater
Trails" to honor the work of the man it ac-
knowledged as the "main force behind
the ever-expanding list of submerged
features and trails."
*NM Packet Pg. 409
5.A.b
From: Chiahizola. Bryn (Climate Protection)
To: Feser. Angie
Cc: LaFave, Carolyn; Nelson, Michael
Subject: PROS Plan Draft Comment
Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 10:37:31 AM
To: Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director
From: Mayors Climate Protection Committee
The committee recommends that climate change be an important component of the
city's Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) plan that is currently in draft form.
City Council Resolution 1170 addresses environmental principles. It calls for the
city to play a leadership role in the community for addressing climate issues. The
updated PROS plan can help demonstrate that leadership role.
Both the impact that climate change will have on parks and how the Parks,
Recreation, and Cultural Services department can reduce greenhouse gas emissions
are important considerations.
Examples of issues that could be addressed are:
The effect of sea surface rise on parks along Puget Sound shorelines.
Carbon sequestration through tree planting in existing parks and in new open
space park areas.
• Emission reductions through conversion of the park maintenance equipment and
fleet to electric.
Encouraging pedestrian access to parks.
The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is an important goal for our city.
Planning for a changing climate and implementing the city's sustainability
initiatives can be guided by the PROS plan.
We look forward to reviewing the next draft.
Packet Pg. 410
5.A.b
From:
Haslam, Carrie
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: Add SWCP
Date:
Thursday, February 3, 2022 1:44:55 PM
Angie for review.
From: Michael Kealy <mkealy@windermere.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:48 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Add SWCP
Please consider adding SWCP to the roster for your upcoming meeting. I'm sure (at least I hope)
others have outlined all the specific reasons why it should be included. So I will not make this a
lengthy message. I just want to add my support since I am a regular user of the park.
Michael Kealy
17922 Talbot Rod
Edmonds, WA 98026
mkealy(@windermere.com
Packet Pg. 411
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces Plan
Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:26:32 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Stephen Lacy <stephlac@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 5:17 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces Plan
Dear City of Edmonds,
As an Edmonds resident, I thank you for completing this draft under the challenging
circumstances of the pandemic. I would also like to voice my concern over several
items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size,
Edmonds has roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the
three additional parks proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The
plan lists the GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address
them. The plan needs specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands,
and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and
managed as such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible
way. The creek should be able move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have
its surface connection to Puget Sound restored.
The plan should include a clear statement that parks and natural areas are not
to be used as treatment facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff
is the primary source of water pollution and increases in peak flows that erode
streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the
city and the City should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -
leash dog area at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the
Puget Sound according to the Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in
Packet Pg. 412
5.A.b
the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these
recommendations. The plan should include a discussion of available funding, how
much additional funding is needed, and specific recommendations on where to get
additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations
should not be allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the
site for open space, tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be
independent because a Parks Director can be pressured by other appointed or
elected officials.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful
consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Stephen Lacy
Packet Pg. 413
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Do not overlook SWCP on your agenda!
Date: Thursday, February 3, 2022 7:21:09 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Michelle Leonatti <mleonatti67@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Do not overlook SWCP on your agenda!
Please add a discussion of acquiring Southwest County Park to your next discussion of Parks in
Edmonds. We need more green space and this park fits the bill. Look to our future and
consider taking over this park from the County - we have volunteers who want to make it work
sustainably.
Thanks,
Michelle Leonatti
15515 75th Place West, Edmonds
610-608-7285
Packet Pg. 414
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:27:07 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Gayle Olsson <golssonl9@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 7:53 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Draft PROS Plan Feedback
Please include SW County Park in your considerations for Edmonds Parks. This area is a valuable
resource in the community with many needs for support as it offers the community an opportunity
for exploration through the trails and exposure to many natural benefits.
There is an active group working to support the health of this park — eliminating noxious weeds on a
weekly basis (Saturday AM's). Including this location in the Edmonds Parks would benefit Edmonds
residents as well as preserve the park for us now and into the future.
Thank you,
Gayle Olsson
206-719-1535
Packet Pg. 415
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces (PROS) Plan
Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:29:44 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Bronwen Bradshaw-Balmos <brondo7@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 7:14 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces (PROS) Plan
Dear City of Edmonds,
Edmonds is a place I cherish for its natural beauty and open space. As a frequent visitor, I
thank you for completing this draft under the challenging circumstances of the pandemic. I
would also like to voice my concern over several items in the plan.
Edmonds needs more parks and open space. Compared to cities of similar size, Edmonds has
roughly half the national average for acres of parks. I'm in favor of the three additional parks
proposed in this plan, but it is not enough.
The plan needs more specifics regarding streams, wetlands, water quality. The plan lists the
GMA's goals, but only speaks in broad generalities in how to address them. The plan needs
specific recommendations regarding our streams, wetlands, and water quality.
The Edmonds Marsh should be restored to a fully -functioning estuary and managed as
such. Willow Creek should be "daylighted" in a biologically responsible way. The creek should
be able to move as it naturally would, and the marsh should have its surface connection to
Puget Sound restored.
The plan should be explicit that parks and natural areas are not to be used as treatment
facilities for roadway runoff. In Edmonds, roadway runoff is the primary source of water
pollution and increases in peak flows that erode streams and damage fish habitat.
There is a deficiency of parks in the north end of the city that the plan does not
address. There are no recommendations for additional parks in the north end of the city and
the city should look into available options there.
The plan needs to address the pollution issue at Marina Beach Park. The off -leash dog area
Packet Pg. 416
5.A.b
at the Marina Beach Park has the highest bacterial counts in the Puget Sound according to the
Department of Ecology. This needs to be addressed in the plan.
The plan needs information on the funding available for these recommendations. The plan
should include a discussion of available funding, how much additional funding is needed, and
specific recommendations on where to get additional funding.
An independent panel should review right-of-way vacations. These vacations should not be
allowed until an independent panel finds that there is no potential of the site for open space,
tree retention, trail, or pocket park. The panel should be independent because a Parks
Director can be pressured by other appointed or elected officials.
Edmonds is a special place. I have many fond memories both as a child and with my own
children, visiting Marina Park and exploring the tide pools. It's so important to preserve and
restore these natural areas as well as create more public park spaces for the benefit of the
community and those visiting, who are spending their money in the city.
Thank you for your work to improve our parks and open space, and thoughtful consideration
of my comments.
Sincerely,
Bronwen Bradshaw
Packet Pg. 417
5.A.b
From: Lien, Kernen
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds Marsh Restoration - City"s Draft PROS Plan
Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 4:30:52 PM
From: Craig Feyk <cfeyk@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Marsh Restoration - City's Draft PROS Plan
I was appalled to learn that the Director of City's Parks, (Angie Feser) thinks that the Edmonds
community is not strongly supportive of the Edmonds Marsh restoration and to downplay the
importance of it's restoration. The Marsh is one of the outstanding features of Edmonds and I have
consistently supported Mayoral candidates and council members who have pledged to aid in that
effort. Sadly Mayor Nelson, and now the Parks department have little to nothing towards restoring
the Edmonds Marsh and daylighting it's connection to Puget Sound. I hope this letter let's you know
that this Edmonds citizen has *not* moved away from environmental support and want the Marsh
restoration to proceed as quickly as possible.
Please ensure the City's PROS Plan reflects the importance of Marsh restoration.
Regards,
Craig Feyk
Edmonds, WA
Packet Pg. 418
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Opportunities to Participate in Planning for the Future of Edmonds Parks and Recreation
Date: Thursday, February 3, 2022 7:18:16 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: john brown <brownrjohn@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 9:32 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPIan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Opportunities to Participate in Planning for the Future of Edmonds Parks and Recreation
Hello. I am writing in support of the Southwest County Olympic View Park and the whole ravine park area
where the Perrinville stream flows. I don't really care if it's maintained but I do care very strongly that it's preserved
The park listed on the website seems to only take into account the land south of Olympic View Drive. The whole
ravine area north is beautiful and should be preserved.
Thankyou
John Brown
Packet Pg. 419
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Please add Southwest County Park to roster
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 6:34:32 PM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Sean Gwizdak <sgwizdak@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 6:28 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please add Southwest County Park to roster
H i,
Southwest Country Park is a 120 acre park in Edmonds that has played a historical role in the
development of the Edmonds shingle industry and a is a hidden community gem.
Currently the park is in a state of neglect, but the city has no control over it. The Perrinville Creek
watershed has serious erosion issues, which, for instance, led to Talbot road being blocked by sand
from the creek last winter. In its current state it is also impossible for Salmon to run up the creek.
There is no map, which makes it difficult to use and navigate the park - most visitors stay on the
south side of Olympic View Drive.
There are invasive plants, but an active volunteer community has come together to try to keep the
park in order.
My neighbors and I want Edmonds to make this an official park and hopefully to encourage
restoration of this open space.
Thank you for collecting public comments.
Sean Gwizdak
Packet Pg. 420
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: PROS Plan comment supporting free acquisition of SWCP
Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:41:20 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Selena Bolotin <selenabolotin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PROS Plan comment supporting free acquisition of SWCP
I recently made verbal public comments on the PROS draft Plan. This is a
modified version of those comments.
My name is Selena Bolotin, my background is a medical and psychiatric social
worker and I have lived in Edmonds for 34 years. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on the draft Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. In reading
the draft plan I see very little reference to the assets and value of SWCP,
because it is a Snohomish county park within the Edmonds community. I
support acquisition of SWCP as it is in full alignment with the goals of the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) draft plan, under the open space goals. M-[
understanding is that Snohomish County has wanted to transfer SWCP to
Edmonds at no cost. I understand that there would be maintenance costs
associated with managing the park, but these would be far less than developed
arks.
Acquiring the 120 acre SWCP forest would increase Edmonds overall park
acreage of 230 acres by 50%. Within the open use category, land would
increase from 76 to almost 200 acres. Edmonds should acquire the park to be
in control of the social, health and environmental assets of this park.
The park is currently neglected. There are only two official trails within the
park but a multitude of social trails which are confusing to users and create
erosion. The park also includes the Perrinville Creek watershed with extensive
eroded areas. Edmonds has been focused on problem solving water run-off
and flooding in Talbot Park and should have control over the upstream
watershed to be most effective. Maintenance of this undeveloped park would
be minimal compared to other developed parks in the Edmonds system.
Acquiring the park would meet many of the goals outlined in the PROS Plan
under the Open Space categories. The draft plan states in numerous sections
that increasing open space acreage is a priority. The public survey rated
Packet Pg. 421
5.A.b
walking and running as an important use of park land and we have seen hiking
gain in popularity locally and nationally. Historic and newer calculations in the
Level of Service Assessment included in the draft plan show Edmonds to have a
deficit of open space acreage. Additionally closing the gaps on the travel shed
maps would be significant with SWCPs inclusion.
I have removed invasive plants from the park as a volunteer for the past several
years. I see families hiking these trails, teaching kids the joys of a wooded
path. During the Christmas snow I walked the trails and could easily have been
in the Cascades, as it is a space big enough for old growth trees, wildlife and
quiet reflection. This huge open space park is a gem for which Edmonds
currently gets no formal credit, and has no authority to improve for the current
and future benefit of its citizens and environment. I encourage you to add
acquisition of SWCP as a goal in the PROS plan.
Thank you, Selena Bolotin
Packet Pg. 422
5.A.b
From:
Lien, Kernen
To:
Feser, Anaie
Cc:
McLaughlin, Susan
Subject:
FW: BAD NEWS - City"s draft PROS Plan
Date:
Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:38:03 PM
Attachments:
SOM Comments on PROS Plan.Ddf
From: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:35 PM
To: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com>
Cc: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS - City's draft PROS Plan
Attached are the SOM comments on the PROS Plan previously sent to the Parks Dept. Director and
Planning Board.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 12:10 PM Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh(@gmail.com> wrote:
Please see Angie Feser's responses below (she is current Director of City Parks) that clearly show
she has formed a strong opinion that "community values" have changed in Edmonds (away from
environmental support) based on her contractor's biased survey and total lack of input or
'listening' to nature and wildlife enthusiasts' in Edmonds. How can Angie say "community values
have changed' when she has only been in Edmonds less than 2 years and obviously didn't observe
the huge public reaction and people coming out of the woodwork when Brackett's Landing Park
was threatened by the Connector project.
Angie's view that Marsh is low priority is based on ONE survey question that focused on large
amount of Edmonds taxpayer dollars for the Marsh - which is really biased both in terms of
Edmonds taxpayer costs (since most of the costs would be from large grant programs, not out of
citizen pockets as it would be for purchasing private property for playgrounds) and the fact that
we don't know what it will cost to obtain the Unocal property - it could be free if our State
legislature is successfully lobbied in that direction.
Why were the SOM comments early on in the PROS Plan update process ignored, and why was
the SOM, Bird Fest Committee and/or Pilchuck Audubon, Demo Garden, fishing organizations, and
nature enthusiasts excluded as stakeholders in the update process and interviews?
Her recent memo to the Planning Board (see PB agenda for their Feb 9 meeting) was appalling in
her defense of the deficient PROS Plan update. Is she not listening to public comments?
So, the question is, how do we change Angie's opinion before she fosters more neglect of our
natural areas and especially the City's hidden gem - the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary.
It's going to be a huge uphill battle to get state and federal grant funds to restore the Edmonds
Marsh -Estuary if the City's own documents (i.e., the PROS Plan) play down the importance of
Packet Pg. 423
5.A.b
natural areas and wildlife to our community. The PROS Plan must emphasize the importance and
priority for bringing back salmon to the Marsh and our creeks in order for the City to compete
successfully with grant applications to the RCO (which supposedly is one of the purposes of this
PROS Plan and the basis for the March deadline for completion).
Please share this E-Mail with others who may be concerned about the direction taken with the
PROS Plan update.
Please write to the Edmonds City Council - council(@edmondswa.gov and the Planning Board -
Planning(@edmondswa.gov and express your views on requiring changes to the draft PROS Plan
to resolve its deficiencies. You may also want to provide 'oral' public comments at the Council's
Feb 8 and 15 public meetings, and the Planning Boards Feb 9 public meeting.
Forwarded message
From: Feser, Angie <Angie.Feseri@edmondswa.gov>
Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: Item 8-1
To: Buckshnis, Diane <Diane. Buckshnis(@edmondswa.g_ov>
Cc: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marshPgmail.com>, Marjorie Fields
<mvfields(@me.com>, Council <Council(@edmondswa.gov>, Burley, Shannon
<Shannon.Burley(@edmondswa.gov>, Steve Duh <Steve(@conservationtechnix.com>, McLaughlin,
Susan<susan.mclaughlin(@edmondswa.gov>
Councilmember Buckshnis,
Please see responses below -
Angie Feser I Director I She/Her
Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell)
Website I Facebook I Instagram
The Frances Anderson Center remains closed to the public due to COVID-19. All parks,
trails, beaches and open spaces in Edmonds are open at this time, please recreate
responsibly.
Packet Pg. 424
5.A.b
-----Original Message -----
From: Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis&edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser&edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh&umail.com>; Marjorie Fields
<mvfieldsna me.com>
Subject: Item 8-1
Good Morning
Thank you for the complete packet. I have a number on of global issues and have used the
compare and contrast issues from last PROS plans which did include CM and Planning
Board Members in their open houses. I realize zoom has limited open houses. These are in
new particular order.
1. the goals and objectives found in chapter four are different than goals and objectives
included in 2016.
The goals and objectives in the Plan are reflective of the current Edmond community
priorities related to parks, trails, open spaces and recreation facilities and programs
found through the community engagement process. The intent of this planning
process is to ascertain what the community wants for the future of their park system
and recreation and cultural arts programming. Changing goals demonstrates the
changing priorities of a community.
2. many items under the goals have been removed which mayor may not be warranted and
how were these items determined and do the items and goals cover all the issues in City's
main comp plan
Again, changing community goals reflect changing community priorities and as
noted below in question #4, the PROS Plan aligns with and, by reference, is a part
of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. environmental and conservation issues seem to be missing in many goals - why?
Environmental and conservation issues are found throughout the document; in the
goals and objectives sections #3, #S and #8 and in key recommendations. For
example, in the Stewardship Section starting on page 84, the Plan narrative
addresses system -wide stewardship, the impacts of water conservation, plant
Packet Pg. 425
5.A.b
selection, invasive species management and stormwater management within the park
system of City -owned and managed properties.
PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE
Goal 3: Provide an interconnected park system that offers a wide variety of year-round
recreation opportunities and experiences which support and enhance Edmonds'
cultural identity and the natural environment.
Objectives:
3.7 Develop City -owned or maintained park and open space sites based on master plans,
management plans or other adopted strategies to ensure parks reflect local needs,
community input, recreational and conservation goals and available financial resources.
NATURAL RESOURCE & HABITAT CONSERVATION
Goal 5: Conserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation,
recreation, and environmental education.
Objectives:
5.1 Preserve and protect areas with critical habitat or unique natural features, including
but not limited to wetlands, stream corridors, tidelands, estuaries, beaches, forests and the
Underwater Park.
5.2 Work cooperatively with property owners and developers to preserve habitat and
native vegetation, especially when these provide visual or physical linkages to publicly -
owned natural resource lands.
5.3 Support the implementation of the Urban Forestry Management Plan.
5.4 Pursue opportunities to provide appropriate public access (e.g. trails, viewpoints and
wildlife viewing areas) within open spaces to support passive recreation and environmental
education.
5.5 Provide environmental educational opportunities in natural areas with interpretive
signage, nature trails and related experiences.
5.6 Cooperate with the County, neighboring jurisdictions and other organizations to
identify and conserve open space of mutual benefit, and pursue funding through grants
and the Snohomish County Conservation Futures program.
Goal 8 Maintain and operate a modern, efficient park system that provides a high level
of user comfort, safety, and aesthetic quality, and protects capital investments.
8.2 Develop, maintain and update asset management plans for major assets to support
improved stewardship, reduce costs, and increase maintenance and replacement
efficiency.
8.3 Incorporate sustainability and low impact development into design, development and
maintenance of the park system and be a leader in sustainable building practices.
8.4 Utilize, as appropriate, native and lower -resource requiring vegetation for landscaping
in parks and city owned properties to minimize maintenance requirements, and control
invasive vegetation through removal and other environmentally responsible means.
8.7 Encourage and promote volunteerism from a variety of individuals, service clubs, local
watershed councils, steward groups, faith organizations and businesses to enhance
community ownership and stewardship of parks, trails, and open space.
Packet Pg. 426
5.A.b
Key Recommendation #2 - Open Space & Conservation Acquisitions states "The City
should continue to seek options to expand its open space holdings and pursue acquisitions
that adjoin city properties or conserve unique natural areas, such as wetlands, forested
areas and vistas. Riparian corridors with their adjacent wetlands should be protected more
actively and eventually undergo any necessary restoration measures to ensure the
preservation of habitat and movement of wildlife along natural connections between
terrestrial and aquatic habitat".
4. 1 don't see many tracking language to ensure we are following our comp plan?
The City's Comprehensive Plan was reviewed, along with many other related city plans, in
the development of the PROS document. The PROS Plan is designed to function as an
element of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted by reference and adheres to Growth
Management Act guidelines. In addition, it supports, but does not replace or duplicate,
other city plans, initiatives, and policies, such as the Urban Forest Management Plan;
Community Cultural Plan; Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and the upcoming Climate
Action Plan. Implementation of those other plans may intersect at times with the
objectives of the PROS Plan, but each plan serves a unique policy and functional purpose.
5) how were the stakeholders determined?
The goal of the stakeholder interviews was to have a varied and diverse representation of
the Edmonds community including community partners, service groups, user groups,
business organizations in all areas of the city and members of the public. Interview details
and notes are found in Appendix E, page 197
Group Meetings (2)
Senior Center
Daniel
Johnson
Sno-King Youth Sports
Adam
Quaintance
Citizen/Retired Planner/People for Puget Sound
Bill
Derry
Edmonds Arts Commission
Ashley
Song
YMCA
Carolan
Cross
Mayor Conservation Advisory Committee
Lora
Hein
Youth Commission
Brooke
Rinehimer
Hwy 99 CBO/Chamber of Commerce
Jenna
Nand
Hwy 99 Business
Paxton
Hedges
Boys & Girls Club
Ken
Cooper
Edmonds Stewards
Greg
Ferguson
Edmonds Moms
Heather
Damron
Citizen/Special Needs Recreation
Renee
Kaufer
Diversity Commission and Rotary
Alison
Pence
Edmonds Garden Club
Tia
Scace
Packet Pg. 427
5.A.b
One on one interviews
Port of Edmonds
Edmonds School District
Community Member
Yost Pool
Korean Community Services Center
Thanks in advance -
Diane
Diane Buckshnis (she/her)
City Council Position #4
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council
PSP Salmon Recovery Council
Lake Ballinger Work Forum
Youth Commission
cell 425-275-7695
Angela
Harris
Matthew
Finch
Natalie
Seitz
Kirsten
Paust
Joombi
Kim
Packet Pg. 428
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park -- City of Edmonds six year plan for parks, recreation, and open spaces
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:32:11 AM
Angie for review.
From: mhthorsrud@frontier.com <mhthorsrud@frontier.com>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 6:03 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park -- City of Edmonds six year plan for parks, recreation, and open
spaces
We are long-time residents of Edmonds.
We enthusiastically recommend that the City of Edmonds add Southwest County Park to its
six year plan for parks, recreation, and open spaces.
We understand the county has wanted the city to take over the park for years. We believe it
should do so. It would add 120 acres of open space and trail miles that would be under the
city's control and could be integrated with other city amenities.
There are some places where soil erosion has blocked salmon runs. The county should have
addressed this. It hasn't. This presents the city with the opportunity to do what the county has
not and restore the runs so the salmon can get upstream.
Mark and Heidi Thorsrud
9303 192nd PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Pg. 429
5.A.b
From:
Lien, Kernen
To:
Feser, Anaie
Subject:
FW: Southwest County Park and the PROS plan
Date:
Monday, February 7, 2022 5:43:56 AM
Attachments:
Southwest County Park 2019 Expenditures.rtf
Southwest County Park 2021 Expenditures. rtf
Southwest County Park 2020 Expenditures.rtf
From: Mikael Ohman <mikael.h.ohman@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 8:35 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park and the PROS plan
There has been a lot of changes in the Edmonds government lately, and a lot of new faces. Change is
good, however I believe some of the knowledge accumulated has disappeared with the changes,
such as the details of discussions with Snohomish County about SWCP. I think it would behoove both
Edmonds and the County to discuss the park and the city -county relationship before the PROS plan is
finalized.
I have heard that there are concerns about the maintenance cost of Southwest County Park. To that
end, I reached out to the County and they provided me with the expenditures for the park for 2019 -
2021. The details may be hard to decipher, but the total expenditures for the park is very easy to
understand:
2019: $7,388:95
2020: $8,489:73
2021: $13,290:85
I hope you find this enlightening. I sure did.
Regards,
Mikael Ohman
Packet Pg. 430
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:29:33 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Debbie <debjsr@frontier.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 6:54 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park
I am writing to ask you to commit to bringing this property into the City of Edmonds park system. It
is a gem and the largest greenspace within Edmonds. Because of the Perrinville watershed and
salmon stream we need to insure good Stewardship going forward. Please consider this property as
a city park site. It not only is an historically significant tract of land but important environmentally.
Please consider this . Sincerely, Debra Rutherord
Sent from Mail for Windows
Packet Pg. 431
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park, Edmonds
Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:26:57 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: jerry.janacek@nm.com <jerry.janacek@nm.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: jerry.janacek@nm.com
Subject: Southwest County Park, Edmonds
To the Committee,
We are writing in support of funding for Southwest County Park. We live not far from it and utilize
it. It is beautiful and natural, but that is due to volunteers, some in our neighborhood. It needs way
more work to keep it up than any volunteer group can handle and keep it useful for Edmonds
residents. We worry that someday because of erosion problems along the road thru there, that a
tree may fall and hit a car or person. Trees are down all the time after bad weather. It is a beautiful
drive thru there and we would like to see it maintained properly. For the benefit of an amazing
green space, our local wildlife and birds, let alone the benefit to humans, We ask that you consider
funding for needed maintenance. We have noticed over the 35 years we have lived in Edmonds,
that trees and green spaces are rapidly diminishing. Please help us control and better utilize this
glorias space.
Sincerely,
Jerry and Barbara Janacek
19228 92nd Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 776-7753
Jerry F.Janacek
601 Union St., Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98101
P: 425 412-3387
C: 425 280-1534
0erry_janacekQnm.com
TR Northwestern Mutual'
Northwestern Mutual is the marketing name for The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI (NM) (life
and disability insurance, annuities and life insurance with long-term care benefits) and its subsidiaries. <FR NAME> is an
Insurance Agent of NM and Northwestern Long Term Care Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI (long-term care insurance),
Packet Pg. 432
5.A.b
a subsidiary of NM. Registered Representative of Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC (securities), a
subsidiary of NM, broker -dealer, member FINRA and SIPC. There may be instances when this agent represents companies
in addition to NM or its subsidiaries.
While links to other websites are provided for convenience and information, please be advised that except for information
related to Northwestern Mutual (NM), the inclusion of, or linking to, other websites does not imply NM endorsement of, nor
responsibility for, those websites.
Please do not send orders for mutual funds or securities via email, as they cannot be processed.
Your transmission of electronic mail to this address represents your consent to two-way communication by Internet
email. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer on which it
exists.
This is an advertisement for Northwestern Mutual.
Northwestern Mutual, its subsidiaries and affiliates may review and retain incoming and outgoing
electronic mail for this e-mail address for quality assurance and regulatory compliance purposes.
Please be advised that communications with {SECURE MESSAGE} in the subject line have been sent
using a secure messaging system. Communications that do not have this tag may not be secure and
could be observed by a third party. Our commitment to privacy: At Northwestern Mutual, your
privacy is important to us. For more information about our privacy practices, please review our
privacy notices.
If you prefer not to receive any educational or promotional emails for products and services from
Northwestern Mutual and your Financial Representative, unsubscribe.
Northwestern Mutual
720 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4797.
Packet Pg. 433
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:18:49 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Susan M Armstrong <sm_armstrong@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:06 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park
I am writing with a request that the Edmonds City Council consider including the
acquisition of Southwest County Park in the current PROSPIan. I have learned only
very recently from resident Mikael Ohman that this consideration was even an option
and I hope it isn't too late. I have not confirmed his assertion that Snohomish County
has wanted Edmonds to incorporate SWCP and its management into its park system,
but I was immediately struck by the value this park would add to the city. I walked the
trails of SWCP for many, many years with my dogs and those trails and the woods
that they traverse contributed greatly to my well-being. We are so fortunate to have
that kind of forest within our community.
I lived for thirty-six years on 94th Ave W, close to Hutt Park, another of our
community's treasures. It is also a park which is restricted from development and
committed to be a natural space forever. We cannot recreate that kind of space once
it has been overtaken by development. Accepting the Hutts' gift to the city with its
binding commitment created a haven within a neighborhood that is unequaled by
other parks. In recent years, great improvements were made by volunteers from
EarthCorps and assistance from neighbors. Removal of invasive ivy and planting of
native plants restore the natural elements as they were meant to be.
The Southwest County Park is an even more vast woodland that needs protection
and healthy oversight. If Snohomish County is willing to divest itself of the property I
cannot think of a better way for the city to invest in its park system. I would hope that
the issues of signage and trail maintenance could be easily addressed to make this
park more known to residents. A couple of years ago I moved to the north side of
SWCP and still see the numbers of walkers, especially since the onset of Covid, who
frequent the trails. I hear the coyotes and an occasional owl at night and I enjoy the
presence of eagles and herons in the surrounding area. I believe it is imperative that
we maintain this natural space for our own well-being. If Edmonds will incorporate
SWCP into its park system, what a lasting gift it will be to benefit generations to come
There is already a committed volunteer group, Edmonds Ivy League, led by Mikael
Ohman, who meet regularly to cull the invasive ivy and trash (and sometimes
treasures!) from the park. Perhaps another effort by EarthCorps or similar resources
Packet Pg. 434
5.A.b
can facilitate the improvements. The County has minimally maintained this park, but
Edmonds could invest in preventing the natural degradation that is becoming evident
and boast a natural area that will become evermore rare in the future.
(and then there's Perrinville Woods... please, please, please do not let that be
developed)
Thank you for your consideration.
Susan Armstrong
17121 Sealawn Dr
Edmonds 98026
Packet Pg. 435
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie; Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: SouthWest County Park
Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 1:56:45 PM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Bev Emerson <bev@olivetree-pd.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 1:54 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: SouthWest County Park
I'm curious about the PROS plan for Edmonds being considered, and wondering why SouthWest
County Park isn't on the list of open spaces being considered for protection. This is amazing space
that those of us in Perrinville and beyond use on a regular basis for trail walking, biking, and dog
walking. I'd hate to think that this huge area could become anything other than protected space.
SWCP is the largest park in Edmonds at 120 acres - it would increase our total park space by over
50% and our Open Space would grow from 76 acres to 196 acres. Currently the park is in a state of
neglect, but the city has no control over it. The Perrinville Creek watershed has serious erosion
issues, which, for instance, led to Talbot road being blocked by sand from the creek last winter.
In its current state it is also impossible for Salmon to run up the creek. There is no map, which makes
it difficult to use and navigate the park - most visitors stay on the south side of Olympic View Drive.
The lack of a (current) map also encourages social trails.
Would love to understand the plan more.
Best Regards,
Bev
Beverly Emerson
Owner, Olive Tree Product Development
Consultant, Catapult Commercialization Services
Consultant, Nuos Formation
www.olivetree-pd.com
www.catapultserv.com
c 425-478-7699
Packet Pg. 436
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Southwest County Park
Date: Thursday, February 3, 2022 7:21:41 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: David Johnston <davidjohnston8970@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:39 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Southwest County Park
I understand that Edmonds is in the process of developing a plan for it's parks. I also understand that
there are discussions about the Southwest County Park coming under the stewardship of Edmonds. I
think that is great news as I perceive that the County has undermanaged the Southwest County Park
for years. SWCP is a remarkable asset right in the middle of a densely populated area. It has so much
untapped potential.
Some reasons why I think SWCP should be at the top of Edmonds' park priorities:
• SWCP is the largest park in Edmonds at 120 acres - it would increase our total park space by
over 50% and our Open Space would grow from 76 acres to 196 acres.
• Currently the park is in a state of neglect, but the city has no control over it. The Perrinville
Creek watershed has serious erosion issues, which, for instance, led to Talbot road being
blocked by sand from the creek last winter. In its current state it is also impossible for
Salmon to run up the creek.
• There is no map, which makes it difficult to use and navigate the park - most visitors stay on
the south side of Olympic View Drive. The lack of a (current) map also encourages social
trails. This is a point of personal passion for me. I would gladly volunteer my time and
resources to lead an effort to develop a navigation system for the entire park.
• The park is underused, both because of the map situation and because it receives no
marketing. Even though it is in the middle of Edmonds, it is not mentioned on the city's
web site. This is strange to the point of bizarre.
• The park is of historical interest to the City of Edmonds, since it was part of the shingles
industry that built the city and there are still trails using those same 100+ year old paths,
but nothing is being done to retain or document that history.
• Invasive plants are slowly taking over (though there is strong volunteering activity trying to
address this).
• If the city takes over the park, it will add significant open space and trail miles. The city will
also, finally, own the destiny of the park and surrounding areas, and can integrate it with
other areas to make a holistic plan for our outdoor spaces, salmon preservation, etc.
Let's get things right on this park! It's overdue.
Thanks
Packet Pg. 437
5.A.b
David Johnston
610 213 5875
Packet Pg. 438
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Angie
Subject: FW: SW County Park
Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:26:22 AM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
-----Original Message -----
From: Dana Twight <dctwight@icloud.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 9:22 PM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: SW County Park
Good evening,
I've made one visit to this park and would love to see all of it, or some tasks added to the Edmonds parks agenda. I
really would appreciate better signage and way finding.
I have only made one visit due to the lack of signs and maps.
The heritage of this park and the location make it too important to ignore. Parks provide literal, health and
figurative benefits to us, the citizens.
Being a new resident of Edmonds, I am not certain about why the County is not allocating maintenance and
improvement resources. Perhaps the City and the County need to collaborate and coordinate use of staff, volunteers
and operating funds more.
Parks which are congruent within multiple jurisdictions shouldn't be subject to a lack of improvement when people
really need the mental and physical health benefits from exposure and participation to be generated.
Respectfully,
Dana Twight
Available by phone and video during telework and pandemic weeks.
Packet Pg. 439
5.A.b
To: Director Angie Feser
Subject: Comments on the draft 2022 PROS Plan
The Save Our Marsh (SOM) community group recommends the PROS Plan be revised to better reflect
the environmental responsibility and stewardship that the City of Edmonds should exemplify. City Parks
and Open Spaces should be managed to preserve and enhance natural areas for wildlife and people who
seek the "outdoor experience" in urban areas as well as providing community playgrounds where
applicable. The priority for open space acquisitions should be the enhancement and preservation of the
remaining natural areas in our City.
We request that the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary be clearly identified in the PROS Plan as the ONLY wildlife
reserve in this City and that the Plan recognize its unique status as one of the few remaining pocket
estuaries in Puget Sound. Acquisition of the old Unocal property using state and federal grant funds
should be a priority in the PROS Plan. The CFP table on page 117 should be revised to reference
acquisition of the Unocal property (not the Marsh which is already City owned).
As you should be aware, the City is undertaking a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process that will
redefine land use for the old Unocal property possibly under City ownership. The SOM has asked to
have the following goal replace the defunct ferry terminal relocation language in the Comp Plan and this
should be acknowledged and incorporated into the PROS Plan.
Establish a regional wildlife sanctuary and recreation area in public ownership on the
southern end of the Edmonds Waterfront that includes the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary, the
old Unocal property, and Marina Beach Park. The Sanctuary Area will be interconnected
with a tidal channel from Puget Sound to the Edmonds Marsh and nature trails, pedestrian
bridges, and boardwalks throughout all three areas for outdoor recreation, bird -watching
and nature viewing (including migrating salmon). The Marsh -Estuary will be restored to an
ecologically functional tidal wetland and the Regional Wildlife Sanctuary will be managed
for aquatic and avian wildlife protection and enhancement, outdoor recreation and
education, and other activities that can be accomplished consistent with and as secondary
uses to wildlife conservation.
We also request that a Responsible Environmental Leadership Goal be added to the list of goals in the
PROS Plan as follows.
Goal 9: Manage parks and open spaces to improve environmental conditions for the local and
regional community.
Objectives:
9.1 Establish goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for park operations and take steps to meet
those goals by converting the vehicle fleet from gas/diesel to electric.
9.2 Improve stream water quality by stabilizing eroding stream banks with riparian vegetation,
removing barriers to salmon passage and remnant concrete structures in Shell Creek.
Packet Pg. 440
5.A.b
9.3 Increase carbon storage by adopting an annual plan that specifies the numbers, locations, and
kinds of trees to be planted consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan and expand park
areas that can support tree canopies.
9.4. Evaluate the impact of rising sea levels on marine parks and take steps to prepare for those
impacts.
9.5 Create a comprehensive Edmonds Estuary restoration plan that includes removal of invasive
plants, restoration of functional flow channels, addition of the UNOCAL/WSDOT property, and
placing an open tidal channel between the Marsh and Puget Sound.
9.6 Replace invasive plants with native plant communities that benefit native insects, amphibians,
birds, fish, and mammals and support community volunteers to conduct the work.
9.7 Prepare for intensifying storm and drought conditions caused by climate change by evaluating the
construction of settling ponds in the upper watersheds of local creeks.
9.8 Improve pedestrian and bike access to the parks along with providing safety, education, and
health information.
9.9 Manage the use of pesticides and herbicides to prevent harm to park visitors, fish, wildlife, reptiles
and amphibians.
9.10 Restore natural areas to ecologically functional condition.
We found that the assessment of needs in Parks and Open Spaces is woefully deficient in addressing
restoration and enhancement of natural functions that we, as a society, should be preserving in our
Parks. For example:
• The Edmonds Marsh-Estuary/Wildlife Sanctuary is in dire need of restoration and that should
be spelled -out in the Plan. The SOM (a stakeholder) sent you a list of community driven
restoration objectives that should be included in the PROS Plan.
• The `valley' in Yost Park is suffering from serious erosion on the bluffs, tree loss, lack of
succession, eroded streambed and riparian area from excess stormwater inputs into the Park,
stream blocking concrete structures causing serious streambank erosion - - and none of these
environmental problems nor possible `fixes' are even mentioned in the Plan.
• The City's Willow Creek property near the Hatchery has eroded banks and siltation buildup
(from excess stormwater) to the point that no discernable creek channel or streambed exists
any more in the lower area.
The PROS Plan should be explicit on exactly where and how many trees will be planted to fulfill the City's
obligations under the Urban Forest Management Plan. This should be included in the CFP on page 117.
The CFP table on page 117 needs accompanying text that describes exactly what is proposed to be done
with the dollars proposed over the 6-year period for each item listed The CFP table or accompanying text
should also reference where in the document the reader can find the discussion of the priority for the item
as compared to other (unfunded) needs identified in the assessment section of the document. The
Master Plan Development for the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary should be changed to "Comprehensive
Restoration and Enhancement Plan" (the Marsh is zoned as Open Space not Master Plan development
as stipulated for the old Unocal property).
Lastly, we are troubled that the draft is extremely difficult to follow and understand what is actually being
planned or recommended(?) and the basis for doing some things and not others. Use of the terms "could
be implemented" "could be added" "would be helpful" leaves the reader wondering what is actually
planned and what is a `wish list' that will not be implemented. We are also concerned that some aspects
of the survey responses are priorities and others are left silent. We caution how much emphasis is
placed on developing actions or priorities based on responses to certain survey questions and not others.
Packet Pg. 441
5.A.b
It is known that the construct of survey questions can and do bias the survey results. Where and when
the surveys/interviews were conducted (e.g., near Hwy 99 verses at Edmonds City Park, the Marsh, or
the waterfront) can also cause bias in results.
Packet Pg. 442
5.A.b
From:
Selena Bolotin
To:
Feser. Angie
Subject:
SWCP maintenance costs
Date:
Sunday, February 6, 2022 3:49:34 PM
Attachments:
Southwest County Park 2021 Expenditures.rtf
Southwest County Park 2020 Expenditures. rtf
Southwest County Park 2019 Exoenditures.rtf
Dear Ms Feser,
I am in favor of having Edmonds acquire Southwest County Park as a goal in the PROS draft
plan. I have heard that the primary barrier to the City of Edmonds taking ownership of
Southwest County Park is the maintenance cost. Please see the attachments below which are
the last three years of county expenses for the park. The range is 8K to 13K per year. This is
an extraordinary low cost for maintenance and I don't see this as a significant barrier for
Edmonds acquiring the park, especially when it significantly improves the stats on open space
and household distance to a park area. Obviously Edmonds would want to budget increased
funds to make the park more useful to its citizens, but project budgets could be gradually
stepped over several years and a robust volunteer stewardship component could be promoted.
I wonder also about the possibility of obtaining other grant funding for an open space of this
size to support the environmental aspects in particular, (like watershed for example).
Sincerely,
Selena Bolotin
Edmonds citizen
-------- Original message --------
From: "Peterson, Carol" <Carol. Peterson&co.snohomish.wa.us>
Date: 2/2/22 8:03 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Trofimczuk, Tony" <Tony.Trofimczuk(2co.snohomish.wa.us>, "Husby, Jeremy"
<Jeremy.Husby&snoco.org>
Subject: RE: SWCP maintenance costs?
Hi Tony,
Here are the expenditures for SWCP over the last 3 years. Hopefully this is what you were looking for
Carol Peterson I Fiscal Resource Analyst
Snohomish County Conservation and Natural Resources I Parks & Recreation
6705 Puget Park Drive, M/S 303 1 Snohomish, WA 98296
O: (425) 388-6605 1 F: (425) 388-6645 1 carol. peterson&snoco.org
Packet Pg. 443
5.A.b
c
a
w
L
NO
LPL
a
a�
u
Q.
c
m
a
O
08
c
0
:r
m
L
V
N�
LPL
L
a.
N
N
O
N
ti
N
O
t
3
O
L
t
ti
O
O
N
N
O
N
E
O
L
V
E
O
L
W
N
m
E
W
C
R
d
O
d
r
R
L
E
u
2
r
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 444
5.A.b
From: Ron Eber
To: Feser, Anaie
Cc: Marjie Fields; Greg Ferguson; joe scordino
Subject: Suggestion for PROS Revisions
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:46:08 AM
Attachments: EDMONDS MARSH AMENDMENTS with Joe Edits[14467].docx
Angie: Good morning. It is our understanding that you are considering some revisions to the draft
PROS plan and we want to provide you with some suggestions about the Marsh for your
consideration.
They are specific to certain pages and sections of the draft. One is a proposed new objective to Goal
5 and the others are to the Appendix A Assessments for the Marsh on page 141. The attachment
has the specifics for these.
I hope you can work with these and if you have any questions, please feel to contact me or one of
the others copied with this email.
Ron Eber
Sent from Mail for Windows
Packet Pg. 445
5.A.b
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PROS PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO GOALS AND OBJECTIVES PAGE 24:
Add the following Objective for Goal 5: NATURAL RESOURCE & HABITAT
CONSERVATION
• 5.7 Develop a plan to restore the Marsh -Estuary to an ecologically functional
tidal wetland including the acquisition and use of the adjacent UNOCAL land and
their combined management as a wildlife sanctuary and recreation area;
AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 141:
EDMONDS MARSH
24.21 ACRES OPEN SPACE
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
Delete existing language and add the following
• Expand the Marsh -Estuary Wildlife Sanctuary to include the adjacent
Unocal property and enter into property purchase agreements as
necessary.
Develop a plan to restore the Marsh -Estuary to an ecologically functional tidal
wetland including acquisition and use of the adjacent UNOCAL land and their
combined management as a wildlife sanctuary and recreation area. The plan shall
include an open channel connection between the Marsh and Puget Sound, with
maximal wildlife buffer area and freshwater connections, improved wildlife and
fish habitat in the estuary and adjacent wetlands with optimal conditions for
salmon spawning migration, development of nature trails, elevated boardwalks,
and pedestrian bridges to connect Marina Beach Park and enhance environmental
education, outdoor recreation, bird -watching, viewing migrating salmon and the
natural areas of the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary and nearshore environment.
Maintenance Considerations:
• Check and repair ADA barriers to viewpoint/overlooks to remove uneven bumps
and paps.
• Develop maintenance and enhancement plans that utilize community volunteers
• Maintain viewing platforms and boardwalk and elevate and extend them
southward as necessary to enhance bird watching and prevent water damage
Packet Pg. 446
5.A.b
• Maintain native plants in buffer areas in natural condition to benefit wildlife
• Install benches and public binoculars on viewing platforms and along paved paths
• Continue management and control of invasive plant species especially along
Harbor Square.
• Monitor and control invasive plant growth in Shellabarger Marsh (east of Highway
104) and along Highway 104 corridor to preserve natural freshwater flow and
spread of invasive species into the Marsh -Estuary.
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
141
Packet Pg. 447
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: South West County Park
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:27:44 AM
Angie for review.
From: colleen eslinger <colleenesl@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:56 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: South West County Park
To Whom it may concern,
It has come to my attention that the city of Edmonds will be reviewing the 6 year Parks, Rec
and Open Space plan . I am writing to voice an interest that the city pursues a strong interest
in the SWCP. Maintaining open forested space that is within our city limits adds to the value of
our community. The ability to recreate out of doors has become increasingly evident the past
two years.
The SWCP trail system, particularly in the north side of the park, is quite neglected and many
social trails make it difficult to navigate the park. If the city were to take over the park,
Edmonds would have the ability to maintain and improve the park for its citizens. Resources
are thin everywhere, but this is an opportunity I feel the city should consider.
Thank you for your service and consideration,
Colleen Eslinger
Packet Pg. 448
5.A.b
From: Katy Bigelow
To: Haslam, Carrie; Feser, Angie
Subject: More on Brackett"s Landing park funding / PROS plan
Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:19:18 AM
Attachments: PROS Plan Comment One2.doc
Background notes 20220202.doc
Park Status Report 20210720.doc
Clarification Angie 20220120.doc
Hi Angie, I wanted to have a long conversation with Bruce prior to getting back to you and we
were finally able to meet up this past Saturday. He forwarded me some information that he
had sent and had with you (attached) and his feelings about providing the City with tasks or
issues that needed funding. He has many many times over decades documented the history
with working with the City harmoniously until now.
Now, to me as someone who has worked on budgets and understands how perhaps more
modern funding, input and resources are directed to projects, understand that the process of
hiring consultants, understand that asking for public opinion, having the staff rate the parks
use etc. are all for the purpose of laying a foundation for funding. Bruce does not believe the
park needs funding but many of us do. I actually totally understand his position - however, he,
local and non -local divers have documented and donated THOUSANDS of hours of work to
keep the underwater portion of this park going, functioning and improved, to be a state if not
world class dive site - this alone can be measured and compared to the input other parks have
received in terms of volunteer hours.
All of the PROS city data pointed to the beaches being top rated as where people visit and
want to see their dollars spent to improve. If not directly for the underwater portion of it, this
park desprately needs funding starting now specifically to address climate change impacts to
this park - the bathrooms are at if not soon below sea level, the vegetation was nearly wiped
out during our last high tide which also damaged the parking lot ... these things need future
vision and funding, not just the below portion. This is why I was shocked to hear there was no
funding and that the City was asking for Bruce to provide input... when these issues are so
clear.
Bruce wanted to be included, not just amassed into the general aggregate of popular ways of
getting public opinions - online polls. I know that City's have to be careful about basing their
tax dollar decisions on input but.. the City is missing the mark in a huge way with this park
and future planning for its maintenance let alone improvement.
I am happy to discuss this more on the phone but wanted to document this online as well.
Thank you for your time and consideration- Katy
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bruce Higgins <bruce.higgins&frontier.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 6:23 AM
Subject: Follow up from Saturday
To: arboristkaty&gmail.com
Katy,
Maybe I'm wrong but my understanding was this PROS Plan was to be the guide / direction and intent for
Packet Pg. 449
5.A.b
the Park System for the next 6 years. As you commented the public was interested in their beaches - per
the consultants. Yet not evidence of planning in that direction.
Inline with that I was hoping for a number of things;
Acknowledgement that the Edmonds Underwater Park would have needs in the next six years - (I'll come
back to this (A)).
I was hoping that in the format the swimmers and our effort might be included as a stakeholder and have
a chance to be interviewed for input - like the other groups back in August.
If the City wanted / desired / encouraged involvement by citizen groups there would be Planning - in the
PLAN - to encourage that.
For me this translates it is not about planning but the CIP effort of just spending money and getting
money.
My take also is that the consultants are not helping with planning but just documenting the status quo.
Attached includes:
Some Background on my thinking
Our Status Report from 2021. (sorry without a Park map the location of things my be hard for you to
puzzle out - I provided detailed maps to the City when I presented the report.)
my reaction to Angie's questions back from my email - [PROS Plan Comment was the original email}
Angie's questions were in blue and my response was in black in the Clarification. They are all word
documents.
The only reason I had included funding was for the City to have funds to address - the signs they will
need to restrict boating - or warn people to avoid the ferry terminal. They would be internal funds not
funds to support the volunteer effort (like in the 2008 PROS Plan).
To be clear we have never asked the City for funds but things like the lease renewal required the City to
hire a contractor to complete the paperwork of the various forms.
(A) We had requested replacing a vanished sailboat with a new one - placement in kind and it turns out
that was not allowed per DNR. Which was news to us. Anyways the vanished sailboat is still in need of
replacement. Seems blind eye to the need - I'm not stress it because it was a donation and we work
on donations.
I would think you might mention the open water swimmers range north of Caspers Street and that might
present a need to be addressed by the Plan.
Thanks for your attention.
Smile,
Bruce
Katy Bigelow
206.351.1375
www.katybigelow.com
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist®
International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist PN-6039B
PNW ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Registered Consulting Arborist® #490
Member - American Society of Consulting Arborists
Packet Pg. 450
5.A.b
Find me on Facebook!
Packet Pg. 451
Early Review Draft —July 2021
5.A.b
Edmonds Underwater Park Steward's 2020/2021 Status Report Bruce Higgins
Our tiered shared value approach for donating our cooperation with the City of Edmonds:
Safety — Security — Maintenance — Improvements
Our effort summary from mid 2020 into 2021: We are a volunteer group that hosts
about 100 routine work dives annually on Sat and Sun at 9 AM at the Edmonds Underwater
Park. This comes to over 1,500 hours annually of volunteer time by about 15 different
individuals. The driving force has been to have a safe and diverse dive site as park stewards
for the City of Edmonds.
Safety
Trails
2020 - Added block and rope to the extension of Glacier Way to connect south with Jetty
Way. The purpose was to allow divers the option to head north sooner to avoid going west —
deeper — before they head north to visit features.
2020 - Added four shorter concrete footers (taken from the Enhancement) and raised
two cast iron pipes along Jetty Way's north side to make the trail obvious during limited visibility
seasonal events and when the tide is higher.
2021 - Refreshed a segment on Rocky Road which had become buried by shifting
sands from the north.
2021 - Added small trail identification floats (67 in total) along Jetty Way which are
attached to the trail near the bottom to assist with finding the trail during limited visibility and
algae overgrowth that has been more common the past 4 years.
Having trails to assist diver navigation to and from Park features has been an important asset to
keep divers well north of the ferry terminal. The trails form a grid system which directs users to
arrive be near features not directly to the feature. Trails are concrete blocks connected by
multiple ropes in a magnetic north -south and east -west grid system.
Buoys
2020 — Replaced lost buoy at east end of Bashful Way.
2020 — Added second log and second anchor to floating log for current direction on
Happy as with larger floating wood a second anchor seemed prudent. Secured the prior log to
the bottom as it had sunk from marine life growth.
2021 - Re -moored the buoy at the Pontoon's north end since the prior system was worn
through. Then replaced the buoy with a new one since it was low in the water.
2021 - Replaced buoy lost at Shell Creek at the Boundary Ext W. which had chaffed
through.
2021 - Replaced buoy and anchor at Happy / Glacier intersection after failure of steel
eyed anchor.
Edmonds Underwater Park 2020/2021 Status Report pg. 1
Packet Pg. 452
Early Review Draft —July 2021
I 5.A.b I
2021 - Placed buoy at east end of Caspers Way near the pair of commercial crab pots
as backup anchors since boats have been entering from the north. This required a new suitable
anchor.
By having buoys to isolate divers from boaters as well as provide surface reference to the trail
system intersections aids in the diver experience. The buoys can provide a place to rest both
prior to submerging or on returning to the surface. Buoys also provide current direction
evidence so divers can plan for the surface current which could lead them toward the ferry. The
two surface current indicating buoys have a bright orange tail. A floating log along Happy Trails
also indicates the current direction. The near shore buoys let divers know where the trails begin
to minimize eel grass impact by focusing user impact into a smaller area.
The buoys help exclude poachers who wander into the Park. The Park is a no harvest marine
protected area in the State regulations but this is tempting to harvesters.
Signage
2021 - Trail Signage as an Eagle Scout Project along Erratic Way has been started but
seems to have a very slow pace. The expectation is that there will be 4 signs.
Having signage both on the surface and underwater including elevated intersection markers and
on -trail signs are passive guidance for divers. Visibility underwater can range from 3 feet to 30
feet which can make the 27 acres a navigation challenge. Some trails are distinctive but the
bottom can get covered by kelp and/or algae obscuring the trails. These past few years (since
2015) this has been a bigger issue with extensive near shore sea lettuce growth.
Security
Poaching
Commercial crab pots have been placed in the Park and we had one in 2020. Shorter seasons
had one commercial fisher trying to use our buoys as cover for his pots and we had the Police
respond and shoo them from the Park. Their pot was disabled and cycled into a trail anchor.
May 91" 2021 a group of 4 kayaks were poaching in the Park and the WDFW enforcement
responded to deal with the poachers. Not only were they in the Park but they were also fishing
as evidenced by them having catch net extended above their kayaks. They promptly departed
the Park. This was a rare case where WDFW could and did respond but the response took over
an hour. (Signage would be useful.)
Fishing in the Park is typically near the ferry slip with the relaxation of the Coast Guard ferry
boat escorts and along Caspers Way. We had depreciated the buoys there to stop attracting
divers to the south. Poaching from kayaks has been less frequent since there are fewer in the
Park since we have been more vocal with kayak launches in the Park. We often find pole
fisherman on the Park Jetty as the directions to the fishing pier are not clear. The recent
closure of the fishing pier set the stage for more wandering about to the fisherman.
Having the security component limits poaching as well as boaters causing user conflict issues
with divers. The Park's protected nature allows the lingcod to mature to their 35 plus year life
span and the rockfish to aim for their 70 plus year life span. Kayaks still remain an issue.
Edmonds Underwater Park 2020/2021 Status Report pg. 2
Packet Pg. 453 1
Early Review Draft —July 2021
I 5.A.b I
Invasive Tunicates
Ciona seems to be active in the late fall and over winter commonly in the Park. They seem to
prefer the west most features' east side. The most active area is the Pontoon and On -Edge 2
which as done well in 2020. Ciona was discovered and removed from the Pontoon spring of
2021 with more needing attention this summer.
2020 and 2021 - We have been conducting monthly Didemnum and Ciona efforts in a
pattern around the Park. This is on going with the Pontoon as one focus location.
2021 - Set up some Didemnum identifiers to aid a local scuba instructor in training
students how to identify the tunicate's various forms. My take is minimum serious interest but
we are attempting to put on a more training cap to raise awareness. Time will tell.
Didemnum has been mostly in remission since 2006 (original spotted in 2004) but did have
some active growth during this period. This tunicate has been evident on the ferry terminal piles
and also in the Port of Edmonds so expecting anything other than remission is beyond our
effort. The most active areas are Tube Henge, the Lopez Pontoon (and London Bridge), the
Slinky, and Cathedrals.
We'll just keep monitoring invasive species and take action seasonally. Don't be fooled as this
is a constant issue but unlike salmon and orca they don't have a loud voice. We are investing in
remission but alone we can't resolve this issue and we have been at it since 2004.
Boating entry
Signage has not been forth coming about kayaks entering the Park from Olympic Beach. They
short cut through the Park since going around the ferry means being offshore. This really is an
education issue and outreach needs to extend to Kayak groups.
Maintenance
Feature ReDair
2020- After a wind storm in early November we repaired fallen railroad tracks in the
Tube Henge. This area needed repair since one track had slid down an angled track and a
second track had bowed due to corrosion. We replaced the track into position and did some
upgrades so the track spans were now shorter than 30 feet. This repair effort will be on going
as this winter's storms shifted some things about.
2021 - Repaired four breaks in the Slinky which were exploited by the fall and winter
storms. The tubing was reconnected with patches which should extend its life for years to
come. This was the first repair in over 20 years so we hope for a continued successful life.
Repurposed some of the concrete culvert anchors out to the Lopez Pontoon.
2021 - Repaired some fallen Sleepy components which collapsed during the November
2020 wind storm. They were re -secured back into place as the line had worn.
Our expectation is that mostly the features are just subsiding into the sand over time. We
service what we can or repurpose the material. The wooden hulls have nominally vanished with
Edmonds Underwater Park 2020/2021 Status Report pg. 3
Packet Pg. 454 1
Early Review Draft —July 2021
5.A.b
only the Triumph having much wood left. Repairs made to Tube Henge last year have done
well but there is one remaining issue to the north which we will be addressing.
Buoys
2020- Need to add anchor pairs to the buoy at Happy / Rocky Road and Erratic / Rocky
Road as the anchors shifted during the November 2020 wind storm.
A few Buoys still need suitable anchors as we did double up some anchors as they can drag in
storms. The buoy anchors are typically to the SE of a trail intersection.
2020- One guy on the team has volunteered to service buoys as a snorkeler and get
them ready for winter. Our goal has been to knock off all the major marine life and to make
them last the winter storms as new growth of mussels and barnacles can cut our mooring. We
have had to pull some of the buoys to drain them so they can float higher in the water.
2020- The log we have for birds (harbor seal resting too) and as a current pointer was
refreshed in the fall 2020 with a second log segment. The prior log has sunk and has been
sunk as a carbon source.
2020- Added additional rocks north out near Richard's Cairn as we had a number of
days with the current against us. This came to about 4,000# just north of the cairn.
2020- We had a 40 foot tree pass by the Park's cautionary zone in Jan 2020 and snag
two buoys. We released the tree with a 10 foot root ball. After a number of dives in Fall of 2020
we replaced the anchor and reworked the trail segment which was dragged by this event with all
components back to nominal pre -damage condition.
Maintenance has changed over the years. Our shift to rocks and some concrete has changed
the effort since the material does subside into the sand especially in the southern Park. We
have also resorted to scant maintenance in the southern Park (south of Jetty Way) as to not
attract divers toward the Ferry terminal.
Improvements
Continued Efforts
From 2011 to present - Progress on Rocky Road's `rock wall' grew by 10 feet to
the south in late 2020 and 30 feet south in early 2021 with foundation rocks. Some larger rocks
were added to the existing foundation rocks. We have added cairns to the south on Rocky
Road to connect in to Centennial Way. We did add some patches to the wall's north end near
Bashful Way with about 2,000# of rocks. I suspect this effort will continue into the future for
some time. It has continued to bring kelp father south into the Park and has been successful
with rockfish and some shelter for the lingcod.
2020- Progress was made on "Steel Valley" — our connection between Jetty and
Cathedral Way along Glacier Way's path. We created a large Cairn — "Tro's Seamount" — about
mid -way between the two trails for the rockfish and lingcod. This came to about 25,000# of
rocks which some large ones placed on top. The fish seem to love this trail segment.
Edmonds Underwater Park 2020/2021 Status Report pg. 4
Packet Pg. 455
Early Review Draft —July 2021
5.A.b
2020- Replaced the repurposing of the cast iron pipe near the Culvert Feature with a
pile of rocks at the old site for a cairn. The cast iron pipe was placed along Jetty Way.
2020- Added a cairn with over 100,000# of rocks to the mid -point of Glacier Way
between Cathedral / Centennial Ways. This has been called Monster Island and is for the
rockfish and lingcod (our first lingcod nest was found there this past season).
2020-21 Added an obstacle course near Monster Island for diver training in buoyancy and
navigation.
2021 - Added rocks to east end of the "To -Shay" path to have a cairn — "Twin Peaks" -
with about 8,000# as the upgrade. We did up grade some of the cairns on "To -Shay" as
material became available. We also have laid out a draft path west of the Passages to become
"From -Shay" as a route to Tube Henge with one cairn foundation started along this path. We
are planning a cairn row like the "To -Shay" path parallel to Centennial Way. This will support
rockfish as well as navigation.
Kirby Johnson has been continuing his lingcod nesting counts with a dip in nests for the 2018-9
and 2019-20 seasons. Seemed to be about 80 males on about 85 nests but his survey
volunteers has been reduced again this season. The lingcod population is down in the 2020-21
season due to having more sea lions and harbor seals in the Park. The numbers are being
reviewed but this winter has had a noticeable higher number of harbor seals and sea lions with
noticeable lingcod heads in March and April on the beach from their feasting. Health issues
plus Covid decreased the lingcod survey effort. Kirby has also been reporting quarterly on the
starfish recovery. Again, his effort is limited due to his team size. He also has been submitting
the starfish data to a national database. Kirby reports marine life survey findings to REEF as
well.
Fall 2020 — Cooperated with Susan Babcock on data required for JARPA permitting for the
Underwater Park's lease renewal. Then again in May 2021 about some offshore questions
north of the Park (North of Caspers Street). We are encouraged the lease renewal is
proceeding.
Donation 2021 - We received some chimney bricks for foundation material placed along
Rocky Road for a future cairn. They don't pack well which is why we were interested in more
hiding spaces as foundation material.
Donation 2020 - We had a failed effort to secure a sailboat from the Sea Scouts as a
replacement for the Molly Brown. We will see the up to date lease terms when that becomes
available.
Donation 2020 - My truck was prowled and my dive computer / park paperwork / and
briefcase was lifted. The diving community chipped in to provide funds to replace my dive
computer and fund our inability to host our Pumpkin Carving Fundraiser in the fall (Covid related
cancelation). Some of the paperwork was returned to the Edmonds Underwater Sports.
Donation — on going Support from Edmonds Underwater Sports has continued and has
continued to be generous. Their hours have changed due to Covid which we have adapted to.
Edmonds Underwater Park 2020/2021 Status Report pg. 5
Packet Pg. 456
Early Review Draft —July 2021
5.A.b
Data from a late/2" d Kelp survey in 2020 by the Snohomish County MRC showed the bull kelp
bed was delayed in timing and close to the same size as the 2019 observations which are way
down since the monitoring started for the bull kelp bed in 2005. This data now seems to be
available from the Northwest Straits Initiative web site. This year the Park's kelp bed is much
smaller if at all.
Outreach
I've presented a briefing to a Dive Club about what is going on with the Park in 2020 via Zoom.
We had a meeting with the Boeing Seahorses Dive Club executive members at the Park late fall
2020 as they were diving the Park. Tro Ota also presented a briefing to the Marker Buoys Dive
Club via Zoom to try to encourage support of our volunteer effort.
Tro Ota became a Scuba Instructor late 2020 with a number of specialties. Many
congratulations and she is now spreading the word about the Underwater Park and its volunteer
stewardship effort.
James Middleton has posted some new Park videos on YouTube (search YouTube for
Edmonds Underwater Park Construction).
The Emerald Seas Dive Club is hosting occasional Young of the Year rockfish surveys with the
data going to NOAA via Adam Obaza.
We connected with Lyda Harris from the Seattle Aquarium about co -sampling / co -surveying
with the Aquarium's rockfish surveys in the Underwater Park. There is to be a study plan about
the micro plastics samples she wants to gather. My concern is to avoid a witch hunt from the
findings as occurred with the Mussel Watch findings (about 2005). The study plan is still
pending as we only received a collecting permit application. The fate of this data is unknown.
Pending Efforts
The rockfish theme will be continuing and the Seattle Aquarium has elected to continue to use a
site in the Park for their rockfish surveys. The lingcod theme which has not been getting much
attention as of late will be getting some renewal in the future.
More attention is going to be paid to the lingcod heads washing ashore from the sea lion
consumption.
You are still invited: You should feel free to snorkel or scuba the Park to see first hand
what we have been up to with critters and features.
Bruce Higgins 233 NW 203rd St. Shoreline, WA 98177
Bruce. Higgins frontier.com
Edmonds Underwater Park 2020/2021 Status Report pg. 6
Packet Pg. 457
Early Review Draft —July 2021
I 5.A.b I
Issues to discuss:
Dogs in the Underwater Park — 2019 to present
Your improved signage from late 2020 and clearing existing signs has helped. It is a serious
water quality health safety issue. The temporary signs need to be permanent. I would prefer
return the Underwater Park to a no Dog Park both for the divers and the wildlife. This was to
have been a trial in 2019 and in my opinion the trial has been failed and the Park should return
to a no Dog area.
Having the beach a conservation area requires the City's involvement. The Underwater Park is
a regional resource it needs higher attention to water quality concerns.
Poaching
We have in fall 2020 disabled one commercial crab pots and saw the recovery of at least one
other well inside the Park. They know better but since lazy-a-faire seems to the City's tone the
harvest effort continues. The police did respond to one case which was great but only seems a
start after extreme prompting. Signage and education is lacking since 2020. Boaters also were
entering the Park near the ferry terminal with divers about to place and recover crab pots which
is a safety issues for diving.
Boating in the Park
During the 2005 DNR Park lease renewal DNR agreed that boating and diving do not mix and
granted the Cautionary Zone around the Park to the West and North. The requested Signs on
the ferry terminal have yet to appear.
South Piling sign
South piling sign requested by the Ferry is still pending since promised in April 2021. The
rescue of 3 of the 4 diver team by the Ferry in June 2021 likely was a result of inadequate
signage. This needs attention.
Edmonds Underwater Park 2020/2021 Status Report pg. 7
Packet Pg. 458 1
5.A.b
PROS Plan Comment One2
cc
Yahoo Mail/Inbox
a
Bruce Higgins <bruce.higgins@frontier.com>
L
To:Carrie Haslam
Cc:Tro Rex
0
O
Mon, Jan 17 at 4:42 PM
a
Carrie Haslam / PROS Plan,
d
V
Over arching in the PROS Plan there is a neglect of Edmonds Underwater Park being a Destination Park for divers from all over the
Q.
Northwest and some even farther away.
Divers visit Edmonds specifically to visit the Edmonds Underwater Park.
The City's web site says:
Q.
Quote:
O
The Park was established at Brackett's Landing in 1970 by city ordinance as a Marine Preserve and Sanctuary. It is the most popular of 10
0a
underwater parks that make up Washington's underwater park system. About 25,000 scuba divers visit the Edmonds park each year. Most
O
are among the state's 250,000 trained divers, though 15 percent come from out of state, mostly from Portland and Vancouver, B.C.
O
end quote:
d
So just because the survey did not rank the Edmonds Underwater Park of high interest only reflects that the survey had limited
L
representation by this user group in the survey. I would think that 25,000 users - with many from out of the City - would account for
N
something in the planning.
w
The Edmonds Underwater Park is after all 27 acres for a reason - elbow room for all the users of various experience levels from Beginner
N
to Advanced.
i
The Marine Sanctuary status had been very important to the importance of the Edmonds Underwater Park regionally.
N
a
If you search on YouTube about Edmonds Underwater Park there are lots of videos showing / highlighting the adventures users have had
N
and features that are present underwater.
N
Granted you have to be a diver to visit them but since the Park's founding the City has been a leader in providing a safe recreation site
N
base on number of users/guests.
ti
The whole Destination Park concept is that the park attracts visitors to a unique setting. This setting is underwater. Dive publications and
guides about diving the northwest highlight the Edmonds Underwater Park.
N
O
For example.
t
The Northwest Dive Guide - Mike Hughes 2009 ISBN - 978-1-55017-476
7
Northwest Wreck Dives - Scott Boyd & Jeff Carr 2008 ISBN - 978-0-9821510-1-3
0
Shore Diving Near Seattle -Alexander Wallner, Maxwell Wallner, and Kent Wallner 2008 ISBN 978-0-9648991-7-9
t
to mention some recent write-ups.
ti
99
I would suggest that the PROS Plan reflect the important nature of this Destination Park in both it the park's description as well as its
ranking for attention during the next 6+ years. Lots of users and a Marine Sanctuary should provide some status in the system plan.
O
N
More comments to come.
N
O
Smile,
N
Bruce Higgins -
Coordinator of the Volunteer Edmonds Underwater Stewards for now over 44 years
Our group host maintenance / projects dives in the Edmonds Underwater Park every Saturday and Sunday at 9 AM year round. That has
w
been our commitment to the Edmonds Park System for some time now.
V
7
•
a
E
O
L
M
E
W
I_
M
a
O
W
a
M
L
d
E
t
ii
M
Q
Packet Pg. 459
5.A.b
From: Engmann, Eric
To: Jane Lommel
Cc: Feser, Angie; Martin, Michelle
Subject: RE: Edmonds Code Update: Design Standards (MFDS) Work Plan (2)
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:54:27 PM
Hello Jane,
Thank you so much for sharing those comments. I'm a pickleball player too so I like that suggestion. I
am forwarding your comments to Angie Feser, our Parks Director and Michelle Martin, the Planning
Board Admin Assistant, so they can include your comments and suggestions in the PROS plan
deliberation.
For the bike stands, we are developing new bike parking standards that would require more bike
standards outside of new or renovated development, and would require overnight bike lockers and
storage in new buildings. All to make it easier to safely park bikes around the City.
For the Multifamily Development Standards, I'll take a look at the Columbus, IN zoning code and
include it in the reference list. We'll be looking for a lot of specific feedback as we develop these
standards.
Regards,
Eric Engmann, AICP
Senior Planner I City of Edmonds
From: Jane Lommel <jmlommell3@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:29 PM
To: Engmann, Eric <eric.engmann@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Edmonds Code Update: Design Standards (MFDS) Work Plan (2)
Dear Eric,
Thank you for inviting me to listen in at the February 9th meeting where the discussion centered
around the PROS Plan. I am a newcomer to Edmonds so I chose not to speak but to send you my
written comments about the proposed plan:
I agree with the general comment that the Plan is too vague and doesn't give enough attention in
the summary that gives an over -arching direction and philosophy for the Parks Department to
operate by for the next six years. Nor does it give many substantive projects for the public or the
parks staff to direct their attention to.
Here are some ideas that I have for action to continue to improve the verdant environment of
Edmonds for residents throughout the community and visitors too to enjoy:
A) It's regrettable that the railroad tracks create a no-man's land for ferry visitors and pedestrians in
Packet Pg. 460
5.A.b
trying to safely access Cascadia Art Museum, the Waterfront Center, and all the other maritime
delights, not to mention Main Street and all of its attractions. Far more plantings of trees and lush
green medians with flowers and perennials along Sunset, Dayton and Main would be a vast
improvement.
B) It is difficult to access the vaunted Edmonds Marsh at present. Susie Schaefer has done such a
marvelous job in spearheading its adoption but the signage at the Marsh needs to be updated and
signage pointing to the entrance to the Marsh needs to be bigger and more prominent for visitors to
access rather than having to meander through parking lots. I'd love to see the boardwalk extended
around the Marsh for more viewing areas without disturbing the wildlife.
C) The sign close to the ferry entrance along Edmonds Way is very attractive. I would love to see
similar signage east of Westgate along Edmonds Way where the boundary to Edmonds starts. At
present all four corners of that intersection are devoid of trees and plantings. The intersection could
use a roundabout to slow down traffic and greet visitors.
D) As a Pickleball player, I've been surprised at few courts there are. Only 2 at Yost, I believe! It
would be wonderful to have many more courts at the Civic Park that is being over hauled, at the Pine
Street Park, etc.
E) I was surprised to see so many people accessing Yost Pool in the winter to keep in shape. That's
wonderful! I'm hoping that the PROS plan allows for water aerobics and other recreation in the pool
for all age groups during the warmer months too. Yost Pool needs updating and expanding, which I
hope is also in the Plan.
F) I've noticed that many people want bicycle paths, which I entirely endorse. I would like to add to
that suggestion by having the Plan also include lots of bicycle stands around town so that bicyclists
have safe places to leave their bikes while they shop or dine.
G) Maybe this is included at the public beach but I haven't noticed any kayaking launch sites. Nor
have I seen any convenient places for small sailboats to dock temporarily.
H) I'm delighted that there are funds to improve the Edmonds section of Highway 99 like Shoreline
has done. Folks living farther from the Bowl should be able to bike and walk safely in parks in their
own neighborhoods plus have easy access to the parks closer to the Bowl. I trust that the efforts to
beautify and improve Highway 99 include these elements too.
And finally, I'd like to comment on the proposed apartment buildings on Main Street and Dayton. As
has been noted by countless others, these are uninspired, uninviting and seriously lacking in parking
or balconies for new residents to Edmonds. Is that how we want our new folks to live?
I'm delighted that the City is taking a step back from allowing these monstrosities to be
grandfathered in — in favor of setting up serious architectural standards to guide all new
construction. May I suggest that Edmonds staff and Council folks take a trip to Columbus, Indiana as
part of your research? This town of 47,000 is world famous for its fine architecture and architectural
Packet Pg. 461
5.A.b
standards that make it a stand out for its size. May is a perfect time for a visit there. It's only an
hour's drive southeast of Indianapolis and well worth the expenditure of public funds. There are
non-stop flights to Indy with a memorable stop at Zaharko's ice cream parlor to boot! The Columbus
Visitors Center offers an extensive history of how Columbus because such an architectural Mecca. It
features a beautiful Chihuly sculpture so you'll feel right at home. There are regular bus tours and
opportunities for special tours for the Edmonds group, I'm sure.
Thanks for reading my rambling commentary, Eric. Wishing you the very best in guiding the PROS
plan and Standards with such fine and hard working staff and Council members.
Sincerely, Jane Lommel
714 Laurel Street
Cell: 317.506.1105
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Engmann, Eric <eric.engmann(@edmondswa.gov> wrote:
*You are receiving this email because you signed up for one or more topics for the Edmonds
Code Update Mailing List*
Hello,
Tomorrow (February 9th) at 7 PM, the Planning Board will hear about the proposed Work and
Outreach Plans for the Multifamily Design Standards code updates. No final approvals will be
made at this meeting.
The intent will be to share the proposed approach on how the process and outreach will occur
and get feedback from the Planning Board.
Please visit the Multifamily Design Code Update webpage here, and the Planning Board agenda
here, for more information.
Join Planning Board Zoom Meeting:
httl2s://zoo m. us/i/98720508263? pwd=VU h B N090a WOvSkhJ NOtTb3 N hQ)ItBOT09
Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
As always, please contact us with any questions about this or other code update proposals.
Regards,
Eric Engmann, AICP I Senior Planner
Development Services Dept
p. 425.977.9541
e. eric.enamonn(@edmondswo.Uoov
Packet Pg. 462
5.A.b
From: Ron Eber
To: Feser, Anaie
Cc: Marjie Fields; Greg Ferguson; joe scordino
Subject: Suggestion for PROS Revisions
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:46:08 AM
Attachments: EDMONDS MARSH AMENDMENTS with Joe Edits[14467].docx
Angie: Good morning. It is our understanding that you are considering some revisions to the draft
PROS plan and we want to provide you with some suggestions about the Marsh for your
consideration.
They are specific to certain pages and sections of the draft. One is a proposed new objective to Goal
5 and the others are to the Appendix A Assessments for the Marsh on page 141. The attachment
has the specifics for these.
I hope you can work with these and if you have any questions, please feel to contact me or one of
the others copied with this email.
Ron Eber
Sent from Mail for Windows
Packet Pg. 463
5.A.b
From: Engmann, Eric
To: Jane Lommel
Cc: Feser, Angie; Martin, Michelle
Subject: RE: Edmonds Code Update: Design Standards (MFDS) Work Plan (2)
Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:54:27 PM
Hello Jane,
Thank you so much for sharing those comments. I'm a pickleball player too so I like that suggestion. I
am forwarding your comments to Angie Feser, our Parks Director and Michelle Martin, the Planning
Board Admin Assistant, so they can include your comments and suggestions in the PROS plan
deliberation.
For the bike stands, we are developing new bike parking standards that would require more bike
standards outside of new or renovated development, and would require overnight bike lockers and
storage in new buildings. All to make it easier to safely park bikes around the City.
For the Multifamily Development Standards, I'll take a look at the Columbus, IN zoning code and
include it in the reference list. We'll be looking for a lot of specific feedback as we develop these
standards.
Regards,
Eric Engmann, AICP
Senior Planner I City of Edmonds
From: Jane Lommel <jmlommell3@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:29 PM
To: Engmann, Eric <eric.engmann@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Edmonds Code Update: Design Standards (MFDS) Work Plan (2)
Dear Eric,
Thank you for inviting me to listen in at the February 9th meeting where the discussion centered
around the PROS Plan. I am a newcomer to Edmonds so I chose not to speak but to send you my
written comments about the proposed plan:
I agree with the general comment that the Plan is too vague and doesn't give enough attention in
the summary that gives an over -arching direction and philosophy for the Parks Department to
operate by for the next six years. Nor does it give many substantive projects for the public or the
parks staff to direct their attention to.
Here are some ideas that I have for action to continue to improve the verdant environment of
Edmonds for residents throughout the community and visitors too to enjoy:
A) It's regrettable that the railroad tracks create a no-man's land for ferry visitors and pedestrians in
Packet Pg. 464
5.A.b
trying to safely access Cascadia Art Museum, the Waterfront Center, and all the other maritime
delights, not to mention Main Street and all of its attractions. Far more plantings of trees and lush
green medians with flowers and perennials along Sunset, Dayton and Main would be a vast
improvement.
B) It is difficult to access the vaunted Edmonds Marsh at present. Susie Schaefer has done such a
marvelous job in spearheading its adoption but the signage at the Marsh needs to be updated and
signage pointing to the entrance to the Marsh needs to be bigger and more prominent for visitors to
access rather than having to meander through parking lots. I'd love to see the boardwalk extended
around the Marsh for more viewing areas without disturbing the wildlife.
C) The sign close to the ferry entrance along Edmonds Way is very attractive. I would love to see
similar signage east of Westgate along Edmonds Way where the boundary to Edmonds starts. At
present all four corners of that intersection are devoid of trees and plantings. The intersection could
use a roundabout to slow down traffic and greet visitors.
D) As a Pickleball player, I've been surprised at few courts there are. Only 2 at Yost, I believe! It
would be wonderful to have many more courts at the Civic Park that is being over hauled, at the Pine
Street Park, etc.
E) I was surprised to see so many people accessing Yost Pool in the winter to keep in shape. That's
wonderful! I'm hoping that the PROS plan allows for water aerobics and other recreation in the pool
for all age groups during the warmer months too. Yost Pool needs updating and expanding, which I
hope is also in the Plan.
F) I've noticed that many people want bicycle paths, which I entirely endorse. I would like to add to
that suggestion by having the Plan also include lots of bicycle stands around town so that bicyclists
have safe places to leave their bikes while they shop or dine.
G) Maybe this is included at the public beach but I haven't noticed any kayaking launch sites. Nor
have I seen any convenient places for small sailboats to dock temporarily.
H) I'm delighted that there are funds to improve the Edmonds section of Highway 99 like Shoreline
has done. Folks living farther from the Bowl should be able to bike and walk safely in parks in their
own neighborhoods plus have easy access to the parks closer to the Bowl. I trust that the efforts to
beautify and improve Highway 99 include these elements too.
And finally, I'd like to comment on the proposed apartment buildings on Main Street and Dayton. As
has been noted by countless others, these are uninspired, uninviting and seriously lacking in parking
or balconies for new residents to Edmonds. Is that how we want our new folks to live?
I'm delighted that the City is taking a step back from allowing these monstrosities to be
grandfathered in — in favor of setting up serious architectural standards to guide all new
construction. May I suggest that Edmonds staff and Council folks take a trip to Columbus, Indiana as
part of your research? This town of 47,000 is world famous for its fine architecture and architectural
Packet Pg. 465
5.A.b
standards that make it a stand out for its size. May is a perfect time for a visit there. It's only an
hour's drive southeast of Indianapolis and well worth the expenditure of public funds. There are
non-stop flights to Indy with a memorable stop at Zaharko's ice cream parlor to boot! The Columbus
Visitors Center offers an extensive history of how Columbus because such an architectural Mecca. It
features a beautiful Chihuly sculpture so you'll feel right at home. There are regular bus tours and
opportunities for special tours for the Edmonds group, I'm sure.
Thanks for reading my rambling commentary, Eric. Wishing you the very best in guiding the PROS
plan and Standards with such fine and hard working staff and Council members.
Sincerely, Jane Lommel
714 Laurel Street
Cell: 317.506.1105
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Engmann, Eric <eric.engmann(@edmondswa.gov> wrote:
*You are receiving this email because you signed up for one or more topics for the Edmonds
Code Update Mailing List*
Hello,
Tomorrow (February 9th) at 7 PM, the Planning Board will hear about the proposed Work and
Outreach Plans for the Multifamily Design Standards code updates. No final approvals will be
made at this meeting.
The intent will be to share the proposed approach on how the process and outreach will occur
and get feedback from the Planning Board.
Please visit the Multifamily Design Code Update webpage here, and the Planning Board agenda
here, for more information.
Join Planning Board Zoom Meeting:
httl2s://zoo m. us/i/98720508263? pwd=VU h B N090a WOvSkhJ NOtTb3 N hQ)ItBOT09
Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
As always, please contact us with any questions about this or other code update proposals.
Regards,
Eric Engmann, AICP I Senior Planner
Development Services Dept
p. 425.977.9541
e. eric.enamonn(@edmondswo.Uoov
Packet Pg. 466
5.A.b
From: Haslam, Carrie
To: Feser, Anaie
Subject: FW: Edmonds Library Contributions to the Arts and Cultural Scene I RE: PROS Addition
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 1:11:31 PM
Angie for review.
Thanks,
Carrie
From: Richard Suico <RSuico@sno-isle.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:57 AM
To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Library Contributions to the Arts and Cultural Scene I RE: PROS Addition
H i,
I'm Richard Suico, Library Manager of the Edmonds Library. I want to thank everyone for their work
in updating and sharing the PROS plan going forward. This is solid and well thought out at sharing
not only the Parks and Rec but community assets and the framework to guide changes.
I am disappointed that there is very little on the library and Friends of the Library who have
contributed greatly as a cultural and recreational facility. The Library works closely with the City, the
Frances Anderson with the maintenance and operation of the City facility including collaboration on
many programs. We also have had partnerships with the Edmonds Waterfront and ECA on a
number of events or programs over the years.
If it is helpful to add a blurb on the Library's contribution to the PROS plan probably under "Other
Facilities" or under "Arts and Culture" using information provided below. I could expand or
wordsmith it if you'd like as well. Thanks for considering!
The Edmonds Library is part of Sno-Isle Libraries system comprising 24 community libraries
and Library On Wheels serving both Snohomish and Island counties. The Library is part of
the Plaza Room and Frances Anderson complex with a 17, 177 square foot library use
footprint built in 1982 that has flex space for meetings, study space and reading. The
library provides programming for all ages. Over 677,000 customers have used the
Edmonds Library between 2018 to present. The Edmonds Library has approximately 67k
items on shelf. Customers checked out 1,140, 677 physical items from 2018 to January,
2022 while the system ebook collection checked out over 3.3 million items in 2020. The
Library has partnered with the Parks department and the Arts Commission on several
programs and events including the Storytimes in the Park focused on offering children's
Packet Pg. 467
5.A.b
story times in areas outside the bowl, Edmonds Wintergrass, Preview as part of the Music
at the Library series and part of Art Walk. The Friends of the Edmonds Library helps
fundraise through its book sales and advocacy to fund programs including the Best Book
Contest in partnership with the Arts Commission.
Day by day, what you choose, what you think and what you do is who you become--Heraclitus
Richard Suico I Library Manager
(he/him/his) What is this?
Edmonds Library I Sno-Isle Libraries
425.771.1933x3120 I rsuico(@sno-isle.org
NO -ISLE
L18AARIES
Packet Pg. 468
lip �s r
_Ile ' 3
bi
IF
LIN
EdmuMs rucks $ Aec
Cityof Edmonds PlanningBoard : 2022 PRC
February 23, 2022
Plan Hearing
Presentation Overview
Overview of PROS Plan
Community Feedback
Plan Structure &Content
System Analysis
Key Recommendations
Discussion & Next Steps
5.A.c
c
0
W
M
d
L
m
L
M
a
N
N
O
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
Packet Pg. 470
PROS Plan Overview
5.A.c
06
0
r
us
Planning Forward
a
N
N
O
N
0
The PROS Plan is a 6-ye u _
WAMMM
Z
for managing and enh
Vp
y u
arks open space, tr..
recreation opportune s f r t
'.ram .6• �''Y.,,''. r-r
�. r
Edmonds communit �f "
Y
Co
- � pia► ,,'� m
Plan adoption required t `
eligibility for state & fedf
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
- 4f
PROS Plan Overview
Relating to Citywide Plans
Transportation Plan Community Cultural Plan Highway 99 Plan
Stormwater Plan
Climate Action Plan
Integrated Pest
Management
Plan
PROS Plan
Urban Forest
Management Plan
Civic Center
Playfield Site
Master Plan
Aquatic
Feasibility
Study
Economic
Development Plan
Water System Plan
Recreation
Cost Recovery
Plan
Citywide Strategic
Plan
Tactical or
Functional Plans
Operational or
Program Plans
5.A.c
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan IPacket Pg. 472
Community Outreach
EDMONDSPARK
RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES
Language of Choice
Please submit questions or comments in the Q&A Feature located in the center of your menu at the
Edmondsfollowing
bottom of the screen. Project team members will respond during the live Question and Answer session
the presentation.
°� tFEFOI III#*Ig011 ° - c�A (-aq r4) 7l o �1 A_ 0114 � LP-Alk. 2L qvl E.
d al u� l a�11 Hlol ��,lv} 4 6r Alv1oil r4A�ig 47JOJLlq.
Parks, Recreation
effaft-TlX V flail` **O75 ']174(Q&A)�tW�,rE�_lnu9 i i,�o rill@®PA19, (;f�394PE
& Open Space
` 41' 7141ft�Q".
Envie sus preguntas c comentarios utilizando la funcidn de Q&A (preguntas y respuestas) ubicada en el
(PROS) Plan
centro de su menu an la parte inferior de su pantalla. Los miembros del equipo de proyecto
responderan durante la sesion de preguntas y respuestas an vivo despues de la presentation.
If you would like to listen to the webinar in Korean, Mandarin or Spanish, please click on the
Interpretation Button at the bottom of your screen and select the language you want to hear.
oF�OI, ; of y;_ ;L4 of al � tP11 �} � h� o hj q11, 4- _}�� Interpretation
1
(�0I) �z�-a}_ Rm- �01 z ���-a}A�A] o.
�Q�d tRNahItiA. 3Atit�Rfa�ih�nkgwtil-. i� X; 1E Oi Ui_� V E
#3z` a!! AIffniA A (r#�7Z41Chinese" l
3
Si desea escuchar la presentation an coreano, mandarin o espanol, haga clic an el baton de
interpretation en la parte inferior de la pantalla y seleccione el idioma que desea escuchar.
2022 City of Edmonds PROS Plan
The City of Edmonds offers parks and community spaces for all Edmonds
residents to come together, stay active, and have fun. We are updating
the Edmond's Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan and need
your help to keep our parks and programs thriving and meet the needs of
our growing and diverse communities.
What is the Edmonds PROS Plan?
The PROS Plan is a six -year guide for managing and enhancing parks,
open space, trails, recreation, and cultural arts opportunities. Everyone in
the community plays an important role in the planning process by sharing
their vision for the parks and recreation system and identifying priorities
for future programs, events, potential new parks, and for taking care of
our existing parks. Having a PROS Plan means that the City is eligible
for state funding. A draft of the 2022 PROS Plan will be complete and
available to the public for review in November 2021.
We want to
hear from you!
The City of Edmonds envisions a
parks and recreation system that
serves the needs of our growing and
changing population. The 2022 plan
will reflect the changing needs of
our community and create a path to
grow our services. Please share your
experience and thoughts by taking a
quick survey:
100
Chinese
b it.ly/Edmond sPROS-ch
0
0
English
�r bit.ly/EdmondsPROS-en
■
a. �o
' Korean
❑� bit.ly/EdmondsPROS-KO
17 �
-0 Spanish
bit.ly/EdmondsPROS-sp
■
5.A.c
Learn more about the plan, including upcoming events
® edmondswa.gov/governmentldepartmentsiparks_recreation_cultural_services/planning projects
M edmondsparks@edmondswa.gov I PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov (go @EdmondsRecZone Packet Pg. 473
Community Feedback
Community Survey
• Total Responses: 1,958
Virtual Public Meetings
• N 60 Attendees participated
Website /Social Media
• Ongoing
• Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish
5.A.c
Ca
99%
feel parks & recreation
is essential or important
81%
visit Edmonds parks at least
a couple times per month
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
Packet Pg. 474
Community Feedback
Priority improvements to park system
• Connect gaps in the trail system & expand trail connections
• Improve or upgrade existing parks and amenities
• Buy more conservation & open space lands
• Renovate or replace the pool
• Community events, such as outdoor movies and summer concerts
r,
El
5.A.c
0
L
Y
L
CU
N
N
O
N
z
0
F-
a
z
w
U)
LU
w
(L
U)
0
w
IL
i N
N
Z O
N
LL
�- T
r` .. f i i C
u
u
AM111R.-
a
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan IPacket Pg. 475
PROS Plan Structure
Contents:
• Introduction & Community Profile
• Community Engagement
• Goals & Objectives
• Inventory & Classifications
• Parks & Open Space
• Recreation Programs & Facilities
• Trails & Connections
• Capital Projects & Implementation
• Appendices
11
4 ti:
AM& 40
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
Packet Pg. 476
9
Edmonds 2 02 2 PROS Plan
CHAPTER 1
PARKS & RECREATION
PLANNING FORWARD
PLAN PURPOSE
'Ihe City of Edmonds Parks,
Recreation &.Open Space Plan
(PROS Plan) is an update to the
2016 Parks, Recreation &, Open
Space Plan that builds on the
previously completed planning
work and incorporates the feedback
from an extensive community
engagement process conducted in
2021,'Ihis Plan creates a vision
for an innovative, inclusive and
interconnected system ofparks,
trails and open space that promotes
recreation, health, environmental
conservation and fiscal
responsibility as integral elements
of a.thriving, livable Edmonds.
'Ihe PROS Plan serves as a
blueprint for the management,
enhancement and growth of
the City of Edmonds parks
and recreation system. It assists
in guiding decisions related
to planning, developing and
maintaining parks, open space and
recreational facilities.'Ihis Plan also
identifies priorities for recreation
programs, special events and arts
and culture activities.
'Ihe 2 02 2 PROS Plan provides
updated system inventories,
DRAFT
Providing Edmonds
citizens with a balanced
system of open land,
parks, recreation and
cultural arts to ensure
a healthy and active
quality of life.
communityprofile, needs analyses
and a comprehensive capital
project list,'Ihe Plan identifies
parks and recreation goals and
establishes a long-range plan for
the Edmonds parks and recreation
system, including action items.
and strategies for implementation
over the next six to ten yea rs.'Ihe
recommendations in this Plan
are based on community input,
evaluations ofthe existing park
system, operating conditions and
fiscal considerations.
'Ihe PROS Plan is part of the City's
broader Comprehensive Plan and
is consistent with the guidelines
established by the Growth
Management Act.'Ihe PROS Plan,
updated approximately every six
years, allows Edmonds to remain
current with community interests
and retain eligibility for state
grants through the Washington
State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO),which administers
various grant programs for outdoor
recreation and conservation efforts.
'This plan has been regularly
updated (1996,2001,2008 and
2016) to remain relevant to
Edmonds as the city evolves and
changes.
Packet Pg. 477
DRAFT
EUMOOUS 2022 PROS Plan
5.A.c
CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY �Plk
PROFILE
Located along the shores of Puget Sound, the City '
of Edmonds lies about 15 miles north of Seattle.
Incorporated in 1890, Edmonds is now home to 4Z470
residents. Edmonds's walkable downtown features a
variety of restaurants, art venues, and shopping all
within an easy walk to shorefront parks.
Surrounding downtown are The City of Edmonds provides a
neighborhoods of family homes wide range of government services
interspersed with forested green and is dedicated to maintaining
spaces. The city's primary general the community's unique cultural,
commercial areas are concentrated recreational, and environmental
along Highway 99 on the eastern assets, while supporting sustainable,
edge of the city. Edmonds is locally -focused economic growth.
bordered to the north and west by The city's parks, open spaces, trails,
Puget Sound and the community and recreational opportunities
of Woodway, to the east by the are highly valued — for recreation,
cities of Mountlake Terrace and respite, and their ecosystem values.
Lynnwood, and to the south by
the City of Shoreline. The city also
surrounds the smaller residential
community of Esperance.
QUIDEBIS
AUTEMPOST
Dae. Quidebis autempost, sequi nam quam, cum si volup-
tat adbut atibu ullabore puo dolendaepe volorm debistium
ea cor rem aspempeld, to pomstemsam es mm is resenim
iliciendit occuptis dolesupsam comnimp ores equenum do-
luplisd molorro volupd atibus. Was maionse.
Restem es eum is resenim iliciendit of atibuauptis dole-
sapsam comnimp ornequsam enum doluptisit mt a6buo-
lorro volupit atibus. Was maionse.
C
0
R
i
V
to
Y
L
CU
a
N
N
O
z
0
F_
a
z
Lu
W
W
a
0
W
d
I
N
N
O
N
d
ILL
I
a1
C
R
2
I
m
m
a
c
a�
t
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 478
AFT
Edmonds 2 02 2 PR%Plan
5.A.c
11
The goals and objectives described
in this ch ap te r d efi ne the recreation
and park services that Edmonds
aims to provide.'Ihese goals and
objectives were derived from
input received throughout the
planning process, from city staff,
the Parks and Planning Board and
community members.
The Growth Management Act
(GMA) adopted by the Washington
State Legislature in 1990 provided
a foundation for land use planning
in selected cities and counties
throughout the state, including
Snohomish County and the City of
Edmonds.It identifies 14 planning
goals to guide the development
GOALS &
OBJE
of comprehensive plans and
development regulations. Four
of these goals directly affect the
development and implementation
of this plan.
"Encourage the retention of
open space and development of
reaeational opportunities, conserve
fish and wildlife habitat, increase
access to natural resource lands and
water, and develop parks." RCW
36.70A.020(9)
"Protect the environment and
enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air and water quality,
and the availability of water."RCW
36.70A.020(10)
"Identify and encourage the
preservation oflands, sites, and
VES
structur e s, th at have hi stori cal a
archaeological significance."RCW
36.70A.020(13)
"Carry -out the goals ofthe
Shoreline Management Act with
regardsto shorelines and critical
areas." RCW 36.70A.020(14)
Also, the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan, the previous PROS Plan and
other city planning policies provide
a framework for this PROS Plan.
A goal is a general statement that
describes the overarching direction
for the parks and recreation system.
Objectives are more specific and
describe an outcome or a means to
achieve the stated goals. Key project
recommendations are specific
actions intended to implement and
achieve the goals and objectives
and are contained in the needs
assessment and .capitalplanning
chapters of the PROS Plan,
a►lef.WakTiIa►II
Goal l: Encourage and facilitate meaningfulpublic involvement in park and recreation planning.
Objectives
1.1 Involve residents and stakeholders in park and recreation facility planning, design and recreation program
development to solicit community input, facilitate project understanding and build public support.
1.2 Advance diversity, equity, inclusion in, and access to the City's system ofpazks,natural areas and programs
through continued outreach and communications.
1.3 Pursue the formation of a City Council appointed Parks and Recreation Board as a forum for public discussion
of ongoing park and recreationissues and policies.
1.4 Encourage local business, non -profits and community partners involvement in providing and supporting
cultural, recreational and athletic opportunities for all ages and abilities.
DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION
Goal2. Decrease barriers and increase opportunities for participation of underrepresented, diverse
populations to reflect the demographics of Edmonds.
Objectives:
2.1 Addr e ss acce ssibility b arri er s (so cio-economic,language,physical, geographic,transportation)to parks and
programs and allocate resources to address lmown gaps.
2.2 Explore and pursue opportunities for alternative outreach and education to diverse groups, such asgroupwalks
and day hikes with minority communities, promotion A materi als through school s and faith groups, and youth
mentorship or ambassador programs.
2.3 Identify appropriate locations within parks and public spacesfor the installation of public art, interpretive signs
or cultural displays, and collaborate with diverse groupsto ensure incorporation of any art,history, and culture in
parks is done from a diversity, equity and inclusion lens.
2.4 Provide DEI training opportunities for staff.
Ca
20
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 479
12
CHAPTER 6
PARKS &
OPEN SPACE
The PROSplanning process assesses recreational needs
and priorities for parks and open space in Edmonds. The
park assessment included a discussion of specific local
needs with consideration given to the City's broader
parks system. Public input and information on park
inventory conditions were also heavily relied upon in the
planning process.
considering the location, Size,
an NATIONAL TRENDS
and the number of park facilities by
type and use, along with community p variety of resources have been
interests and priorities, the PROS assembled and summarized to
Plan evaluates the existing and offer a comprehensive overview of
future demand for park and current trends, market demands and
recreation amenities and provides agency comparisons in the provision
recommendations for future of parks and recreation. This
initiatives. The six -year Capital information provides perspectives
Improvement Program (CIP), that are helpful when balancing
which identifies and prioritizes with local insights and feedback
crucial upgrades, improvements, from the community to identify the
and expansions, is based on demands and establish public needs
the needs assessment and the during the planning process,
recreational interests expressed by
the community, The following national and state
data highlights some of the
Edmands 2022 PROS Plan
QUITE
kuert qv�n le Irom puWc erxpgeneni
06
i
dill
System Analysis
Examining System Gaps:
• Park Access & Distribution
• Physical Accessibility
• Diversity of Places & Spaces
• Programs, Events & Activities
• ServingToday's Residents
• Planning for Future Growth
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan Packet Pg. 481
14 System Analysis
Level of Service Review
• Prior plan noted acreage standard as 11.4 acres per 1,000 population
• Applying that standard, creates current deficit of over 200 acres
• 2022 Plan proposes reframing standards on active -use and open space
Community* 80.5 acres I
Neighborhood
Open Space
1.54 acres1,0OO _L 2.25 acres/1,OOO 1.0 acres
25.2 acres I 0.5.1 acres 1,0OO
1 acres/1,OOO 1 15.7 acres
75.5 acres I 1.75 acres/1,000 I 3.5 acres/1,OOO
Totals 12.2 acres
.1 acres/1,000
* Includes acreage from Lynndale Skate Park and Meadowdale PIayfieIds, prorated at 50
6.75 -acres/1,000
74.4 acres
107.0 acres
5.A.c
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan Packet Pg. 482
15m • � 5.A.cS steAnalysis Public Satisfaction
Condition of Local City Parks (rated as Excellent or Good) 76.1% 06
LOS Grade B o
Level of Service Review `�
Condition of Trails in Parks (rated as Excellent or Good) 55.0%
LOS Grade D W
• Public Satisfaction (based on Agency -based Assessment.36
survey responses) Condition Assessment Rating of Existing Parks (3-point scale) 1.29 N
LOS Grade B
z
0
• Site Conditions Assessment Distribution Criteria*
(based on physical site Parkland Access {within 1�2-rniletrauelshed) w
Percent Service Area with Access to Active -Use City Parks 4S.1�o LU
assessments) LOS Grade D
0
Parkland Access (within 1/2-mile trauelshed) a
• Distribution /Travelsheds Percent Service Area with Access to All Parks &Open Space 59.8% o
N
LOS Grade C
(based on GIS analyses)
Trail System Access (within 1/2-mile trauelshed)
• Usage /Visitation (based on Percent Service Area with Access to Recreational Trails 38.8% LOS Grade Fm�
survey responses) Usage Visitation Criteria IL
Frequency of Park or Trail Usage E
Percent Visiting Parks at Least Multiple Times per Month r
LOS Grade a
*Note: The percentage of land area covered by service area walk sheds is a proxy for the popula
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan residential portion of the City. Packet Pg. 483
16 Changes from 2016 Plan
M
Intentional & focused diversity -oriented
outreach
Diversity, Equity &Inclusion goals and
objectives explicit and written into Plan
Acquisition focus recommended for
south and southeast Edmonds
Future land acquisition strategy as tool
to guide and refine property searches
�7-.
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan . �. �, .I Packet Pg. 484
17 Changes from 2016 Plan
Expanding level of service metrics to include
distribution, condition & satisfaction
Adjustment to acreage -based standards to
focus on active -use parks and open space
Increasing acreage -based standard for
neighborhood &community parks from
2.7 ac/1000 to 3.25 ac/1000
Trail connectivity as policy, rather than
mileage -based metric
5.A.c
ca
:i
L
R
d
N
N
�. ---`�
C -
N
Z
O
Q
Z
W
LU
w
a
O
Ix
Q
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
�- - � Packet Pg. 485
la Key Recommendations
Acquisitions to Fill Gaps and for Conservation
• Secure additional parkland in south and southeast Edmonds
• Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or conserve
unique natural areas (e.g., wetlands, forests, stream corridors)
Parks Development and Upgrades
• Complete renovation of Civic Center Playfield
• Playground replacements at Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park
&Yost Memorial Park
• Add amenities to Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park &
Pine Street Park
5.A.c
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan -= J - Packet Pg. 486
19 Key Recommendations
Trail and Bikeway Connections
• Acquire easements &rights -of -way for trail connections
• Coordinate with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
regarding bicycle &pedestrian system improvements
Yost Pool Replacement
• Refine options for replacement of Yost Pool
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
5.A.c
W
Y
a
N
N
O
N
NI
N
O
N
U-
',° Key Recommendations
ADA and Accessibility Enhancements
• Remove barriers and improve universal access to and
within parks, natural areas and trails
User Convenience Improvements
• Upgrade or replace restrooms
• Improve signage & wayfinding
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
5.A.c
r-
0
W
M
SD
IL
N
N
O
N
z
O
Q
H
z
w
W
w
W
a
O
Zl Next Steps
0a
• City Council Parks &Public Works
Committee —PROS Capital Program
(March 8)
• City Council Public Hearing (March 15)
• City Council approval (March 22)
• Send to RCO before mid -April
Questions / Comments?
Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan
5.A.d
2022 PROS Plan
Capital Program
Planning Board
February 23, 2022
m
U
M
a
m
a
O
06
C
0
r
�a
a�
L
a�
o_
vi
Y
L
a
N
N
O
N
Packet Pg. 490
5.A.d
Presentation Overview
• Proposed Project List
• Revision Considerations/Limitations
(2)
Packet Pg. 491
5.A.d
Edmonds PROS 2022 6-Year Capital Facilities Program
D
Cemetery
D
A
Civic Center Playfields
Edmonds Marsh Estuary
� �
P
D
D
Elm Street Park
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrJ
D
R
R Greenhouses
U A Interurban Trail
R Johnson Property
P
R Meadowdale Playfields
( 'W,4
R Maplewood Hill Park
O
D
D
Mathay Ballinger Park
D
A
Neighborhood park -SEl
r
D
A
Neighborhood park -SR99
P
D
A
Neighborhood park -SE2
WA
D
R
D
Olympic Beach Park
Pine Street Park
�/ /
0
D
D
R
R
P
Seaview Park
Sierra Park
Waterfront Walkway
O
D
R
Yost Park
R
rR
R
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
IPD
System -wide
Parks & Facilities M & 0 Building
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
Renovation project continuation
Acquisition
Master Plan
Restoration
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
Habitat restoration
Replacement
Working Draft
$ 150,000
$ 9,871,574
TBD
$ 250,000
TBD
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
$ 50,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 750,000
273,182
$ 84,413
$ 56,275
0-
0
06
r-
O
L
c,>
NN�
1.6
Y
L
$ 869,456 (Q
Demolition and securing site $ 200,000 $ 200,000 a
Master Plan $ 75,000 $ 81,955 N
Renovations (City of Lynnwood ILA) $ 500,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 0
Playground replacement $ 125,000 $ 144,909 $ - N
Paved loop pathway
$
50,000 $
- $ 53,045
a
Restrooms
$
350,D00
$ 371,315
LL
Small Shelter w/picnic tables
$
75,000 $
- $ 79,568
South Edmonds target area acquisition-1
$
1,500,000
$ 1,545,000
a
South Edmonds NH park master plan-1
$
75,000
$
79,568
Categories
South Edmonds NH park development-1
$
750,000
$
819,545
U
SR 99 target area acquisition
$
1,500,000
$
1,591,350
Acquisition
SR 99 target area NH park master plan
$
75,000
$
81,955
(Q
SR 99 target area NH park development
$
750,000
$ 844,132
a
South Edmonds target area acquisition-2
$
2,000,000
$
2,185,454
South Edmonds NH park master plan-2
$
75,000
$ 84,413
South Edmonds NH park development-2
$
750,000
$ 869,456
Planning - Master P l a n n i n
0
Restroom upgrade
$
50,000
$
53,045
Small Shelter w/picnic tables
$
75,000
$
79,568
a
Paved connecting pathway
$
55,000
$
58,350
Canopy shade trees
$
25,000
$
26,523
(L
Restroom replacement
350,000
$ 417,918
Development permits,
Playground replacement
$
175,Goo
$
185,658
Design completion
$
500,000
$
500,000
R
Construction
$
750,000
$
750,000
construction
coResurface
tennis courts
$
70,000
$
74,263
Trail bridge& boardwalk repairs/replacements
$
80,000 $
80,000
Playground replacement
$
250,000
$ 257,500
Pool repair
$
,000 $
175,000
Renovation - repairs,
rades/renovation
Pool upgrades/renovation
$
500
500,000
$
546,364
Pool replacement
$
20,000,000
$ 23,881,046
replacement, upgrades
a
Design completion
$
2,000,000
$ 2,251,018
Construction
Playground replacement / upgrade to inclusive level
$
6,000,000
$ 6,955,644
CI)
N
$
175,000
$ 196,964 $ 202,873
Signage & wayfinding
$
50,000
$ - $
53,045
�Y EGA,
O
Capital repairs'
$
100,000 $
100,000 $ 100,000 $
100,000 $
100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
r
Design
TOO
- �4
N
Construction
TOO
'r
�
Totals $ 41,790,000 $ 10,776,574 $ 2,406,428 $ 3,260,503 $ 4,983,363 $ 3,701,628 $Totals $ $ 10,776,574 $ 2,406,428 $ 3,260,503 $ 4,983,363 $ 3,701,628 $ 33,296,3933 N
r.
�qc 89� E
U
El
Packet Pg�Packet Pg. 4922
5.A.d
M'A
all
0
Q)
V)
0
n
0
^L-
1)
(4)
WWI
r Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
PARKS PROJECTS
roc. �xy°
Non Site -Specific Projects
A 2 Neighborhood park - SE1
A 3 Neighborhood park - SR99
A 4 Neighborhood park - SE2
A 5 Interurban Trail
P 2 Neighborhood park - SE1
P 4 Edmonds Marsh Estuary
P 6 Neighborhood park - SR99
P 7 Neighborhood park - SE2
D 13 Neighborhood park - SEl
D 15 Neighborhood park - SR99
D 18 Neighborhood park - SE2
R 10 System -wide signage
R 13 System _wide playgrounds 2
R 17 System -wide annual repairs
A
A4
•
* Site
P3 D4 s
D14 PS
R7• 0D19
Al D3 D10
D2 R1 D11
D12
P1 •
R14 0 D16
D17
D6+7
• IDS
.ts not shown. January 2022
Packet Pg. 493
5.A.d
Project List
• Categories/composition
Acquisition
Planning — Master Planning
Development — permits, construction
Renovation — repairs, replacement, upgrades
$ 6,191,400
$ 3,352,200
$ 21,156,500
$ 27,724,900
$ 58,425,000
• Project sequencing
• Acquisition — Planning — Development
• Renovation (may require planning efforts)
(5)
Renovation
$27,724,900
Planning, Acquisition,
$3.352.200 S6.191.400
Development,
$21,156,500
Packet Pg. 494
5.A.d
Project List
• Substantial projects ($$$)
Expenditure in the CIP
Pool replacement ($20m)
4t" Avenue Cultural Corridor ($8M)
Expenditure amount NOT in the CIP
Marsh Acquisition and Development ($10 - $20M??)
Parks/Facilities Maintenance Building ($3 — $5M??)
• Other Notes
• Marsh Restoration Project transferred to Parks
(6)
r
m
U
�a
a
Cn
c
m
a
O
0
'
EDMONDS CENTER
FOR THE ARTS
i
14
N
•GJ�1,
:!.
�
N
..y�
..f
a
LL
,,. D
U
a
Cn
O
w
a
a.
0./��
l'1r'�
��:
Ii 1�
•i
a
OF E&
O
O
N
O
r
�qc 189�
E
t
V
fC
Q
Packet Pg. 495
5.A.d
Considerations for Revisions to List (Limitations)
• Revenue Sources
• Restricted funds
• Real Estate Excise Tax (REET I & II)
• Park Impact Fees (PIF)
• Tree Fund (land acquisition)
• Grants
• Donations
• Unrestricted funds
• General Fund
• Bonds
• Staff Resources
to Project Management — Director, Parks Maintenance
Manager, 2 day/week contracted Parks Planner
(7) 01
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services
2022 Department Work Plan
1st QTR
planning
JAN
FEB
MAR
PROS Plan
Salmon Safe
Weill
Capital Program Devnmplementation
Land Acquisition (Council as needed)
City of Lynnwood Meadowdale Park ILA renewal
Grant Applications
Shell Creek Property - RCO Compliance Project
Building Code Compliance Issues (2)
Parks Capital Projects/Comracted Work
Ovic Park Complex
Yost Park - Civic Water Mitigation
Vest Pool Plaster Repair
Greenhouse Replacement
Johnson Property Clean-up/Securing
Olympic Beach Parking Lot
Olympic Beach Pathway
ADA Compliance Issues (20r identified)
Park Maintenance/Major Maintenance
ADA Compliance Issues (202 identified)
Bench Replacements
I
Bmckett's landing North - Anchor Replacement
Brackett's Landing North - Anchor/Art Replacement
Brackett's North Entrance Gate Refurb
&ackett's North Restroom Refurb
City Park Pedestrian Safety Project
Dayton Street Project landscaping
Dog Park Fence Repair
Five Corner Roundabout Irr and Plant replacment
Floretum Garden Club Sculpture Installation
Flower Pole Order / Replace (S+2 at city hall;
Mathay Ballinger Playground Rope Climber replacement
Pedestrian Crossing Improvements landscaping
Sierra Park Path for the Blind into compliance
Veterans Plaza Flag Pole Sleeve Install
Waste Water Treatment Plant Flaming Irrigation
Waterfront Beach Replarding/Mitigation
Yost Park Bridges Repair
Annual Tasks
Hiring Staff (8)
Flower Basket/Comer Park Planting
Yost Pool Startup/Mairdenance
Spray Pad Startup/Maimenance
Holiday light Installation
a
c
m
a
O
06
0
L
Y
L
a
N
N
0
N
a
LL
U
d
U
Ia.
V/
O
M
a
n
O
CO
a
M
N
N
Q
L
N
N
O
r—
d
E
t
U
a..a
Q
Packet Pg. 496
5.A.d
2022 Council Approved CIP Projects
• In Progress
• Civic Park
• Citywide Renovations
• In 2022 CI P
• Playground Upgrade
• Yost Pool Project
• Acquisitions
• Carryover Projects
• Greenhouse replacement
• City Park pedestrian pathway
Johnson Property Demo/Security* (not approved, but is priority)
#
PROJECT
2022
Civic Center Playfield
Redevelopmentof 8-acre park consistent with Master Plan adopted in 2017;
PRK 1
add restrooms, walkingtrack, landscaping, inclusive playground, improve
$ 9,755,742
field and lighting, skate park, petanque grove, tennis and multi sports courts.
Playground Upgrade Program
PRK 4
Annual upgrades of playground equipment and fall surfacing to provide
$ 175,000
additional inclusive playgrounds/facilities providingaccess for children of all
ages and abilities.
Yost Pool Repair
Regular maintenanceto re -plaster the pool to replace and repair failing
PRK 5
plaster. Pool will be forced to close without repair.
$ 175,000
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
PRK A
This ongoing program allocates funds for the regular maintenance, repair and
$ 155,000
replacement of parks amenities, structures and equipment.
Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
To acquire land for future parks and open spaces as opportunities become
PRK C
available.
$ 1,099,000
Packet Pg. 497
5.A.d
Proposed Project List/Revenue
• Without Big Ticket Items ($MM?)
• Marsh purchase/dev and Parks Maintenance Bldg
• No unsecured grants
• Ir�i irl �Inc I�/I-�rir,-� Beach D-�rli
�T
Proposed Project list
Beginning Fund Balance
Revenue
Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance
(9)
2022
2023
$ 4,554,645
$
2,180,730 $
$ 8,402,685
$
2,269,793 $
$ 10,776,600
$
2,406,400 $
$ 2,180,730
$
2,044,123 $
2024 2025 2026 2027
2,044,123 $ (685,580) $ (4,907,699) $ (9,103,667)
2,280,797 $ 2,261,381 $ 2,255,632 $ 2,229,461
5,010,500 $ 6,483,500 $ 6,451,600 $ 33,296,400
(685,580) $ (4,907,699) $ (9,103,667) $ (40,170,606)
a
m
c
m
a
O
06
0
L
Y
L
a
N
N
O
a
LL
U
d
U
c
R
a
Cn
O
w
a
x
a
L
0
m
c
c
0
a
Cl)
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
C
d
E
L
V
fC
Q
Packet Pg. 498
5.A.d
Edmonds PROS 2022 6-Year Capital Facilities P
P
8 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Design completion
$
2,000,000
D
19 5th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Construction
$
6,000,000
D
8 Cemetery
Columbanum Expansion - Phase 11
$
150,000
///r���
■
D
3 City Park
Pedestrian safety walkway
$
100,000 $ 50,000
v ,-
D
4 Civic Center Playfelds
Renovation project cont (2021 start)
$
9,871,600 $ 9,871,600
.
A
1 Edmonds Marsh Estuary
Acquisition
TBD
P
4 Edmonds Marsh Estuary
Master Plan
$
250,000
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrri
n
1 M-.- March Pcfi-
R-t-finn
THn
$ 2,251,000 $ 2,251,000
$ 6,955,600 $ 6,955,600
$ 159,100
$ 50,000
$ 9,871,600
$ 273,200
G -
D
16 Elm Street Park
Nature Playground
$ 75,000
$
84,400 $
84,400
D
17 Elm Street Park
Small Shelter w/picnic tables
$ 75,000
$
84,400 $
84,400
treet Park
Habitat restoration
$ 50,000
$
56,300 $
56,300
U
houses
Replacement
$ 300,000 $
100,000
$
100,000
rban Trail
Extension/acquisition
$ 750,000
$ 869,500 $
869,500
on Property
"Johnson
Master Plan
$ 75,000
$ 82,000
$
82,000
on Property
Demolition and securing site
$ 200,000 $
200,000
$
200,000
ewood Hill Park
Playground replacement
$ 125,000
$ 144,900
$
144,900
ay Ballinger Park
Paved loop pathway
$ 50,000
$ 53,000
$
53,000
D
6 Mathay Ballinger Park
Restrooms
$ 350,000
$ 371,300
$
371,300
D
7 Mathay Ballinger Park
Small Shelter w/picnic tables
$ 75,000
$ 79,600
$
79,600
A
R
3 Meadowdale Playfelds
Renovations (City of Lynnwood ILA)
$ 500,000 $
200,000 $ 300,000
$
500,000
A
2 Neighborhood park -SE3
South Edmonds target area acq-1
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,545,000
$
1,545,000
P
2 Neighborhood park -SE3
South Edmonds NH park master plan-1
$ 75,000
$ 79,600
$
79,600
D
13 Neighborhood park-SE3
South Edmonds NH park development-1
$ 750,000
$ 819,500
$
819,500
A
4 Neighborhood park-SE2
South Edmonds targetareaacq-2
$ 2,000,000
$ 2,185,500
$
2,185,500
P
7 Neighborhood park -SE2
South Edmonds NH park master plan-2
$ 75,000
$
84,400 $
94,400
D
18 Neighborhood park-SE2
South Edmonds NH park development-2
$ 750,000
$ 869,500 $
869,500
A
3 Neighborhood park-SR99
SR 99 target area acquisition
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,591,400
$
1,591,400
c1
^ 4 P 6 Neighborhood park-SR99 1111 target area NH park master plan $ 75,000 $ 82,000 $ 82,000
v , D 15 Neighborhood park -SR99 SR 99 target area NH park development $ 750,000 $ 844,100 $ 844,100
R 7 Olympic Beach Park Restroom upgrade $ 50,000 $ 53,000 $ 53,000
D
2 Parks & Facilities M & O Building
Construction
TBD
$
D
10 Pine Street Park
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
$ 75,000
$
79,600
$
D
11 Pine Street Park
Paved connecting pathway
$ 55,000
$
58,300
$
Street Park
Canopy shade trees
$ 25,000
$
26,500
$
O
iew Park
Restroom replacement
$ 350,000
$ 417,900 $ 4
a Park
Playground replacement
$ 175,000
$
185,700
$ 1
kSeaviewPark
m-wide
Signage&wayfinding
$ 50,000
$
53,000
$
m-wide
Playground replacement/inclusive level
$ 175,000
$
197,000 $ 202,900 $ 3
m-wide
Capital repairs100,000
$
100,000 $ 500,000 $
500,000 $ 500,000 $
100,000 $ 100,000 $ E
D
erfront Walkway
14 Waterfront Walkway
Design completion
Construction
$ 500,000
$ 750,000
$
500,000
$ 750,000
$ 5
$ 7
R
4 Yost Park
Trail bridge & boardwalk repairs/replace
$ 80,000 $
80,000
$
R
5 Yost Park
Pool repair
$ 175,000 $
75,000
$ 1
R
6 Yost Park
Playground replacement
$ 250,000
$ 257,500
$ 2
R
9 Yost Park
Resurface tennis courts
$ 70,000
$
74,300
$
R
11 Yost Park
Pool upgrades/renovation
$ 500,000
$ 546,400
$ 5
O`
7
R
15 Yost Park
Pool replacement
$ 20,000,000
$ 23,881,000 $ 23,E
Totals $
30,831,600 $ 10,776,600 $ 2,406,400 $ 3,260,500 $ 4,983,500 $ 3,701,600 $ 33,296,400 $ 58,4
79,600
38,300
t6,500
t7,900
15,700
i3,000
)9,900
)0,000
)0,000
50,000
30,000
75,000
i7,500
74,300
)6,400
i1,000
S,000
a
LL
U
d
U
a
ON
M
a
a
O
m
a
cM
N
N
O
N
N
a O
N
E
t
U
Q
Packet Pg. 499
5.A.d
Acquisitions
$
$ 6,191,400
a
c
m
a
O
06
_
0
L
<.i
4)
w
N
Y
L
IL
N
N
O
N-
IL
LL
U
d
U
c
R
a
U)
O
m
IL
a
L
0
CO
c
c
0
a
Cl)
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
C
d
E
L
V
fC
a-.
Q
Packet Pg. 500
5.A.d
Planning
P 1
Parks & Facilities M & O Building
Design
TBD
P 2
Neighborhood park - SE1
South Edmonds NH park master plan-1
$
75,000 $ 79,600
P 3
Waterfront Walkway
Design completion
$
500,000 $ 500,000
P 4
Edmonds Marsh Estuary
Master Plan
$
250,000 $ 273,200
P 5
Johnson Property
Master Plan
$
75,000 $ 82,000
P 6
Neighborhood park - SR99
SR 99 target area NH park master plan
$
75,000 $ 82,000
P 7
Neighborhood park - SE2
South Edmonds NH park master plan-2
$
75,000 $
P 8
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Design completion
$
2,000,000 $
c12�
84,400
$ 79,600
$ 500,000
$ 273,200
$ 82,000
$ 82,000
$ 84,400
$ 2,251,000
$ 3,352,200
a
c
m
a
O
06
0
L
N
Y
L
a
N
N
O
N
a
LL
U
d
V
C
d
O
IX
IL
a
z3
L
0
CO
c
c
0
a
cM
N
N
0
N
N
O
04
d
E
L
V
fC
Q
Packet Pg. 501
5.A.d
Development
D 1
Edmonds Marsh Estuary
D 2
Parks & Facilities M & O Building
D 3
City Park
D 4
Civic Center Playfields
D 5
Mathay Ballinger Park
D 6
Mathay Ballinger Park
D 7
Mathay Ballinger Park
D 8
Cemetery
D #
Pine Street Park
D #
Pine Street Park
D #
Pine Street Park
D #
Neighborhood park - SE1
D #
Waterfront Walkway
D #
Neighborhood park - SR99
D #
Elm Street Park
D #
Elm Street Park
D #
D #
Neighborhood park - SE2
5th Avenue Cultural Corridor
c13�
Restoration
Construction
Pedestrian safety walkway
Renovation project cont (2021 start)
Paved loop pathway
Restrooms
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
Paved connecting pathway
Canopy shade trees
South Edmonds NH park development-1
Construction
SR 99 target area NH park development
Nature Playground
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
South Edmonds NH park development-2
Construction
TBD
TBD
$ 100,000
$ 9,871,600
$ 50,000
$ 350,000
$ 75,000
$ 150,000
t
a
75,000
55,000
25,000
750,000
750,000
750,000
75,000
75,000
750,000
6,000,000
50,000
9,871,600
$ 53,000
$ 371,300
$ 79,600
$ 159,100
4 C
$ 79,600
$ 58,300
$ 26,500
$ 819,500
$ 750,000
$ 844,100
$ 84,400
$ 84,400
$
50,000
$
9,871,600
$
53,000
$
371,300
$
79,600
$
c
159,100
v
$
79,600
$
58,300
$
26,500
$
819,500
$
750,000
$
844,100
$
84,400
$
84,400
869,500 $ 869,500
6,955,600 $ 6,955,600
$ 21,156,500
a
v7
c
m
a
O
06
0
L
<.i
4)
w
N
Y
L
ca
IL
N
N
0
N
Packet Pg. 502
5.A.d
a
c
m
a
O
Renovations
06
0
Project Site Project Description
2022
Estimate
2022
023
2024
2025 2026
2027 Total
Costs
d)
R 1 Greenhouses Replacement
$
100,000
$ 100,000
$
100,000
Y
R 2 Johnson Property Demolition and securing site
$
200,000
$ 200,000,
$
200,000
d
R 3 Meadowdale Playfields Renovations (City of Lynnwood ILA)
$
500,000
$ 200,000
$
300,000
$
500,000
N
R 4 Yost Park Trail bridge & boardwalk repairs/replace
$
80,000
$ 80,000
$
80,000
N
0
R 5 Yost Park Pool repair
$
175,000
175,000
$
175,000
R 6 Yost Park Playground replacement
$
250,000
$
257,500
$
257,500
LL
R 7 Olympic Beach Park Restroom upgrade
$
50,000
$
53,000
$
53,000
U
R 8 Sierra Park Playground replacement
$
175,000
$
185,700
$
185,700
d
R 9 Yost Park Resurface tennis courts
$
70,000
$
74,300
$
74,300
U
C
R 10 System -wide Signage & wayfinding
$
50,000
$
53,000
$
53,000
R 11 Yost Park Pool upgrades/renovation
$
500,000
$
546,400
$
546,400
a
R 12 Maplewood Hill Park Playground replacement
$
125,000
$
144,900
$
144,900
O
R 13 System -wide Playground replacement / inclusive level
$
175,000
$ 197,000 $
202,900 $
399,900
LE
a
R 14 Elm Street Park Habitat restoration
$
50,000
$ 56,300
$
56,300
R 15 Yost Park Pool replacement
$
20,000,000
$
23,881,000 $
23,881,000
-
616
�
R 16 Seaview Park Restroom replacement
$
350,000
$
417,900 $
417,900
R 17 System -wide Capital repairs*
$
100,000
$ 100,000 $
100,000 $
100,000 $
100,000 $ 100,000 $
100,000 $
600,000
m
$
27,724,900
C
C
R
a
cM
N
0f EIJMO�
04
N
c14�
o
r
�qc.
189�
L
V
fC
Q
Packet P9. 503
5.A.d
Next Steps
• Planning Board recommended
revisions into Plan
• Council review
Comments? Questions?
Packet Pg. 504
5.A.e
v EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
To: City of Edmonds Planning Board
From: Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
CC: File
Date: February 17, 2022
Re: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Capital Program
The following are materials for the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan
Capital Program. This component of the PROS Plan is a list of capital projects reflecting
the goals, objective and key recommendations and is required by State of Washington
Recreation & Conservation Office. The projects are not prioritized, but simply are in
alphabetical order within each year. Costs reflect a 3% increase annually and are general
estimates for the projects categorized as land acquisition, planning, development and
renovation. In addition, a citywide distribution map showing year of implementation
and location (where applicable) is included.
Of note, there is one revision of the Capital Program since its public distribution on
January 7t". It is shown in red and is the removal of related expenditures and funding
related to Marina Beach Park Renovation. The $6M project funding components were
zeroed out on the six -year list resulting from Council's decision to not approve the $1M
grant agreement on January 181n
The project list and map are included with this memo.
Packet Pg. 505
5.A.e
6-Year Capital
P 8 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Design completion $ 2,000,000 $ 2,251,000 $ 2,251,000
D 19 5th Avenue Cultural Corridor Construction $ 6,000,000 $ 6,955,600 $ 6,955,600
D
D
D
A
P
D
D
8
3
4
1
4
1
16
Cemetery
City Park
Civic Center Playfields
Edmonds Marsh Estuary
Edmonds Marsh Estuary
Edmonds Marsh Estuary
Elm Street Park
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
Pedestrian safety walkway
Renovation project cont (2021 start)
Acquisition
Master Plan
Restoration
Nature Playground
$
$
$
$
$
150,000
100,000
9,871,600
TBD
250,000
TBD
75,000
$ 50,000
$ 9,871,600
$
159,100
$ 273,200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
84,400 $
159,100
50,000
9,871,600
-
273,200
-
84,400
D
17
Elm Street Park
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
$
75,000
$
84,400 $
84,400
R
14
Elm Street Park
Habitat restoration
$
50,000
$
56,300 $
56,300
R
1
Greenhouses
Replacement
$
100,000
$
100,000
A
5
Interurban Trail
Extension/acquisition
$
750,000
$ 869,500 $
869,500
P
5
Johnson Property
Master Plan
$
75,000
$ 82,000
$
82,000
R
2
Johnson Property
Demolition and securing site
$
200,000
$
200,000
R
12
Maplewood Hill Park
Playground replacement
$
125,000
$ 144,900
$
144,900
D
D
D
R
A
:l
5
6
7
3
2
IAA-..m..-. Q...... L. DParkMa.
Mathay Ballinger Park
Mathay Ballinger Park
Mathay Ballinger Park
Meadowdale Playfields
Neighborhood park - SE1
teF DI-... I.....I..w...ntatieR
Paved loop pathway
Restrooms
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
Renovations (City of Lynnwood ILA)
South Edmonds target area acq-1
$
$
$
$
$
50,000
350,000
75,000
500,000
1,500,000
$
$
$
$ 200,000
$
53,000
371,300
79,600
$
1,545,000
300,000
[�i 4--
$
$
$
$
$
53,000
371,300
79,600
500,000
1,545,000
P
2
Neighborhood park - SE1
South Edmonds NH park master plan-1
$
75,000
$
79,600
$
79,600
D
13
Neighborhood park - SE1
South Edmonds NH park development-1
$
750,000
$ 819,500
$
819,500
A
4
Neighborhood park - SE2
South Edmonds target area acq-2
$
2,000,000
$ 2,185,500
$
2,185,500
P
7
Neighborhood park - SE2
South Edmonds NH park master plan-2
$
75,000
$
84,400 $
84,400
D
18
Neighborhood park - SE2
South Edmonds NH park development-2
$
750,000
$ 869,500 $
869,500
A
3
Neighborhood park - SR99
SR 99 target area acquisition
$
1,500,000
$
1,591,400
$
1,591,400
P
6
Neighborhood park - SR99
SR 99 target area NH park master plan
$
75,000
$ 82,000
$
82,000
D
15
Neighborhood park - SR99
SR 99 target area NH park development
$
750,000
$
844,100 $
844,100
R
7
Olympic Beach Park
Restroom upgrade
$
50,000
$
53,000
$
53,000
P
1
Parks & Facilities M & O Building
Design
TBD
$
-
D
2
Parks & Facilities M & O Building
Construction
TBD
$
-
D
10
Pine Street Park
Small Shelter w/ picnic tables
$
75,000
$
79,600
$
79,600
D
11
Pine Street Park
Paved connecting pathway
$
55,000
$
58,300
$
58,300
D
12
Pine Street Park
Canopy shade trees
$
25,000
$
26,500
$
26,500
R
16
Seaview Park
Restroom replacement
$
350,000
$ 417,900 $
417,900
R
8
Sierra Park
Playground replacement
$
175,000
$
185,700
$
185,700
R
10
System -wide
Signage & wayfinding
$
50,000
$
53,000
$
53,000
R
13
System -wide
Playground replacement / inclusive level
$
175,000
$
197,000 $ 202,900 �,
399,900
R
17
System -wide
Capital repairs*
$
100,000
$ 100,000 $
100,000 $
100,000
$ 100,000 $
100,000 $ 100,000 $
600,000
P
3
Waterfront Walkway
Design completion
$
500,000
$
500,000
$
500,000
D
14
Waterfront Walkway
Construction
$
750,000
$ 750,000
$
750,000
R
4
Yost Park
Trail bridge & boardwalk repairs/replace
$
80,000
$ 80,000
$
80,000
R
R
5
6
Yost Park
Yost Park
Pool repair
Playground replacement
$
$
175,000
250,000
$
257,500
$
$
175,000
257,500
R
9
Yost Park
Resurface tennis courts
$
70,000
$
74,300
$
74,300
R
11
Yost Park
Pool upgrades/renovation
$
500,000
$ 546,400
$
546,400
R
15
Yost Park
Pool replacement
$
20,000,000
$ 23,881,000 $
23,881,000
Totals
$
30,831,600
$ 10,776,600 $
2,406,400 $
3,260,500
$ 4,983,500 $
3,701,600 $ 33,296,400 $
58,425,000
Packet Pg. 506
OF ED4
4 Q
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
PARKS PROJECTSJAt
Inc. 1890
Non Site -Specific Projects
A 2 Neighborhood park - SE1
A 3 Neighborhood park - SR99
A 4 Neighborhood park - SE2
A 5 Interurban Trail
P 2 Neighborhood park - SE1
P 4 Edmonds Marsh Estuary
P 6 Neighborhood park - SR99
P 7 Neighborhood park - SE2
D 13 Neighborhood park - SE1
D 15 Neighborhood park - SR99
D 18 Neighborhood park - SE2
R 10 System -wide signage
R 13 System -wide playgrounds 2
R 17 System -wide annual repairs
R7
1
�i
P4 ,
9S Al D3 D1 R6 p�5 . Projects
• R1 D11,R2
D2 • D12�
p 0 2022
A M1191 • 2023
r D • 2024
�FA 2025
N •
�pg O 2026
' O 2027
' TBD
A r
Edmonds Parl
* Site specific proj
■ !F =Y- 01 D5
only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown.
J
5.A.f
v EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
To: City of Edmonds Planning Board
From: Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Date: February 17, 2022
Re: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Draft — Revision Suggestions
The first draft of the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan was made available for
public review. Since then, there has been considerable public feedback in the form of emails and
public comment during various Planning Board and Council meetings. After the first Planning
Board Public Hearing on January 26th, the Board formed a subcommittee to develop suggested
recommendations for consideration of the full Planning Board. The attached matrix includes
those substantive revisions as well as others recommended by the public.
In addition, there are larger recommended changes to be incorporated into the draft Plan
before it is presented to the City Council for review and approval consideration. These include -
1. In the Director's message, incorporate and highlight the focus of the public process to
include the traditionally lesser heard constituents and the wide range of voices heard as
a result. Also, how the community priorities have shifted and changed over time.
2. Add an Executive Summary to highlight the purpose of the PROS Plan, its core focus, its
reliance on other city plans/efforts (ie, UFMP, climate, etc), key points on how it's
different from 2016 and key project recommendations.
3. Revise some of the goals/objectives to pull together a short list related to sustainability
(environmental) efforts (which is in the following matrix).
4. In the Community Profile (chap 2), add a short paragraph to highlight the economic
benefits of Parks & Recreation and call out the Underwater Dive Park specifically.
Packet Pg. 508
5.A.f
2022 Parks, Recreation & Open (PROS) Plan Revisions Table
Date: 02/17/2022
Item
1. Equity
Revision Info/current content/proposed revision PROS Plan Revision
Number
a. Identify metrics for accomplishing equity, e.g.
geographic accessibility, amenities in the parks.
1
Objective 2.5 Develop diversity, equity and inclusion metrics for park and
facility capital planning and development, recreation and cultural
programs, and department operations that guide/inform budget and
program priorities.
ADDITION:
Objective 2.5 Develop diversity, equity and inclusion metrics for park and
facility capital planning and development, recreation and cultural
programs, and department operations.
b. The map of improvements highlights geographic
Any recommendation can be made by the Planning Board on any project
Revise Capital list to reflect recommendation.
disparities that are not remedied in the CIP. For example,
in the Capital List; prioritizing, adding, eliminating, etc. The PB can state
can the department delay Pine Park and waterway
their preference for priority given to development of a park in south
walkway, to achieve greater equity to allow for earlier
Edmonds over the Pine Park and the Waterfront Walkway improvements.
development of parks in S. Edmonds area.
c. In objective 6.1, if you allow decisions to be based on
2
6.1 Enhance the diversity of recreation programs offered, considering
REVISION:
high demand, that may conflict with serving a wide range
wing en programs that are in high demand, serve a wide range of users
6.1 Enhance the diversity of recreation programs offered, considering
of diverse populations. By making it a consideration rather
and utilize the City's unique indoor and outdoor assets.
programs that are in high demand, serve a wide range of users and utilize
than a driver it allows the Parks department broader
the City's unique indoor and outdoor assets.
discretion in prioritizing parks improvements/acquisitions.
Diversity
a. Create new objective that promotes programs being
offered in various geographic locations throughout the
city.
3
Objective 2.6 Increase city-wide geographic distribution of recreation and
cultural programs by the addition of new or relocation of existing
programs into available locations of the city with few or no city programs.
ADDITION:
Objective 2.6 Increase city-wide geographic distribution of recreation and
cultural programs by the addition of new or relocation of existing
programs into available locations of the City with few or no city programs.
b. Goal 2 and 7.2 needs to be "inclusive of diversity"
4
Goal 2: Decrease barriers and provide increased opportunities for
REVISION:
rather than "reflective of diversity" given that Edmonds is
participation and representative cultural, heritage and art programs,
Goal 2: Decrease barriers and provide increased opportunities for
about 83% white, 3% African American, .7% Native
events of undeFF^"F^`eAteel representing the diverse diversity of
participation and representative cultural, heritage and art programs,
American, 7% Asian, 5.3% Hispanic,.3% Pacific Islander,
pepulatiens t r flerst the d,,..-.,,..FaPhiG of Edmonds demographics.
events representing the diversity of Edmonds demographics.
2% other races, and 4.1% from two or more races. I'd like
to be sure this won't be interpreted as being based on the
size of the different populations or we won't see much
variety of cultural, heritage or arts events.
5
7.2 Work with the community and local organizations to foster a greater
REVISION:
variety of cultural, heritage and arts events that represent the diversity of
7.2 Work with the community and local organizations to foster a greater
ref the culture d;veFsitY 9 in Edmonds.
variety of cultural, heritage and arts events that represent the diversity of
culture in Edmonds.
Packet Pg. 509
5.A.f
Environmental Stewardship
a. Goal and objectives need to be added related to how
Objective 3.7 Develop City -owned or maintained park and open space
REVISION:
parks facilities are providing adaptation and mitigation
sites based on master plans, management plans or other adopted
3.7 Develop City -owned or maintained park and open space sites
for impacts of sea level rise, carbon footprint and other
strategies to ensure parks reflect local needs, community input,
based on master plans, management plans or other adopted strategies
climate change impacts, to make climate change more
recreational a44d-conservation and environmental goals and available
to ensure parks reflect local needs, community input, recreational,
prominent. Objectives should be directly related to
financial resources.
conservation and environmental goals and available financial
operations of the Parks Department.
resources.
b. Include an objective to identify metrics that
6.2 Support the development of sustainability metrics related to
ADDITION:
accomplish environmental/sustainability/climate change
climate change as part of the Climate Action Plan, which may include
6.2 Support the development of sustainability metrics related to
adaptation and mitigation, e.g. add sequestration value,
carbon sequestration value, water conserved, and canopy coverage.
climate change as part of the Climate Action Plan, which may include
water conserved, canopy coverage, and be compatible
carbon sequestration value, water conserved, and canopy coverage.
with the Climate Change Plan goals.
c. Goal 8.12 should include consideration of how they
The notion of "community needs" encompasses climate. The new goal
can help mitigate for and adapt to impacts of climate
(below) addresses more specific components.
change.
Addition of a goal and objectives addressing
Goal #6 Adapt to climate change and increase local park system
ADDITION: Goal #6 and shift numbering of remaining goals and
environmental stewardship, sustainability and climate
resiliency by improving environmental conditions, stewardship and
objectives to reflect insertion of this new item.
change.
sustainability in parks, trails, open spaces and recreation facilities
within planning, development, maintenance, and operations.
Goal #6 Adapt to climate change and increase local park system
resiliency by improving environmental conditions, stewardship and
-S-.3 6.1 Support the implementation of other applicable City plans that
sustainability in parks, trails, open spaces and recreation facilities
can be achieved through park and open space management and
within planning, development, maintenance, and operations.
operations, such as the Urban Forestfy Management Plan, Climate
Action Plan, Stormwater Plan and Salmon Safe Certification.
6.1 Support the implementation of other applicable City plans that can
be achieved through park and open space management and
6.2 Support the development of sustainability metrics related to
operations, such as the Urban Forest Management Plan, Climate
climate change as part of the Climate Action Plan, which may include
Action Plan, Stormwater Plan and Salmon Safe Certification.
carbon sequestration value, water conserved, and canopy coverage.
6.2 Support the development of sustainability metrics related to
8-.3 6.3 Incorporate sustainability and low impact development into
climate change as part of the Climate Action Plan, which may include
design, development and maintenance of the park system and be a
carbon sequestration value, water conserved, and canopy coverage.
leader in sustainable building practices. Maintain equipment in good
working order, purchase green equipment when feasible (e.g., battery-
6.3 Incorporate sustainability and low impact development into design,
powered or low -emissions), replace existing lighting with high-
development and maintenance of the park system and be a leader in
efficiency fixtures, and keep systems (irrigation, lighting, HVAC, etc.)
sustainable building practices. Maintain equipment in good working
updated and fully functional for maximum performance. Pursue pilot
order, purchase green equipment when feasible (e.g., battery -powered
programs to field test sustainable alternatives and to implement
or low -emissions), replace existing lighting with high -efficiency fixtures,
demonstration projects.
and keep systems (irrigation, lighting, HVAC, etc.) updated and fully
functional for maximum performance. Pursue pilot programs to field
8-:46.4 Utilize, as appropriate, native and lower resource requiring
test sustainable alternatives and to implement demonstration projects.
vegetation for landscaping in parks and city owned properties to
minimize maintenance requirements, conserve water, reduce the need
6.4 Utilize, as appropriate, native and lower resource requiring
for fertilizer, provide native habitat for wildlife, and control invasive
vegetation for landscaping in parks and city owned properties to
vegetation through removal and other environmentally responsible
minimize maintenance requirements, conserve water, reduce the need
for fertilizer, provide native habitat for wildlife, and control invasive
a
Packet Pg. 510
5.A.f
means. Seek opportunities for community education on invasive
species and their safe removal to help reduce their spread in Edmonds
6.5 Identify, prioritize and, when feasible, repair and/or restore
environmental degradation within parks and open spaces including
site -specific restorations plans.
6.6 Develop tree planting guidelines and protocols to determine
planting locations and species selection to foster resilient plant
communities that can recover from disturbances and adapt to climate
change and its impacts, such as forest fire and drought.
6.7 Consider and adapt for future sea level rise within planning,
development and operation in waterfront parks and facilities.
6.8 Continue to implement and maintain an Integrated Pest
Management Program that maximizes ecological benefits while
minimizing environmental, social, and economic impacts.
vegetation through removal and other environmentally responsible
means. Seek opportunities for community education on invasive
species and their safe removal to help reduce their spread in Edmonds.
6.5 Identify, prioritize and, when feasible, repair and/or restore
environmental degradation within parks and open spaces including
site -specific restorations plans.
6.6 Develop tree planting guidelines and protocols to determine
planting locations and species selection to foster resilient plant
communities that can recover from disturbances and adapt to climate
change and its impacts, such as forest fire and drought.
6.7 Consider and adapt for future sea level rise within planning,
development and operation in waterfront parks and facilities.
6.8 Continue to implement and maintain an Integrated Pest
Management Program that maximizes ecological benefits while
minimizing environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Packet Pg. 511
5.A.f
4. Other
a. Clarify and formalize relationship with the
8.7 Support, €encourage and promote volunteerism from a variety of
REVISION
Underwater Dive Park stewards.
individuals, service clubs, local watershed councils, steward groups,
8.7 Support, encourage and promote volunteerism from a variety of
faith organizations, and businesses to enhance community ownership
individuals, service clubs, local watershed councils, steward groups,
and stewardship of parks, trails and open space. Periodically review
faith organizations, and businesses to enhance community ownership
and update volunteer organization agreements.
and stewardship of parks, trails and open space. Periodically review
and update volunteer organization agreements.
b. In objective 8.7, if you are promoting volunteerism, it
8.7 Encourage and promote volunteerism from a variety of individuals,
8.7 Encourage and promote volunteerism from a variety of individuals,
needs to be supported with appropriate staffing and
service clubs, local watershed councils, steward groups, faith
service clubs, local watershed councils, steward groups, faith
other resources like tools, etc.
organizations and businesses to enhance community ownership and
organizations and businesses to enhance community ownership and
stewardship of parks, trails and open space. Consider allocation of
stewardship of parks, trails and open space. Consider allocation of
adequate staffing, equipment and material resources to support and
adequate resources to support and promote a robust volunteer
promote a robust volunteer program.
program.
Increased recognition of community stewardship
Community Stewardship
ADDITION: (P. 85) Stewardship Section, New subsection
partnerships and programs
The City of Edmonds provides programs such as Adopt -a -Park and
Community Stewardship
Adopt -a -Plot, which create working relationships between local groups
The City of Edmonds provides programs such as Adopt -a -Park and
and the City to provide stewardship and long-term restoration efforts
Adopt -a -Plot, which create working relationships between local groups
in many city parks. In addition, the City partners with groups such as
and the City to provide stewardship and long-term restoration efforts
Sound Salmon Solutions' Edmonds Stewards, the Pilchuck Audubon
in many city parks. In addition, the City partners with steward groups
Society, Scouts, corporate work groups, and other organizations. These
such as Sound Salmon Solutions' Edmonds Stewards, the Pilchuck
groups work to restore native ecosystems and improve wildlife
Audubon Society, Scouts, corporate work groups, and other
habitat in the City's parks and open spaces through invasive plant
organizations. These groups work to restore native ecosystems and
removal, and planting and maintaining native plant communities.
improve wildlife habitat in the City's parks and open spaces through
Current locations for stewardship work include H.O. Hutt Park, Yost
invasive plant removal, and planting and maintaining native plant
Park, Edmonds Marsh, the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat & Native Plant
communities. Current locations for stewardship work include H.O. Hutt
Demonstration Garden, Pine Ridge Park, Brackett's Landing, and
Park, Yost Park, Edmonds Marsh, the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat &
City Park. The City also hosts volunteer events including beach
Native Plant Demonstration Garden, Pine Ridge Park, Brackett's
cleanups and special events, such as Earth Day and Arbor Day to
Landing, and City Park. The City also hosts volunteer events including
accommodate one-time drop -in volunteers and foster a culture of
beach cleanups and special events, such as Earth Day and Arbor Day,
environmental stewardship.
to accommodate one-time drop -in volunteers and foster a culture of
environmental stewardship.
Marsh -Estuary Recognition
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities:
Suggestion of adding language for comprehensive Marsh
Develop a park Implement master plan to include restoration of
Develop a parks master plan to include restoration of estuary function
restoration plan. In park planning, the first step in park
estuary function of connecting and daylighting Willow Creek and
of connecting and daylighting Willow Creek and Shellbarger Creek to
development is a parks master plan. This is currently
Shellbarger Creek to Puget Sound through the Edmonds Marsh.
Puget Sound through the Edmonds Marsh.
listed in the Marsh Assessment as a capital improvement
and in the Capital Program.
Maintenance Considerations:
Maintenance Considerations:
Invasive plant species management and control as per current Marsh
Invasive plant species management and control as per current Marsh
Restoration Plan should continue, especially along road ROW.
Restoration Plan should continue, especially along road ROW.
Wetlands
ADDITION: (Page 83) Open Space Section, Wetlands subsection
The City code also protects and regulates wetlands in Edmonds. The
City's open spaces include several wetland areas, such as the Edmonds
To expand the Edmonds Marsh, acquisition of additional acres known
Marsh and Willow Creek Park. These areas continue to be a high
as the Unocal property, should be considered when it is available. If
priority for protection and restoration efforts, and low-lying properties
ownership of Unocal property is secured by the City, a plan to restore
a
Packet Pg. 512
5.A.f
with prevalent wetlands can provide valuable stormwater
estuarian functions of the Marsh should be developed to encompass
management and flood control functions. Generally, they represent
property that connects Willow and Shellbarger Creeks to the Puget
fragile ecosystems that host unique plant communities and serve as a
Sound.
valuable habitat for many animals, including bird and amphibian
populations. These areas should be included in future open space
management and acquisition planning.
To expand the Edmonds Marsh, acquisition of additional acres known
as the Unocal property, should be considered when it is available. If
ownership of Unocal property is secured by the City, a plan to restore
estuarian functions of the Marsh should be developed to encompass
property that connects Willow and Shellbarger Creeks to the Puget
Sound.
Brackett's Landing North/Dive Park
In the Community Profile (chap 2), addition of a short paragraph to
To be added in next Version
Importance/significance of the Underwater Dive Park
highlight the economic benefits of P&R and call out the Underwater
located in Brackett's Landing North
Park specifically
Note: The Dive Park listed in Plan Goal 5/Objective 5.1
noted as a unique natural feature and as Park Site
Assessments (Brackett's Landing North) (pg. 123)
Recommendation to transfer Southwest Snohomish
Acquisition of land for open space and conservation is a key
The suggestion of transferring ownership of this specific park is more
County Park ownership from County to City
recommendation.
of a consideration to enhance the level of service for open space rather
than a PROS Plan goal or objective or statement. This is a item that
could be considered by the Planning Board for recommendation to City
Council.
a
Packet Pg. 513
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/23/2022
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
Narrative
Extended Agenda attached
Attachments:
February 23, 2022 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 514
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
1PLAKHNR BOARD
Extended Agenda
February 23, 2022
March 2022
March 9 1. Planning Board Retreat
March 23 1. Recap of 2022 Washington State Legislative Session: Planning
Related Context
Lpril 2022
April 13 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
For Future 2
Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
Consideration
2022 3.
Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design)
4.
Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan
5.
Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
6.
Subdivision code updates
7.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
8. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
9. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
10. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
11. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
c
a�
a�
a
x
w
CU
c
a�
a
a�
c
a�
X
W
N
N
O
N
M
N
M
a�
a_
c
0
E
V
r
Q
Packet Pg. 515
items ana t)ates are
9.A.a
o change
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December)
Topics 2. parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First
meeting after previous quarter (4/13, 7/13, 10/12, 1/11/23)
3. Joint meeting with City Council —April or as needed
4. Development Activity Report
Packet Pg. 516