The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-11-09 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda Edmonds Planning Board "" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 9, 2016, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Aproval of Draft Minutes: October 26, 2016 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Civic Master Plan Public Hearing B. Public Hearing on 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda November 9, 2016 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/9/2016 Aproval of Draft Minutes: October 26, 2016 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: PB161026d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 26, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5d' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Lel VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director advised that the City is undertaking a capital program to redevelop the waterfront in conjunction with the Senior Center's project to develop a new Community Center. He said he was formerly on the Senior Center Board when it came up with a great program to construct a new center that would accommodate senior citizens and the general public. He voiced concern that the City's plan for a beach project at the end of the parking lot would create a competing use and there would be insufficient parking to accommodate the demand. He suggested that the beach restoration project is a wonderful idea, but it is proposed in the wrong location. It will create a situation where senior citizens will have to compete for parking space close to the building. Even if the existing parking is maintained, there is no guarantee that the parking will be available for senior citizens. He commented that parking availability is critical to the success of the senior center programs, yet it does not appear that the issue has been included as part of the City's proposal. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the Architectural Design Board will have a special meeting on November 2nd at 7:30 p.m. for training with the City Attorney on board roles, quasi-judicial meetings, etc. Planning Board Members are invited to attend, as well. Packet Pg. 3 UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN PROJECT John Fregonese, Fregonese Associates, explained that the purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the project and present implementation strategies and policy recommendations. He advised that there are a number of different plans pertaining to the approximately 2-mile stretch along Highway 99 that is within the City of Edmonds, and the intent was to consolidate the portions of each plan that are still valid for the area. He said the subarea was divided into three distinct districts: • The Health District is on the north end and is developed as Swedish Hospital and various medical offices. • The International District is located in the middle and is developed with diverse restaurants, grocers and shops. There is also a major Korean business cluster. • The Gateway District is on the south end. The community has indicated a desire for a "gateway" that provides a distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds. V_ 0 N Mr. Fregonese said that although at first blush, the highway looks to be fairly single -occupancy -auto oriented, there are N several areas where there is both density and diversity of uses that generate more pedestrian and transit activity. In particular, L there are three locations along the highway that have reasonably good form relative to crossings, transit service, employment .0 activity and block size. Zoning changes can enhance these nodes further and new connections could improve the in-between areas. He specifically noted that in the central area there are long segments without crossings, particularly between 228th and O 244t' Streets where it takes about 10 minutes to walk from one side of the street to the other. The ideal coal is a 5-minute _ walk to transit stops and a 10-minute walk to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. A 10-minute walk to cross the street will +3 present an impediment to the area becoming a multi -modal transit center. c Mr. Fregonese reviewed that a public workshop was held in march to identify opportunities for new housing and businesses, community centers and services, and infrastructure upgrades. The public indicated a widespread desire for housing, particularly in the south. There was also a widespread desire for mixed -use development, particularly in the south and central districts. In addition to the new 228th Street crossing, more mid -block pedestrian crossings are needed throughout the corridor. The community identified connectivity, destinations, beautification, safety, walkability, affordable housing, and healthy businesses as important values. Mr. Fregonese advised that the draft plan contains three alternative scenarios (long-term, short-term and business -oriented) with more employment growth in the medical district. It also includes draft implementation strategies, policy recommendations and actions. He reviewed the recommendations as follows: Draft Zoning and Development Recommendations Modify the Comprehensive Plan Map to identify the districts (Health, International and Gateway). The idea of dividing the highway into districts is not new. The proposal is to consolidate the districts identified in other plans into three distinct districts. • Consolidate the CG-1 and CG-2 zones into a single CG zone. Currently, height is the only difference between the two zones. CG-1 allows a height of 55 feet and CG-2 allows a height of 65 feet. The proposal is to consolidate the two zones and use the height limit of CG-2 at 65 feet. In addition, many of the current zones (Neighborhood Business and Community Business) are remnants from the county's antiquated zoning, and some of the zones don't match with the parcels so some lots have more than one zone. The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone. • Modify the current Design Standards (ECDC 16.60) that are specific to the Highway 99 Corridor and CG zoning. To transition from an auto -oriented area to a pedestrian -oriented area, it is necessary to create an appealing sidewalk environment, and the current design standards could be improved to accomplish this goal. The intent is to have district - based design standards in place that do not require discretionary review or dictate a particular style. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a o Screening and buffering for parking lots. Currently, Type IV Landscaping (minimum width of 4 feet) is required along street frontages. A 4-foot-wide landscape strip along the street front is opposite of what is needed to create a pedestrian area. o Access and Parking. People who live in transit -oriented areas typically have fewer cars. The proposal is to use a parking standard that is specific to transit -oriented zones. People who live in these zones are more transit depending and there is more transit service available. On average, there will be less automobile ownership and less need for parking. As proposed, no parking would be available along the street, and parking would be predominantly located on the side and to the rear of the building. Parking areas can only comprise 40% or less of street frontage. In addition, parking lots could not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. o Buildings on the Street Frontage. Currently, the right-of-way is fairly narrow, and placing buildings close to the street edge does not really work to create a pedestrian -friendly environment. The proposal is that at least 50% of the primary street frontage should have buildings with 10 feet of the property line. This will create a "Pedestrian Activity Zone" that is located far enough back from the street for people to walk comfortably. N co o Ground Floor Transparency. As proposed, 50% of the primary building fagade must be made of transparent N windows and doors. All other building frontages require 30% transparency. 0 o Pedestrian Activity Zone. Currently, the code requires a 4-foot landscaped strip along the street front. The p proposal is to replace this requirement with a required 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone that will accommodate a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes, public art, street furniture, street trees, bus shelters, etc. The Pedestrian Activity Zone will remain in private hands and would be owned and controlled by the property c owner. Upper floors of the building could extend out over the activity zone to provide shade and shelter. This approach is less onerous than dedication of public right-of-way. o Front Step Back for Multi -Family and/or Mixed -Use Development. Although taller buildings would be allowed adjacent or across the street from single-family zones, the proposal is to implement "bulk plane setback regulations," which require a step back for the portions of building above 25 feet so that large buildings do not loom over adjacent properties. As proposed, a 10-foot step back would be required for the portion of building over 25 feet, and another 10-foot step back would be required for the portion of building over 50 feet. A 15- foot landscape buffer would still be required between adjacent single-family residential uses. Using this approach, pedestrians along the street will not perceive a tall building, and the step back can provide functional patio space for the upper story residential units. The intent is to ensure a transition in height and bulk between multi-family/mixed-use buildings in commercial zones and adjacent single-family zones. • Modify parking requirements by implementing transit supportive parking standards. Parking is costly to provide because it is often structured parking. The proposal is to require a minimum average of .75 spaces per unit for residential projects and 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. In addition, retail bays of 3,000 square feet within mixed -use buildings that have a shared parking plan would be exempt from parking requirements. Draft Affordable Housing Recommendations • Implement a Multi -Family Tax Abatement/Exemption Program. This program could allow a building -value tax exemption for the residential portion of a building if at least 20% of the units are affordable at 80% of the median family income. This provides a type of subsidy to make development of affordable units worthwhile for developers. • Facilitate a mixed -use, mixed -income demonstration project. Using this option, the City would identify a site with a willing owner or purchase a site and then actively recruit a developer to cultivate a champion project. Financers want to know that development will be successful and the first project will likely be the most difficult to get started. If the City can help incentivize a project, others will follow. Consider other affordable housing opportunities. These opportunities include the Community Revitalization Finance (CRF) Act, Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) Program, Hospital Benefit Zone (HBZ) Program, Local Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a Revitalization Financing (LRF) Program, Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) Financing, State Land Improvement Financing Area (SLIFA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Draft Signage and Wayfindin2 Recommendations • Add gateway signage at the Highway 99/SR-104 interchange and at the transit station at Highway 99 and 228th Street. • Improve wayfinding signage along the corridor to identify the downtown, Lake Ballinger, Interurban Trail, new regional trail, International District, Health District and other activity nodes. • Create a unique district design identity using branding, public/local art, street furniture, unique bus shelter design, pavement patterns, special lighting fixtures, colored crosswalks, banners, etc. is T 0 • Prohibit new pole signs. c14 W Draft Transit Recommendations cm d • Improve Transit Transfers b unifying and consolidating BRT and local transit stops to reduce walking distances C P Y fY� g g p g 0 for transfers. O • Implement improvements at the key intersection of Highway 99 and 228`h Street, and 228"' Street will connect Edmonds to regional rail service in Mountlake Terrace. The City should consider improving shuttle/transit service from Highway 99 to the regional rail station, consolidating transit stops at 228"' Street, constructing a new BRD station, providing clear signage, and providing a high -quality bike connection on 228"' Street. • Incentivize Alternative Transportation Options by implementing ride -share services (Uber, Lyft), adding electric car charging stations, implementing car share/bike share programs, etc. The City could also offer reductions in impact fees and parking requirements for providing dedicated on -site parking stalls. Draft Transportation Infrastructure Improvements • Short-term and long-term transportation improvements are aimed at improving pedestrian safety and access to/from the Highway 99 Corridor, improving pedestrian environment along the Highway 99 Corridor, providing safe pedestrian crossing of Highway 99 and access to transit, improving transit mobility and transit stop environment and improving traffic flow and general safety with access management. • Actual physical improvements include new bicycle route designations, new class of bicycle lanes, intersection safety and capacity improvements, street improvements for pedestrians, access management via raised medians, and a pedestrian hybrid signal (HAWK). Mr. Fregonese provided pictures to illustrate the existing conditions, what the highway could look like following initial public investment into transportation infrastructure improvements, and what it could look like following corresponding private investment. He summarized that, as proposed, it is anticipated the plan would result in up to 2,000 additional jobs and 3,000 to 5,000 new housing units. Mr. Fregonese invited the Board Members to provide feedback before the plan is finalized for the November IOth public meeting. The open house will offer an opportunity for people to converse prior to a formal presentation. After the presentation, the attendees will have an opportunity mill around and ask additional questions. Chair Lovell asked if the draft plan is reflective of a high degree of public involvement. Mr. Fregonese answered that he and staff conducted a lot of interviews with property owners and interested parties. In addition, the two public meetings were Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 well attended and a lot of feedback was received. The next open house will allow people to react to the draft plan before it is modified into a final form for City Council approval. Board Member Crank said she attended the initial workshop for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan where there was a lot of design work going on. As someone who lives on the Highway 99 Corridor, between the Gateway and International Districts, it is heartening to see what an expanded sidewalk might look like. Right now, the sidewalks are uninviting and unsafe. She is happy that the 228"' Street crossing has been completed, but having one at 234"b Street would be equally welcome. Board Member Crank said she moved from an area that implemented an in -lieu -of program to support affordable housing. Developers were given a choice of either including a certain percentage of affordable units or paying an in -lieu -of fee. Developers were most likely to pay the fee because they knew they would get it back based on market values. The City collected the fees overtime and purchased land within the downtown to do a demonstration project in partnership with non- profit developers to create affordable units. The proposed tax abatement program for multi -family development would be a similar concept, but it would not require developers to participate. Nothing would be gained if developers choose not to participate. Mr. Fregonese agreed that the participation in the program would be a choice and not a requirement, and the N intent of the program is to provide an incentive for developers to construct affordable units. He said his understanding is that ca Washington State does not allow cities to adopt inclusionary zoning that would make affordable housing a requirement. He N agreed to research the option further. If inclusionary zoning is legal in Washington State, he will make sure the policy makers know it is an option. He pointed out that constructing units that are affordable at 80% of the median family income would not require a deep subsidy, and abating property taxes for a period of time can be an effective incentive. Board p Member Crank commented that while the tax abatement program may work for now, she questioned if it would be effective five to ten years from now if property values continue to increase. 3 c Board Member Monroe observed that most people he knows live in Edmonds, but work in Seattle. He voiced concern that the plan did talk a lot about improving traffic flow on Highway 99 for cars. He asked what measures would be taken to improve traffic. Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that Highway 99 is a State Highway, and the State's 30-year improvement plan does not include widening the roadway to add an extra lane. The improvements recommended in the plan include capacity improvements at intersections such as signal coordination. The intent is to keep the flow of traffic moving O more efficiently. Board Member Monroe asked how improved efficiency would be reconciled with the proposed Hawk > crossing signal. Mr. Fregonese answered that it should work efficiently, as well. Board Member Monroe asked if limiting a points of access was considered as an option for improving roadway efficiency. Mr. Fregonese answered that access control Q will be part of the recommendation. The goal is to get as many driveways as possible off of Highway 99 and onto side 00 streets. !n Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that when encouraging more pedestrian use along Highway 99, there must be a limit to the speed that makes walking enjoyable. She asked if lowering the speed along the highway was considered as a possible option. She referred to recent development in Lynnwood at the intersection of Highway 99 and 196"' Street, where a pedestrian activity zone, similar to the one proposed in the plan, was created. Mr. Fregonese said he would support a reduction in vehicular traffic speed along the corridor, but recognized that the State sets the speed limits. With the proposed pedestrian activity zone, pedestrians would be separated from the fast-moving vehicular traffic by a BRT lane and a 4-foot strip in the right-of-way. Pedestrians would walk closer to the building. He agreed that a slower speed would be better, but it cannot be included as a component of the plan because the City does not have the authority to change it. However, the Plan could advocate for reducing the speed over time. Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to the diagram provided in the presentation that showed landscape barriers down the middle of the street to create a boulevard effect and slow traffic. Mr. Fregonese said the plan recommends pedestrian refuge and landscape barriers in some locations, but they are limited based on State requirements. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she is glad to see the potential for second floor plaza areas based on the step back requirement. She pointed out that Highway 99 is one area in Edmonds where there is a great view of Mt. Rainier. She thought that might have come up in some of the discussions about the highway's development potential. Mr. Fregonese said that, although requiring a step back would cut down on the amount of square footage, it would provide a real amenity for residential development. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Vice Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that boxy development should be discouraged along the corridor. She recalled that when discussing potential development at Westgate, there was a desire for town homes and/or more modulated, pedestrian - oriented development. She asked what could make it cost effective to develop something smaller in scale that creates its own neighborhood along the highway. She felt there were opportunities to create neighborhoods that are parallel to Highway 99 but separate. Mr. Fregonese said the illustration provided in the presentation represents an ideal footprint for mixed -use development, particularly those with structured parking. While the illustration shows the step back concept, it is not a good example of a well -modulated building. The intent is to adopt designs standards that require more modulation to break up the fagade. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she understands the economic benefits of the design, but she wants to see it balanced with other types of development. She pointed out that there is townhome development near the park -and -ride in Lynnwood. Mr. Fregonese noted that townhome development typically results in fewer units per acre, and it is costlier to develop. He agreed, however, that the building styles could be mixed together. If the City is involved in the first project, they could develop for a mixture of incomes and needs. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she likes the idea of breaking the corridor into three districts, but she is concerned that the plan does not illustrate the potential for neighborhoods. There has been some discussion about limiting access from Highway 99 N and having more side roads and more transit -oriented development. This would be conducive to neighborhood style ca development. Mr. Fregonese agreed to make sure the plan address that more directly. N d Board Member Robles said the concept of creating a unique identity along the corridors seems to call for more districts, yet the plan proposes reducing the number of districts from four to three. He asked if the names for the three districts are cast in O stone, and Mr. Fregonese answered no. Board Member Robles suggested that the City should wait to name the districts until after they have been defined and then the branding can be complete. 3 c Board Member Robles asked if there would be additional crosswalks near bus stops. Mr. Fregonese said the state is very strict when it comes to adding crossings on the highway. While several signalizations and crossing improvements have been proposed, there would only be one new crossing. Board Member Robles asked if an overhead crossing was considered, and Mr. Fregonese said it was not based on cost. He agreed to provide a map to illustrate how the crossings would be located within three to five minutes from any point along the highway. Board Member Robles suggested that reuniting the O neighborhoods that have been separated by the highway for many years may lead to the need to establish a more costly > overhead crossing at some point in the future. He also pointed out that speed has a significant impact on pedestrian safety. Q. He noted that buses create a pressure wave that can push things around. Q 0 Board Member Robles commented that the Interurban Trail is a tremendous amenity that connects cities and people. LO However, it seems like it is an afterthought in the plan rather than the center of something extraordinary. Perhaps the plan should provide clear access to the trail for bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Fregonese said the plan will include an entire section on trails, walkways and bike paths. A lot of good planning has already occurred and will be integrated into the plan. 04 0 Board Member Stewart said she is pleased with the forward -thinking nature of the proposed plan. She asked when the process started, and Mr. Fregonese answered that his contract started in January of 2016. The first workshop was in March, a and the first open house in May. The project is getting the point of creating a detailed plan for people to react to at the November loth open house. However, there is still plenty of time to modify the plan based on Planning Board and public m feedback before it is approved in its final form. E r Board Member Stewart said she would not be inclined to sit on a bench along Highway 99 while cars go by at high speeds. However, she likes that trees would be used in the amenity areas to improve the atmosphere, and she hopes that the curbs will be substantial. Safety is a significant concern from her perspective. Board Member Stewart asked where bicycle access is planned. Mr. Fregonese said the intent is not to accommodate bicycles on Highway 99. Instead, bicycles would use the parallel side streets with frequent access over to the highway. Board Member Stewart pointed out that many people ride bicycles to the bus stops. Mr. Fregonese said there are already bicycle facilities along the highway, and they will be improved as part of the plan. However, the parallel routes will still provide the safest alternative. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Chair Lovell asked if the proposed plan has been reviewed with City staff. Mr. Fregonese answered that he has been working with staff through the entire project, including Public Works, Economic Development, Community Development, Planning, Building, etc. Chair Lovell asked to what degree the staff and consultant have had interface with property owners and real developers. He asked if anything has been done to engender the interest of developers. Mr. Fregonese said he has talked with real developers and property owners along the corridor and will continue to do so. He also met with representatives from Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Shoreline, as well as Snohomish County, Community Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, and Washington State Department of Transportation. The intent is to coordinate with other agencies and surrounding jurisdictions. Chair Lovell asked if Mr. Fregonese believes the proposed plan will make development along Highway 199 more attractive to potential developers, and Mr. Fregonese answered yes. He advised that a proforma analysis was done of the properties and estimated redevelopment costs. If problems associated with parking and height are addressed, the numbers work out, but developers will likely need some encouragement for the first one. Once a successful prototype is in place, development should take off. Again, he said the pioneer development is the most difficult to do. Getting the zoning in place to make W development easier and more straightforward will help. Chair Lovell observed that some residents of Edmonds have taken a N dim view of taller buildings, and he anticipates there will be intense interest relative to building height. ca N L Chair Lovell pointed out that a number of properties along the highway are triangular in shape. He asked if this ends up obstructing development potential. Mr. Fregonese said it often ends up as wasted space, but this can be reflected in the price 0 of the property. Most of the area is zoned for 65 to 50-foot building heights and the plan proposes a 65-foot building height p with step backs to mitigate for the additional height. He suggested that putting taller buildings on the highway would enclose the highway and minimize noise for properties behind. d Chair Lovell asked about the total right-of-way width for Highway 99. Mr. Fregonese said it varies between four to eight feet of additional right-of-way beyond the curb. Chair Lovell referred to the recent development in Lynnwood at the intersection of Highway 99 and 196th Street and noted that he rarely sees anyone walking in the pedestrian activity zone that was created as part of the project. The concept of creating pedestrian activity zones along the highway sounds great, and the more the buildings are setback the better. He also likes limiting parking to no more than 40% of the frontage. Chair Lovell asked if it would be helpful for the City to insert some design standards for buildings into to the plan. Mr. Fregonese said the plan could include objective design standards that do not require design review but would require variation in the building fagade, etc. He agreed to work with the Community Development Director to identify potential design standards for larger buildings. Chair Lovell referred to the Compass Development on SR-104 that is not particularly popular. While the apartments and retail space is setback from the street, it is not a good situation overall because the speed along the highway is 45 miles per hour. From the schematic provided in the presentation, it appears that the proposed pedestrian activity zones could have the same problem. It is intimating to have fast-moving traffic next to the sidewalk. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she sees a lot of people walking along Highway 99. She asked if a survey was done to gauge how many pedestrians there are. Mr. Fregonese answered that he did not do a pedestrian count, but he knows that usage is low. In addition to the traffic improvements called out in the plan, Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the plan also includes projects that will improve the pedestrian experience. She said she understands there will be a tradeoff associated with lowering highway speeds, one being that people might jump on and off the highway more often to frequent the businesses. She said she has found that as long as the lights along the highway are synchronized, traffic seems to move along. Board Member Monroe agreed that synchronizing the lights does help, and Shoreline and Edmonds does a good job with that. However, the lights in Seattle create a mess. He voiced concern about adding more lights, as well as a Hawk crossing. He said he sees Highway 99 as an opportunity to create a commercial resource, but they must also recognize that Edmonds is a bedroom community and they need to focus on transporting people to and from their work. He said he does not see that as prominent in the plan. Board Member Robles recalled that when light rail was added in south Seattle, it was supposed to have the impact of serving the lower level community and offer opportunities for affordable housing, but it is now driving in a certain amount of gentrification. He asked if that is anticipated in Edmonds, as well. Will the proposed plan serve affordable housing needs or Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a push up property values? Mr. Fregonese said part of the plan is to make sure there is more housing with a significant portion being affordable. However, the nicer the area gets, the market value will go up. It is important to have affordable housing programs in place because it won't happen with only market force. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the November 9th meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the Civic Center Master Plan and a public hearing on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The November 23rd meeting has been cancelled. The December 10' meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan, a presentation of the University of Washington/Forterra Plan for Five Corners, and election of 2017 Board Officers. The December 281h meeting has been cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell advised that he would be unable to attend the Highway 99 Subarea Plan Open House on November loth. N However, he felt it was important that at least one Board Member attend the meeting. ca N L PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 0 Board Member Crank reported that the Senior Center Board held its retreat on October 22"d, where there was a sneak peak of p the video that was put together with people talking about support for the reconstruction of the senior center. Things are moving full speed ahead. d Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Board would have a discussion at some point about the concern raised by Mr. Hertrich about parking conflicts. Chair Lovell pointed out that the Community Center project is moving towards the permit stage, and will not come before the Board for review. The waterfront revitalization project is also moving forward and project permit applications have been filed. Board Member Crank advised that the Senior Center will host additional open houses to present the design and solicit public feedback. It would be appropriate for citizens, including Board Members, to attend the meeting to bring up issues and concerns. She advised that the Senior Center has discussed possible solutions to mitigate the parking conflicts between those visiting the community center and those visiting the waterfront park. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/9/2016 Civic Master Plan Public Hearing Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Prepared By: Carrie Hite Background/History Civic Center Field was recently acquired by the City from the Edmonds School District. The property officially closed on February 9, 2016. The PROS plan and Parks CIP have both identified the City's goals of master planning this property once acquired. The kick off meeting to launch the master planning process with the City Council was held on May 3rd, 2016. Since that time, there have been two open houses, two virtual open houses, many stakeholder interviews, Planning Board and City Council input. Staff Recommendation Hold Public Hearing. Discuss, give guidance to staff and the consultant team. Forward to Council with any recommendations. Narrative The City and design team have conducted three in person open houses and three online open houses. Stakeholder outreach has continued for the duration of the project with recent engagement including teen groups, parks maintenance staff and planning. At the most recent open house, one hybrid option was presented which incorporated community feedback to date. Over the next two months, the design team will be working with the community to refine the this hybrid plan. We will be holding this public hearing with the Planning Board and a public hearing with the City Council on November 22, 2016. Hybrid Plan Walker Macy presented the Hybrid Plan for Civic Field to the Edmonds community on October 19, 2016. The presentation summarized the project background, schedule, input received from Open House #2, and then provided an overview of the Hybrid Plan. Community sentiment supported the general arrangement of spaces but expressed concern with the location of the skatepark and it's proximity to the neighboring condos. Additional critique suggested moving stadium lighting to the perimeter of the field and looking at pedestrian safety along the alley's in further detail. The sketch on page 29 of the presentation suggests a new location for the skatepark based on community sentiment, input from the project advisory committee, and neighbors. Page 30 of your presentation illustrates a densely planted Packet Pg. 11 6.A buffer between the park and alley edges which prevents children from crossing in non -designated areas. Page 31 suggests a three phase strategy for park and ROW development. Planning member Val Stewart is represented on the Project Advisory Committee for the planning process. City Council member Dave Tietzel and Council President Kristiana Johnson are both on the Project Advisory Committee. Attached for your reference are the following: 1. Presentation for this meeting 2. Master Plan schedule 3. PAC team agenda and minutes 4. Comment letters In addition, the next steps in this process include: November 9th: Planning Board Public Hearing November 22nd: City Council Public Hearing Attachments: 161103 Planning Board Presentation Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates Revised 161025 PAC Meeting #4 Agenda (2) 161025 PAC Meeting #4 Minutes CIVIC PARK COMMENT LETTERS Packet Pg. 12 ra Rom-"-�. .r. I • -- �.. �`�s�r;"— r.�. - may, "� �" ; � ' � =�.' yt. " " � r; �: •�' .ice � � ; :�..:. �• � r t�'.�' �;� .;�•�. r• �ti `"�` � �.' �. :� of , � ';..�� _ _ � ��.'� e �.� .. _ � . r �,, •s .,� .. Sr i': �, may,. � q� .�. - 'i .Y-. , ��,r =,/�, WALKER MACY -.► ::4 �,' .ec� .` .-F 6.A.a Project Schedule Online Open House 3, through Friday November 4th http://edmondscivicfield.participate.online/ Planning Board, November 9 City Council, November 22 City Council Adoption, January 17 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 14 6.A.a Open House #2 Review Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 15 6.A.a Open House #2 Review OPTION 1: MEADOW LOOP OPTION 2: ACTIVITY CENTRAL • 2 smaller or 1 large soccer field • 4 petanque courts • 1.5 courts • playgrounds • walking jogging paths • multi -use lawn • existing Field House / B&G Club • shade pavilion and restroom Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan • 1 large + 1 small soccer field • 200m track r • 8 petanque courts • skate park • 4 courts • sand volleybal • playgrounds • parking E • walking jogging paths • picnic pavilion w • multi -use lawn Q • expanded Field House for B&G Club/Cafe/restroon WA I Packet Pg. 16 In -Person Discussion & Report Back Approximately 160 attended 16 Discussion Tables Preferred Plan (by majority at table): Option 1: 8 Option 2: 4 Split: 2 Unclear: 2 Individual Comment Cards: Option 1: 5 Option 2: 3 Undecided/Unclear: 3 6.A.a 0 a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 17 6.A.a Online open House Results August 24th to September 7th 1,057 visitors 379 responses Preferred Plan Option 1: 88 (23.9%) Option 2: 280 (76.1 %) Age Range • Over 70: 38 (17.7%) • 45-69: 81 (37.7%) • 30-44: 80 (37.2%) • 18-29: 7 (3.3%) • Under 18: 5 (2.3%) r- la a L urtmprre,eno-e .. - swuperb aearrne •• � ® Qi &qtr Lmy.pe CITY OF EDMONDS 2 Civic Field Project Welcome 0 W ekome to i he second u nllne open house Fur the Edmonds Chlc Center +a Playfeald Master Plan, Flere you can kam about she prole[[ and provide your � a� Input on the future a the park. In response W input from the w mmunity, Iwo allemaltva plans have Gorr produced m generate more fecdbaokand - N dlz union. The Goal plan will Elkely bea hybrid of the alwmAlveplam and r _ •- will he Presencod at the October 11th open house. ihknnflneopen hwsc Isaval3ah[r lhmugfe Prkiay, SeptcmGer9, 2015. _ . , �`-� �� •yam � Hove to use this online open house: 1' • 'b• fC ,t m Visit the tabbed'sratlnns' to team pbnulthp park, iha ryw propeseddesign �+ ~' opt Ions and pruride feedback" beep an eye out for surveycluestIct and submanswers. P it your teasesharethk sIW with others who may be Interested ; f •� In this project. Please jnfn us"ursrt at one ul-t.tioming open houses at the EdmonJ 2 pu7a Room, 553 Main SftPat, Fdn%-c!s- Ererrt 6 73upm on the failowing da:' a 1. What is your relationship to the park? �Chexk all Thal apply] • Thursday,June23,2015 A[NvllleslCanpletedj ce) CD 0:A-r rthepark •Wednetday. August 2a.io16-lAaskrpl-Alterrratly-ICompleledi U rwork nea* the park Wednesday, October 12.2d16 preferred Master Flan Review r to i_- I hveandlor work nearthe park Changes or updares to public open In.- aw- wtll be purred ae � n Idonat llveandlarwwkm£dmorids n�kCedma°dawn.gov � E w a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA, IPacket Pg. 18 6.A.a Online Open House Results a respondents Common reasons Common reasons respondents preferred option 1 included: preferred option 2 included: U • Free -flowing structure, layout • View terraces • Walking paths • Long walking and running paths • Water feature and plaza •Focus on fields and athletic IL • Open green spaces and lawn facilities • Reduced number of petanque • Expanded boys and girls club courts • Skatepark • No track • Potential for large events o r • More spaces for families and children • Track a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 19 6.A.a Combined Open House Results Estimate of Combined Preferences: Option 1: 178 (35%) Option 2: 330 (65%) • In -person — 90 (64%) In -person — 50 (36%) • Online — 88 (24%) Online — 280 (77%) Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 20 6.A.a Most Consistent Comments • Like the lawn terraces • Skatepark should remain • Option 1 curves nice but want more active program like in Option 2 4-A -. V a L U to co c O R C O N d L Q. L CU MO W IL M O r O r C d w r a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a Additional Feedback Common elements not shown that respondents would like to see included: • Additional restrooms • Benches and/or seating areas • Lighting • Additional covered athletic facility and market Stage • ADA accessibility • 400-meter track Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 22 6.A.a a t) u Hybrid Plan a+ a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 23 6.A.a HYBRID PLAN How we responded to what we heard: Top 10 activities (from Open House #1) 1. restrooms 2. petanque 3. jogging/walking paths 4. soccer 5. shade trees 6. skate park 7. playground 8. tennis 9. Boys &Girls Club 10. multi -use lawn Included in Hybrid Votes Plan 77 76 71 67 56 50 50 49 48 42 From total list of 40 activities, 36 are accommodated in the hybrid plan Themes / Priorities: 1 st: Active 2nd: Passive 3rd: Civic Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 24 6.A.a HYBRID PLAN V Framework u r Q Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 25 6.A.a HYBRID PLAN Connections 1w, Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 26 '_-' �7 7-YB R I D-'. V,, 41W- AA Daley St l_ ��w �+ M=_. .{ r wed _ - s ..... THE MEADO • Sprague St _ Spr�e St _ _ -----...._ - - - a 4. ,t • THE GREAT LAWN Ib- �.� Edmonds s v _ Z +u.� .... _..�... . t °Bell St} �ti 6.A.a HYBRID PLAN Community Hubs Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAJ Packet Pg. 28 6.A.a HYBRID PLAN Community Hubs 20,000 SF potential Boys & Girls Club alternative Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAIJ Packet Pg. 29 001NIBEUWA 0 EUNas2D p VL r`F Y r - y A • i ...p.^=. ...i . al NID k4 mo m p •. tP 1�1 - - 4 L 5 . -- -� *jFF �a,'�• �,. � ��-.�._+.,- - Mtn ,��. ..�� I 1'��3 �.I �''� ��I. � . r 001NIBEUWA 0 EUNas2D •4Jiyr R i'INA �'Tl�f .a 0 IWO 4M, lilt. 0 ow 4i, MAR - lit 6.A.a VISION Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WQ I Packet Pg. 34 6.A.a VISION I Pia CL r L a m � r T- d a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 35 ■ IRA _ - f ------------- a 1 ■ � I Small f;I ® Performances p Markets Small -Medium ■ Performances i.. ■ 1 ® Wine Garden, 0 etc. AV • f -� � ' 5w T 6 � ��'_ � i �' - 414a 6.A.a HYBRID PLAN EVENT OVERLAYS 0 Large Events • Taste of Edmonds • 4th of July • Markets and Festiva Is Q Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' IPacket Pg. 37 6.A.a Q&A + FEEDBACK INDIVIDUAL COMMENT CARD If you would prefer to make personal comments please use the following form. 1. Please share your thoughts, what do you like or dislike about the plan? 2. Which elements of the new park design would bring you to the park most often? 3. Are there park elements not shown that you would like to see? Additional Notes / Comments: L\tk 0 c I don't like... M O co a+ c m E z a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' Packet Pg. 38 6.A.a Updates to Hybrid Plan Since Open House #3 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' Packet Pg. 39 Hybrid Plan as shown at Open House #3 6.A.a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 40 Proposed Changes to Hybrid Plan 6.A.a multi -use court option if Boys & Girls Club extension is built petanque expanded to south 0 a c a a� r 2 U to co c 0 c aD m L IL L CU M0 W IL M to w a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 41 6.A.a Typical Planted Buffer Along Alleyways V IL L C� C _ V > u r �i co v 0 o a ILCU M O T" to Planted Berms 8' Jogging/ 14' 17' Walking Path Min. Planted Alley Buffer E w r a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 42 0111 NIT • r4ARL�. Air OW Ap w' -91 6.A.a End / Discussion Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 45 Available Facilities (Parks + Schools) TOTAL FACILITIES (# At Civic Center Playfield) Soccer Fields (Adult + Youth): .... 10 (2) Tennis Courts: .................................. 7 (2) Petanque:....................................... 4 (4) Basketball Courts: ........................ 10 (2) Baseball/Softball Fields (Adult + Youth): ..................... 11 (1) Skate Park: .................................... 2 (1) Pickleball:...................................... 10 (2) EDMONDS AREA PARKS Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' IPacket Pg. 46 PROJECT SITE (8 ACRES) .j. 2 ACRES EXEMPT FROM DEED RESTRICTIONS DEED RESTRICTIONS (b ACRES) • Not more than 10% impervious surface (excluding pathways) • Pervious surface parking only • Must be preserved as open space • No synthetic turf • No buildings (restrooms allowed but apply to impervious calculations) • Shade structures are permitted • Multi -use open grass areas are allowed • Temporary festival use can be accommodated r, WP .F _ .. BELL STREET 0 N O NOT TO SCALE P � p 9 6.A.b Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates May 3rd: City Council Kick off meeting, 5:30 — 6:45 pm, Brackett room May 12t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00 —11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 May 17 and 23rd: Stakeholder meetings ( Chris and Carrie, FAC Room 113) June 23rd: Open House, 6-7:30 pm, Library Plaza Room July 7t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 July 27t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers August 9t": City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers August 24t": Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room September 1: Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 September 14t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers September 27t": City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers October 19th: Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room October 25th: Project Advisory Board meeting, 10:00-11:30 am., Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 November 91": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers November 22nd: City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers January 17, 2017: City Council final adoption, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers Packet Pg. 48 WALKER IMACY STING AGENDA Time: 10:00-11:30 Location: Frances Anderson Center Attendees LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Topic: Public Input Review of Hybrid Plan Meeting Date: 10/21/2016 Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 Carrie Hite, City of Public Input Review Edmonds 1. Open House #3 Overview Renee McRae, City 2. Preliminary Online Feedback of Edmonds 3. Stakeholders, letters, etc. Rich Lindsay, City of Edmonds Frances Chapin, Discussion: City of Edmonds Chris Jones, • Petanque Walker Macy • Skatepark location Ann Marie Schneider, Walker 0Fencing/ landscaping along alleys Macy • Lighting Rob Chave • 61h Avenue Dave Teitzel • Boys & Girls Club Valerie Stewart Barbara Chase Doug Sheldon Additional Discussion Steve Shelton Lesly Kaplan Joe Mclalwain Alex Witenberg Kyla Blair Pat Woodell Bob Rinehart John McGibbon Diana White Emily Scott Dick Van Hollebeke Mike Echelbarger c �L d 2 v d c d L m ca .2: U r to to N N 1M Q c a N U a a In N 0 m r C d E t a 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 49 WALKER IMACY STING MINUTES Time: 10:00-11:30 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Topic: Public Input Review of Hybrid Plan Meeting Date: 10/21/2016 Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 Attendees: Carrie Hite, City of Discussion: Edmonds Renee McRae, City of Edmonds 100+ attendees at Open House #3, most common questions raised were about Rich Lindsay, City o buffering along alleys of Edmonds o skatepark location Frances Chapin, o petanque (amount of play area) City of Edmonds Fencing along alleys, for safety purposes, was discussed as a consideration. Walker Chris Jones, Macy will review and respond. Walker Macy • There will be fencing around the tennis courts Ann Marie Schneider, walker • Questions raised about adding a park entry near the north east corner church lot; design Macy team advises against this due to safety concerns and the fact that it is private property Rob Chave and could be redeveloped in the future. Dave Teitzel • Residents along north would like to see more detail and information on the buffer to Barbara Chase mitigate safety concerns Kristiana Johnson • Question asked about adding a 41h soccer field if Sprague Street connection is removed. Lesly Kaplan Design team clarified that what is being provided in the new park design allows for more soccer field than what Sno-King Youth Club has requested. The large field shown (1J12) Pat Woodell will fit the two fields SKYC uses today and there is additional field space to the north for Bob Rinehart another field or training use. The Sprague pathway is intended to provide direct John McGibbon connection for residents to the park, downtown and the 4th Ave Corridor. Diana White Options for alternative skatepark location discussed Emily Scott o Question raised about moving it to another park. Based on the amount of Dick Van Hollebeke consistent and strong community feedback received to keep the skatepark at Mike Echelbarger Civic the design team feels it should remain. Jennifer Lambert o Residents in higher buildings to the north are concerned about upward travel of sound. o Some residents added that the skatepark currently is only a bother after hours; kids shine car headlights on it to use it after dark. Attachments: o Current skatepark location, in center of park, was chosen for proximity to police station for monitoring and distance from residences. o Design team will revisit location options and expressed that the integration of the new skatepark into the park and landscape design is also advised. • Lighting in middle of Great Lawn for soccer field is a concern. Design team believes two 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 50 TOPIC 6.A.d PROJECT 10/21/2016 Page 2 of 2 Item Description Action by Due date poles per side may be possible. This, or an alternative, will be worked out in design development and the Master Plan will show field lighting as is for now. • Several members commended the hybrid design and the incorporation of so much of the public input. • South side residents may be affected by more noise once grandstand is removed. • Petanque o currently often uses more than 4 courts o Could Sprague Street promenade be gravel and used for Petanque? Currently shown as 12' wide so this would not provide enough width. Also inhibits pedestrian connection. o Tournaments use 15,000 SF, which is the size of the tennis courts that some feel are not used much. Could tennis or multi -use courts be given back to Petanque? o One member sited a Paris park precedent where Petanque is regularly played and provides a "delightful" spectator, as well as player, experience. o Could lawn strip between plaza and lawn be decomposed granite for more petanque? Design team feels that the connection between the multi -use playfield lawn and the plaza is important. Gravel along the track edge and plaza paving also presents maintenance challenges. o PAC Committee supported the layout as illustrated in the hybrid design. • The small Boys & Girls Club expansion is the preferred option to show for the Master Plan. • Angled parking on 7th was discussed and design team advises against this due to the thick vehicular edge and poor visibility this creates. • Planning Board meeting is scheduled for 11/9. Design team will be showing a revised plan with a relocated skatepark. Packet Pg. 51 6.A.e Cunningham, Diane From: Tom Benediktson <tbenediktson@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 3:19 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Skating Facility Dear Planning Board, We own a unit on the third floor of the Shelbourne, located at 636 Daley St. Our unit faces south, towards Civic Park. We enjoy the soccer and other sports which occur in the evenings and on weekends. We also enjoy = 4th of July and the Children's Circus. But we were alarmed to hear that a plan was proposed to place the skating pit in front of our unit. The facility is already loud where it is located, since the sound is directed upward. The noise would be disturbing to us if the facility were moved closer. The noise would only be compounded by birms directing the sound upwards toward our windows. Please leave the skating facility a where it is and rotate it 90 degrees. a Thank you very much, L Tom and Caroline Benediktson > 636 Daley St., Unit 8 Sent from Surface to Packet Pg. 52 6.A.e Cunningham, Diane From: Mary Harding <mmharding@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 6:42 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: RE: Civic Field/Playground Hybrid Plan Hello Ms. Cunningham, I am writing in response to the hybrid plan presented last week at the open house for the civic field park. I live on Daley St, facing the park - almost directly across the field from the (current) current skate park location. I'll respond to a comment made in the myedmondsnews comments online also, but someone said something about the area residents not liking the skate park, that it doesn't make any more noise than any other activity at the park and we should just relax and enjoy it ... huh?? Unless that man lives here, he doesn't know what he's talking about! I have lived here for 20+ years and was a supporter of the skate park; having raised 2 boys of my own, I was fully in favor of having this be a place where all kids could come and enjoy this activity. It is noisy though and very active too, so I can understand the concern raised by a number of other area residents as the proposed location would be VERY noisy and disruptive to them, if it's moved to a location almost right under their windows. The kids are out there well after dark (park closing time) and I've never seen/know of police walking across the street and telling them to shut the party down. I have had to yell out my window at very late hours multiple times that "the park is closed; please go home" after 11PM, even at 2AM a few times over the years! The obvious decision is the one offered by the planners and flip the playground and skate park locations so as to ease this concern. Not a big deal in the planning but a very big effect overall for residents, right? Another huge concern for me is the lack of a fence in the proposal; a "porous" border is just asking for dangerous, possibly deadly accidents to happen. Currently the alley on the north end of the park also serves as driveways for multiple residents, yet I've seen many kids run from the church parking lot into the fence opening without stopping or looking SO many times over the years - near accidents all. When I back out of my garage on my way to work it is dark out and I know to watch for the dog walkers who may be invisible if I just backed out without looking. There is so much car traffic along the alley, people walking to/from 6th and 7th, baby strollers, kids on bikes or razor scooters not paying any attention to traffic or cars backing out of garages ... can you even imagine if there were more entry/exit points or just people cutting through the bushes?? This will still be an Edmonds park and our municipal code prohibits dogs in the park; there are people now who ignore the large posted signs saying NO DOGS IN PARK and no one wants to get in a confrontation so they don't say anything and they keep doing it. If there isn't a fence (with the same signage) you're just inviting more people to break our city's laws. •L x a a L r U to 1 Packet Pg. 53 6.A.e Those of us residents with dogs know to respect our laws and keep them out of it; we can still use the park to exercise and enjoy it though. It'd just be safer for everyone with a good border to that people can know when they are in or out of the park. Thank you for your consideration, Mary Harding z Packet Pg. 54 6.A.e Cunnin ham, Diane From: Carol Wood <cdwood@msn.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:59 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Civic Field Plan Dear Ms. Cunningham, I am shocked and dismayed by the latest plan for the Civic Field that shows absolute disregard for the very real safety concerns, property value concerns and quality of life concerns for those, who like me, live at the east end of the alley on c the north border of the Civic Field. The latest plan is a strong departure from previously proposed plans. L- a� x I did not purchase our condo in the Shelbourne building to risk backing out of my garage and hitting an unseen child 2 because there is no fence to stop that child from wandering off the play field or to stop a child intentionally taking a 3 shortcut in the dark through landscaping to the alley. If there are only plants children will find their way through them . to the alley. f° a 1 did not purchase our condo to worry about getting out of my car in the dark at the alley wondering if someone or more L than one person is lurking nearby in the park with hidden easy quick access to me and our building, waiting to accost me cu m or get into my garage. This current plan is ripe for encouraging such activities. And if you listen to our police chief this •2 sort of mischief, along with activities such as car prowls and breaking and entering, all fed by the growing drug problems t5 in our area, is his greatest concern. m to I did not purchase our condo to have it's property value adversely impacted because of the way the play field will be r redeveloped. I cannot afford such foolishness. W I did not purchase it to see my quality of live depreciate because of more noise, at more hours and even after dark, because of the current proposed redevelopment plans, especially the location of the skate park and the lack of a fence along the alley. The skate park is used after hours on a regular basis. I fail to see how any planners or decision makers can in good conscience endorse this latest plan. How can they live with themselves and with those of us who are their fellow community members should this unthinkable plan come to fruition? Why would anyone want to do this to those of us who live along the north alley? Residents should not be exposed to increased noise from a relocated skate park and neither residents nor users of the field should be subjet4ed to increased safety concerns that do not currently exist. My husband and I enjoy our vibrant downtown Edmonds community and actually like seeing the current play field utilized by many different people of varying interests and ages. It is my sincere hope that the redevelopment will (1) include an attractive fence along the northern border WITHOUT alley access and (2) incorporate the skate park away from residences. I do not think the noise from the skate park (click clacking of the board wheels and enthusiastic yelling from participants) as it is situated in this latest plan can be effectively mitigated by landscaping and/or berms so that it does not adversely affect those of us who live along the alley. We live on the north side of the Shelbourne building and can hear the skate park noise now. Sincerely, Carolyn Wood Packet Pg. 55 6.A.e Cunningham, Diane From: Beverly Greifendorff <bevgreif@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:17 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Comments about the hybrid park plan Hello, As homeowners living on the Bell Street alley, we have been paying close attention to the plans for the new Civic park. We've long enjoyed living next to the playfield and have participated in a number of activities there c •L over the years. Now that the hybrid plan has been proposed and decision time is drawing closer, we'd like to express a few of our concerns: U 1) The skateboard park a Those of us who live on the Bell Street alley share the concern of our Daley St. alley neighbors about the sound. We also hear the clacking of skateboards and request the skate park be located as far from all a as residential properties as possible. 2) Fences .> We need to have fences on both alleys. We've always felt the fence on the Bell Street alley has helped deter people from walking onto or through our property as they enter or leave the playfield. Most of us on the Bell Street side must park our cars outside in our driveways and having the fence definitely adds a level of security v we wouldn't have otherwise. We also sometimes see dogs running around unleashed in the Civic playfield and u) a fence prevents them from doing their business on our property. w 3) Parking The Bell Street alley has long been plagued by non-residents parking in the alley. Because of that, cars driven by residents often have a difficult time getting to and from our homes, and it would be next to impossible for an ambulance or firetruck to get through. When the new park opens bringing with it more people to the area, we hope that "no parking" signs will be clearly posted in the alleys and parking laws enforced. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. Sincerely, Tom and Beverly Greifendorff 611 Bell Street, Unit #3 Packet Pg. 56 6.A.e Cunningham, Diane From: Barry Ehrlich <barryehrlich@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:26 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Hite, Carrie Subject: Edmonds Civic Park Hello, I live at 628 Daley St, No. 2, and my unit faces south looking straight towards the civic field. •L When the first of the two plans for the civic field were presented, I was in the minority of those who preferred a "passive park", but I understand and respect those who would prefer a 3 more active park, and I can live with that. I actually enjoy watching the soccer practices and a matches and all of the kids activities in the summer. a L However, the current plan has placed the skateboard park, a climbing wall and a second sport court right next to our condos. And, in the new version of the layout, there is no fence and little or no separation from the field and our condos. 2 U I would like to see the skateboard park "flipped" with the playground and the climbing wall to and sport court moved to another area - away from our condos. I would like to suggest that they could be placed on the east side of the park (Seventh Ave.) where they would be less W obtrusive, or be placed immediately to the east of the Boys and Girls Club. And with the suggestion that there be no fence on the north side of the park, I would like to request that there be a good buffer of landscaping planted between our Daley Street condos and the civic field, similar to what is proposed for the south side of the park. A landscaping buffer of at least 15 feet from the alley to the Great Lawn would be excellent. Thank you. Sincerely, Barry Ehrlich Packet Pg. 57 6.A.e Cunningham, Diane From: gretchen sewall <gretchensewall@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:09 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Hybrid Park Plan- Oct 19, Open House Ms. Cunningham, What is the Signature of our new Civic Park? I don't know; I can't see it yet. Like many Edmond's residents, I was dumfounded last Wednesday night at the Open House when Walker Macy unveiled their Hybrid Park proposal. Why would an experienced design firm locate the highest density, active use elements of a park immediately adjacent to private properties closest to the perimeter of the park? Or was this reputable design firm trying merely to deliver what the community wanted? All I can surmise is we have been given 15 pounds of goodies for a 10 pound bag! Perhaps we've gotten too greedy, wanting everything we can possibly have crammed into our eight acre park. The Hybrid Park proposal presented last week lacks the meaningful vision and creativity required to produce a Signature Park for our city. Walker Macy's accomplishment of incorporating 36 of the 40 identified activities in their Hybrid Plan (Oct 19th) is simply not enough to create an aesthetically pleasing, Signature Park. Have we handcuffed our designers? Where is the spark of joy and creativity of our Signature Park? While I support the concept of a 'park for all ages' it's time to ask ourselves if we need all things for each age group separately? What is the value added to the Civic Park of yet another play structure for our youngsters? The giant carpet of the Great Lawn and the excitement of a water feature accommodates all ages, just as tennis courts offer an amenity for all ages. On the other hand, the multiuse court is primarily used by The Boys and Girls club and is rarely used by others. Is a second court really the best idea? Do our residents want to shrink the limited open space used by all to double the size of the Boys and Girls Club? The skateboard park is unique and offers a vital public space for teens away from parents and older folks. From a distance the skate park, and the skateboarder, offer a pleasing sculptural three dimensional element to the park. While a climbing wall is simply a wall — close up and faraway. We have climbing walls in other parks which appear under utilized. The Petanque courts serve our older residents and can be designed as an attractive sitting area for all park visitors. This Master Plan indicates a string of light down the center of the Great Lawn. Why would the Council and planning committee approve a plan prior to the lighting design consultation? Lighting is foundational to ALL design aspects of a Signature Park. In summary; some big pieces and fundamental concepts are missing here. We are looking at a once in 50 years- or more opportunity in the heart of our city. Let's make sure our council and city officials are voting on a finished design and a truly visionary park. Respectfully summited, Gretchen Sewall Edmonds Citizen Gretchen Sewall, RN, LICSW Packet Pg. 58 6.A.e Seattle Reproductive Medicine Reproductive Medicine Consultant Seattle, WA Al Q Packet Pg. 59 6.A.e Cunningham, Diane From: Joe Malan <jdmalan524@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 12:16 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Hybrid civic park What happened! All of a sudden the location of the skate board park is moved where it negatively impacts residence north,east and south. Its current neutral site seemed to be the most effective in Allowing the SBK to exist along with other active venues.) The SKP is major noise issue for all residents except the west end near 6th ave.The traffic flow along the north alley is a safety factor. We know there are a lot of competing interest and the parties developing this signature park have done a fantastic job with the exception of the SBP. Please respect the impact the current Hybrid plan will have on the surrounding residence. Thanks Joe Malan Daley st residence. Sent from my iPad Packet Pg. 60 6.A.e RECEIVED DATE: October 31, 2016 i"`V -22016 ATT: Diane Cunningham PLANNING DEPT TO: Planning Board Members: Phil Lovell (Chair) Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Daniel Robles (Vice Chair) Valerie Stewart Matt Cheung Alicia Crank Todd Cloutier FROM: Pat Woodell, 636 Daley Street, No. 5, Edmonds, WA. I would like to request that you include my comments in your packet for the November 9, 2016 Planning Board meeting. They are as follows: SUMMARY The design process for Civic Field has resulted in several proposals to reconfigure activities and structures within the park. My comments today are in support of leaving the skate park as depicted in the Option 2 design presented at the August 24 open house. This location is close to the one approved by the Edmonds City Council in 2005 after a long public process that included research, multiple Planning Board meetings, City Council meetings, and public testimony. Its location was determined after careful measurements to ensure adequate distance from neighboring residences. By nature, skate parks are controversial and the siting of a skate park at Civic Field in 2005 was no exception. I suggest that any decision to relocate the skate park include the same careful, consideration that was given to its original siting at that time. Packet Pg. 61 6.A.e Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting STATEMENT I live at 636 Daley Street. My eight -unit condominium borders the north edge of Civic Field and my property line is 17 feet from the existing fence on the northern edge of the park. I emphasize this distance, because most city parks are bordered by streets and sidewalks that provide some separation between residences and park activities. The Daley and Bell Street alleys on the north and south sides of the park are an exception. Attachment 1 shows photos from taken from two buildings on Daley Street to give you a sense of Civic Field from our perspective. My comments today are in support of keeping the skate park at the location shown in the Option 2 design presented at the August 24 open house (Attachment 2). The Option 2 design keeps the skate park near the Boys and Girls Club, but rotates it 90 degrees. On October 19, the Hybrid design (Attachment 2) was presented at the third and final Open House. In this design, the skate park was moved from this location to the north border of Civic Field, only thirty-seven feet from my building's property line. This was the first public notice of any intent to move the skate park from the area of the Boys and Girls Club. I, along with others, voiced our opposition, and Parks Director Carrie Hite assured us that the skate park would be relocated from the site depicted in the Hybrid design. In informal conversations with Walker -Macy following the October 19 presentation, Walker -Macy representatives suggested flipping the locations of the Skate Park and the Playground shown in the Hybrid design. This proposal places the playground close to our residences on Daley Street and the skate park on the east border of 7th Avenue. 2 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.e Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting Before moving the skate park from its current location, I respectfully request that those involved in approving the park's final design carefully consider the history that went into determining its current location: 1) In 2005, the current site for the skate park was approved by the Edmonds City Council. This approval followed a long process that included months of planning, research and review, hard work by the Edmonds Skate Park Work Group, several Planning Board and City Council meetings, and at least three public hearings devoted to discussing details surrounding the skate park. The public hearings covered a variety of topics: • opinions "for: and "against" locating the skate park in Civic Field, • a description of how the skate park's specific location was determined, ■ a discussion of design and materials for the skate park, and ■ remarks from neighboring residents about noise and other impacts. Attachments 3-5 document the dozens of pages that record this history and all of the effort that went into approving the skate park in its current location. 2) In particular, the document titled "Narrative Response to November 29, 2005 City Council Questions" --an attachment to the December 6, 2005 Edmonds City Council meeting minutes (Attachment 5)--raises specific questions about the distance of the skate park from nearby residences. I quote from the text of this document in part: 3 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.e Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting "The original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence and 140 feet from the nearest residences. Upon further observation, it was noticed that shifting the skate park south and slightly east would keep most of the usable dimensions of the north field and the consistent 285- foot perimeter of the softball field. Distance from the nearest residences now increased to 240 feet." (Emphasis mine) . 3) Noise from the skate park was also a concern in 2005: "Resod rise to November 29, 2005 Citv Council OLltstions" "On March 9, 2005, a Public Hearing was held with many comments, questions and suggestions from the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Skate Park Work Group was asked to return later to answer questions from the Planning Board concerning noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and provide an accurate site plan of the park." "On October 26, 2005, the Greenbusch Company, Inc. presented a comprehensive noise study. Two other refinements to the original proposal were presented: 1) a location change within the Civic Center Playfields, and 2) a significant change in the product proposed for the site." 4 Packet Pg. 64 6.A.e Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting 4) The Option 2 design presented at the August 24 Open House depicts the skate park in a location close to the site approved in 2005. Distances from nearby residence are unknown, but the location respects the siting work done in 2005. Moving the skate park to the perimeter of Civic Field would create a variety of unknowns. 5) The proposed site for the skate park presented in the Option 2 design does not present a significant departure from where it is located now The site proposed in Option 2 validates the hard work by interest groups and all of the public testimony that went into the City Council's approval of the site in 2005. The Option 2 site would not raise as many new questions about the impact of noise, traffic, and hours of use on neighboring properties. CONCLUSION In closing, I would like to suggest that those involved in any decision to relocate the skate park to a border of Civic Field revisit the historical documents described in Attachments 3-5 to this submission. The City and the public spent considerable time and expense finalizing the current location of the skate park in 2005. The surrounding residential neighborhood has not significantly changed since then, so the distances and noise criteria used for siting the skate park then still apply today. I think the 2005 public process should be honored and the skate park should remain near its current location. I would like to make one other comment. On November 9, the Planning Board —together with the public --will be presented with a design that is still in transition. On November 22, the City Council —together with the public --will 5 Packet Pg. 65 6.A.e Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting hear a similar presentation. After that, the public process will come to an end and designers will return to the drawing board to finalize the park's design for City Council approval on January 17, 2017. If I understand the process correctly, nearby residents will not know the skate park's final location until the eve of its final review and approval by the City Council on January 17. The skate park's size, construction materials, and distance to neighboring residences may also not be known. In 2005 these details were known by the public when the City Council approved the skate park in its current location. I respectfully ask how the final location and other details be made public and sufficient time is allowed for public discussion before the City Council approves the final design for Civic Park. CLOSING Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would particularly like to thank Carrie Hite for her availability and responsiveness in addressing our neighborhood concerns to date. Her skillful management of the Master Planning process has kept the project moving forward in a timely fashion. The Walker -Macy team also deserves credit for its involvement, talent, support, and flexibility in working with the public and City officials involved. I think they can design a beautiful park with the skate park located essentially where it is today. N. Packet Pg. 66 6.A.e Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting ATTACHMENTS (1) Photos from condominium at 636 Daley Street & a neighboring condominium (2) Park Design Option 2, August 24, 2016 Open House and Hybrid Design Option, October 19, 2016 Open House (3) Edmonds City Council Agenda Memo, Item 4; • Exhibit 1: "40 Developmental Assets;" • Exhibit 2: "Location Analysis Chart;" • Exhibit 3: plan view of Civic Field with skate park location identified as "45 X 120;" Exhibit 4: "Final Skate Park Noise Study for City of Edmonds, Park, Recreation, and Cultural Services," prepared by The Greenbusch Group, Inc. November 9, 2005 (8 pages) • Exhibit 5: "Planning Board Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2005, "Report from Edmonds Skate Park Work Group (pages 7-9), Planning Board discussion (pages 10-11) ■ "PUBLIC HEARING ON EDMONDS SKATE PARK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT CIVIC CENTER PLAY FIELDS (FILE NO. CDC-05-29)," (pages 2-9), public testimony "for" and "against" and Planning Board member comments and conclusions (pages 9-10). • "City of Edmonds Planning Board Minutes, October 26, 2005," audience comments, Noise Study (file no. CDC 5-29), discussion of Exhibit D refining location of skate park and increasing its 7 Packet Pg. 67 6.A.e Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting distance from 120 to 220 feet from the northern perimeter of Civic Field • "City of Edmonds Planning Board Minutes," November 16, 2005, (pages 1-9). (4) "Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes," December 6, 2005, Item 8: "Public Hearing on the Edmonds Skate Park Work Group Proposal to Locate a Skate Park at the Civic center Playfields," (pages 8-21). Public comments and City Council discussion. Unable to upload, but available at: http://agenda.edmonds.wa.us:80851docsl20060103 58/217 Draft% 2012-06-05%20Minutes.pdf (5) Response to November 29, 2005 City Council questions and discussion of history, cost, location issues and noise, design materials and rules of use (3 pages). 0 Packet Pg. 68 WOODELL Att. 1A -View of skate par D 6 Attachment: CIVIC PARK COMMENT LETTERS (1661 : Civic Master Plan Public Hearing) �S l ' ice,""�®�!y •. �..� _ �'• �- _`Z WOODELL Aft. 1B -View of north park Attachment: CIVIC PARK COMMENT LETTERS (1661 : Civic Master Plan Public Hearing) D fD r WOODELL Att. 1C - Daley St view to Attachment: CIVIC PARK COMMENT LETTERS (1661 : Civic Master Plan Public Hearing) _ • �y �+4r� " ' Ton ol .1elp i /; 7fY -do.-_— n �. err.. ti ---� •��j� - -- n -ram - - izf Yam" ' ._ --_ �. .. �•_ - J w -� .- - ppp-- IN 00 WOODELL Att. 1E - Daley St view Boys D Attachment: CIVIC PARK COMMENT LETTERS (1661 : Civic Master Plan Public Hearing) n w CD A Design Option 2 - Activity Central WUUUtLL Att. 2 - Design Option 2 Attachment: CIVIC PARK COMMENT LETTERS (1661 : Civic Master Plan Public Hearing) Item #: 4 6.A.e EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services For Action: For Information: x Subject: PRESENTATION AND PROPOSAL BY THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP. Agenda Time: Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 30 minutes November 29, 2005 1. 40 Developmental Assets 2. Location Analysis Chart 3. Aerial photo of Civic Field 4. Skate Park Noise Study Clearances: Departmentlinitials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Planning Public Works Treatment Plant City Council Mayor _ Gary Haakenson Approved Electronically Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services W Public Safety 5. Planning Board Minutes: 1/26/05, 3/9/05, Approved for Consent Agenda: 10/26/05, 11/16/05. Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 200,000 Budgeted: $ 200,000 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: City of Edmonds C.I.P. , Parks Improvement Fund 125. Previous Council Action: At the July 13, 2004 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting, the Skate Park Work Group was encouraged to move ahead with the development of a skate park in the downtown area. Narrative: In 1999 the Edmonds Police Foundation recognized the health and social benefits of skate boarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park that was jointly funded by the cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood. The Foundation made a financial donation of $4,500 as "seed money" toward the construction of a park in downtown Edmonds. On March 23, 2004, staff met with the Foundation to update them on this possibility. The need was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Following discussions and encouragement from the Foundation, a decision was made to form a Skate Park Work Group. On May 17, 2004 the Work Group held its first meeting made WOODELL Att. 3 - City Council packet for 11.29.05 Packet Pg. 75 6.A.e up of Edmonds skaters, parents, Foundation and Police Department members, Parks & Recreation Department staff, and members of the community who believed a skate facility in downtown Edmonds would be a valuable asset to the community's youth. The group was encouraged to move ahead with planning at the Community Services/Development Services meeting of July 13, 2004. The Skate Park Work Group researched skate related issues over the next several months and have since presented their proposal, with requested ambient noise information, improvements in product selection, and site location revisions, at two regular Planning Board Meetings (January 26 and October 26, 2005) and two Planning Board Public Hearings ( March 9 and November 16, 2005). At the conclusion of the November 16 Public Hearing, the Planning Board unanimously approved the proposal for a skate park at Civic Field and forwarded it to the City Council for consideration. Tonight several members of the Work Group will make a 15 minute presentation of their updated proposal. At the conclusion of the presentation the Work Group, noise consultant Julie Weibusch, and staff will be available for questions. Recommended Action: In anticipation of the need for public input on the proposal, a public hearing has been scheduled for December 6, 2005. Packet Pg. 76 ti.A.e C°'U 40 Developmental Assets = Search Institute has identified the following building blocks of healthy development HEALTHY YOUTH that help young people grow up healthy, caring, and responsible. CATEGORY ASSET NAME AND DEFINITION Support 1. Family support -Family life provides high levels of love and support. 2. Positive family communication -Young person and her or his parent(s) communicate positively, and young person is willing to seek advice and counsel from parent(s). 3. Other adult relationships -Young person receives support from three or more nonparent adults. 4. Caring neighborhood -Young person experiences caring neighbors. 5. Caring school climate -School provides a caring, encouraging environment. b. Parent involvement in schooling-Parent(s) are actively involved in helping young person succeed in school. _ 7. Community values youth -Young person perceives that adults in the communit}' Value Empowerment youth. 8. Youth as resources -Young people are given useful roles in the community. 9. Service to others -Young person serves in the community one hour or more pet- week. 10, Safety -Young person feels safe at home, at school, and in the neighborhood. Boundaries & 11. Family boundaries -Family has clear rules and consequences and monitors the young persons whereabouts. Expectations 12. School boundaries -School provides clear rules and consequences. 13. Neighborhood boundaries -Neighbors take responsibility for monitoring young people's behavior. 14. Adult role models -Parents) and other adults model positive, responsible behavior. 15. Positive peer influence ---Young person's best friends model responsible behavior. 16. High expectations -Both parent(s) and teachers encourage the voting person to do well. 17. Creative activities --Young person spends three or more hours per week in lessons Or Constructive practice in music, theater, or other arts. Use of Time 18. Youth programs --Young person spends three or more hours per week in spot -is, clubs, or organizations at school and/or in the community. 19. Religious community -Young person spends one or more hours per week in activities in a religious institution. 20, Time at home -Young person is out with friends "with nothing special to do" two or fewer nights per week. Commitment 21. Achievement motivation -Young person is motivated to do well in school. 22. School engagement -Young person is actively engaged in learning. to Learning 23. Homework -Young person reports doing at least one hour of homework every school day. 24. Bonding to school -Young person cares about her or his school. 25. Reading for pleasure -Young person reads for pleasure three or more hours pet- week. 26. Caring -Young person places high value on helping other people. Positive 27. Equality and social justice -Young person places high value on promoting equality and Values reducing hunger and poverty. 28. Integrity -Young person acts on convictions and stands up for her or his beliefs. 29. Honesty -Young person "tells the truth even when it is not easy." 30. Responsibility -Young person accepts and takes personal responsibility. 31. Restraint -Young person believes it is important not to be sexually active or to trse alcoliol or other drugs. _ 32. Planning and decision making -Young person knows how to plan ahead and make choices. Social 33. Interpersonal competence -Young person has empathy, sensitivity, and friendship skills. Competencies 34. Cultural competence -Young person has knowledge of and comfort with people of different culturaUracial/ethnic backgrounds. 35. Resistance skills -Young person can resist negative peer pressure and dangerous situations. 36. Peaceful conflict resolution -Young person seeks to resolve conflict nonviolently.. 37. Personal power --Young person feels he or she has control over "things that happen to me." Positive 38. Self -esteem --Young person reports having a high self-esteem. Identity 39, Sense of purpose --Young person reports that "my life has a purpose." 40. Positive view of personal future -Young person is optimistic about her or his personal future. m to This page may be reproduced for educational, noncommercial uses only. From Healthy Communities • Healthy Youth Tool Kit, copyright ©1998 by Search - instrtute, 700 S. Third Street, Suite 210, Minneapolis, MN 55415; phone 800.888-7828; Web site: www.search-instilute.org. Packet Pg. 77 LOCATION ANALYSIS CHART 6.A.e ■ Edmonds Elementary ■ Treatment Plant 113 City Park 0 Old Woodway Elementary i Civic Center ®100 block of 2nd Ave S ■ 7th/Elm El 81 st/212th ■ Old PW Pros Cons Criteria ♦ Natural visibility ♦ Accessibility - sidewalks, bus line ♦ Neighborhood response - proximity to residences ♦ Parking or drop-off area ♦ Already active use area ♦ Natural buffers for noise ♦ Other services nearby, i.e., food, drink ♦ Restrooms A phone ♦ Park layout - how do skaters get in and out ♦ Easy access for police and fire SITE PROS CONS COMMENTS Edmonds Elementary 5 -5 Already used for sports, deli across street, sanican during soccer season, neighborhood response would be minimal, natural buffer for noise. Kids in school, limited site distance, no natural visibility, no pull over area, no a access for police and fire. Treatment Plant 0 -3 Not enough room, would need to resurface, fairly bua streets. City Park 9 -3 Active use park, parking, natural buffer, bus line, crew in do out, food nearby, drinking fountain, restrooms, phone nearby. No visibility from 3rd Ave, could be pedestrian/auto problem if drive used by skaters, maintenance issue with trees. Old Woodway Elementary 2 -4 Bus stop at Texaco Station, sanican. Outside of bowl area, busy ^Civic streets, obscure location, no sidewalks. Future skate park. Center 13 -1 Active use park, easy to get to, close to police A fire, visibility is good, sanican A BAG Club restrooms, parking, drop-off, close to food, B&G Club might be a plus for attracting new skaters, kids could skate before/after soccer, wide open area, lots of eyes to see area, attractive from aparent's standpoint. Neighborhood rep once. 100 block of 2nd Ave 5 0 -2 Surrounded by office buildings, don't own prope0y. 7th/Elm 0 -4 Too many residences, no parking, not on bus line, no food nearby. 81st/212th 4 -2 Large lot, bus line, food nearby, good visibility. Don't own property, outside of bowl area. Old PW 0 -4 In use, may be expansion for WWTP, Dayton Street too busy, kids may be attracted to skate at WWTP nearby Exhibit 2 Packet Pg. 78 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Final Skate Park Noise Study for City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services 700 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Prepared by: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. 1900 West Nickerson, Suite 201 Seattle, Washington 98119 November 9, 2005 p) 206,378.0569 0 206.378-0641 www.greenbusch.com 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 80 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GP -OUP, INC. Introduction The intent of this study is to evaluate noise levels associated with activity from the proposed new skate park located at the Civic Center Playfield between 5th and 7th Avenues North along Bell Street, in Edmonds, Washington. The planned location for the skate park is North of the existing track and East of the Boys and Girls Club. The study includes the following primary components: Establishing the pre -construction ambient conditions for the area. Measuring sound levels associated with both modular and in -ground skate systems. Predicting sound levels from the skate activity at the adjacent residential properties based on two skate systems. Summary Using a very conservative approach, and assuming 3 simultaneous skate events and the highest sound levels measured for these events, code compliance would be achieved with either the modular or in -ground system. Evaluating the impact on the community by comparing sound levels from existing peak -use times with the sound levels predicted for the skate park, both configurations are below peak hour ambient. It is our professional opinion that the noise levels from adding the skate park will pose very little impact on this community. We do not recommend mitigation for the currently proposed facility. Terminology The auditory response to sound is a complex process that occurs over a wide range of frequencies and intensities. Decibel levels, or "dB," are a form of shorthand that compresses this broad range of intensities with a convenient numerical scale. The decibel scale is logarithmic. For example, using the decibel scale, a doubling or halving of energy causes the sound level to change by 3 dB; it does not double or halve the sound loudness as might be expected. The minimum sound level variation perceptible to a human observer is generally around 3 dB. A 5-dB change is clearly perceptible, and an 8 to 10 dB change is associated with a perceived doubling or halving of loudness. Definitions Mathematical descriptors have been developed to provide better assessment of sounds that vary over time and the human response to them. . A -weighted Sound Pressure Level, dBA The human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequency sounds falling outside the range of speech and has a frequency response that is dependent on the overall level of the listening environment. Sound level meters and monitors utilize weighting systems to approximate human perception of sound. Measurements made utilizing the weighting system to r p) 206.378.0569 0206.378.0641 Page 1 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 81 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. designed to simulate the perception of human hearing at medium to high levels are referred to as "A weighted" and are called "dBX. Common sound pressure levels are reported below in Table 1. Table 1. A-welohted Levels of Common Snunris Sound Sound Level (dBA) Approximate Relative Loudness 1 Jet Plane @ 100 feet 130 128 ' Rock Music with Amplifier 120 64 Thunder, Danger of Permanent Hearing Loss 110 32 Boiler Shop, Power Mower 100 16 Orchestral Crescendo at 25 feet g0 g Busy Street 80 4 Interior of Department Store 70 2 Ordinary Conversation @ 3 feet 60 1 Quiet Car at Low Speed 50 j2 Average Office 40 % City Residence, Interior 30 1/8 Quiet Country Residence, Interior 20 1/32 Rustle of Leaves 10 1 /64 Threshold of Hearin 0 1 /128 'As compared to ordinary conversation at 3 feet. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies, November 1972. Equivalent Sound Pressure Level, Ley An energy -averaged sound pressure level, where high values and low values are logarithmically averaged over time to produce a single descriptor. IV Percentage Sound Level, L(n) L(n) is the sound level that is exceeded n percent of the time; for example, Loa is the level exceeded 8% of the time. L25 is the sound level exceeded 25% of the time. Maximum Sound Level, Lmax Lmax is the maximum recorded rms A -weighted sound level for a given time interval or event. p) 206.378.0569 0206.378.0641 www.ereenbusch-com Page 2 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 82 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Regulatory Criteria Maximum Permissible Sound Levels Edmonds City Code (ECC), Chapter 5.30 regulates noise and quantifies maximum permissible environmental noise levels at this site. Permissible noise levels are established by the zoning and Land Use of the adjacent properties. Zoning The Civic Center Playfield, where the skate park is proposed to be located, is zoned Public Use, which is considered "open space" or Residential by code. Adjacent properties to the North, South and West include condominiums, which are also considered Residential. The following Table outlines the permissible sound levels associated with the various zoning classifications. Table 2. Permissible Noise Levels Source of Noise Receiving Property Residential Business Commercial Residential 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA Business 57 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA Commercial 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Source: ECC Chapter 5.30. The maximum permissible level at neighboring residential property lines is 55 dBA. For sound levels of a short duration, this code is modified to increase the limits as specified below. Table 3. Permissible Code Exceedence Levels Exceedence Level Maximum Hourly Limit 5 dBA 15 minutes, or 10 dBA 5 minutes, or 15 dBA 1.5 minutes Source: Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-60. To simplify the process of comparing measured values to Code levels for determining compliance, the code limit and exceedence levels are converted to Ln descriptors. Table 4 below outlines the Code limits between Residential zones. Table 4. Permissible Hourly Sound Levels EDNA Class B and Class A Descri for Code Limit L 25 (Code) 55 dBA L08 (Code +5) 60 dBA L02 (Code + 10) 65 dBA Lmax (Code + 15) 1 70 dBA Source: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. to p) 206.378.0569 0 206,378.0641 www.greenbusch.corn Page 3 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 83 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GROU11, INC. Permissible levels are further reduced by 10 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM where the receiving property is Residential. However, it is our understanding that the skate park will not operate after 10:00 PM. Affected Environment Land Uses in Project Vicinity The proposed site of the skate park is currently an active playfield. The existing site includes a track with grandstand bleachers, outdoor basketball courts, tennis courts and fields for soccer and baseball/softball. The Boys and Girls Club is co -located on this site, with scheduled outdoor activities. Existing Sound Levels Measurements were taken September 28 and 29, 2005 to document the average pre - construction community noise levels. Measurements were made along the North property boundary, near the residential property in closest proximity to the skate park. The monitor location is shown in Figure 1. Equipment utilized in these measurements included the following: ■ Larson Davis 700 Sound Level Meter SN 1436 ■ Larson Davis CA 250 Acoustic Calibrator SN 1193 The LD 700 meets the requirements for a Type 2 meter as delineated in American National Standards Institute Specifications (ANSI) 51.4-1983 (R2001). All measuring equipment were field calibrated immediately before measurement, and that calibration was verified after the measurements. All equipment had been laboratory calibrated within one year of the date of the measurement. Distant traffic and local yard maintenance dominated sound levels at the measurement site. Results of the average, measured 24-hour sound levels and the average, measured peak use hour sound levels are summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5. Average 24-Hour Pre -Construction Environmental Sound Levels (dBA) Date Time L.e L... L2 L8 L25 28-29 Se t 05 24 hour 51 74 58 54 50 28 Sept 05 5-6 PM 56 1 81 64 59 54 Source: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. 2005. Methodology for the measurements was consistent with ASTM E 1503 "Standard Test Method for Conducting Outdoor Sound Measurements Using a Digital Statistical Analysis System". The EPA document entitled "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety" (EPA, March 1974) characterizes the ambient sound levels of this community as "suburban". p) 206,378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www.greenbgsch.c9W Page 4 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 84 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Expected Sound Levels Generated by the Project Noise levels were also measured at two skate park venues; one for modular skateboard systems and one for in -ground configuration. The modular systems were measured in Issaquah at the "SkateWave Demo". These measurements occurred on August 24, 2005. The demonstration was set up on a closed public street with slightly rough asphalt. The modular units were constructed of steel with open rear panels. Proposed units would be of closed construction to minimize sound radiated from the cavity. The in -ground configuration was measured at Connie King Skate Park located at NE 155tn Street and Jh Avenue NE in Shoreline, Washington on September 1, 2005. Connie King Skate Park is located within the Paramount School Park. The surface of this park was smooth concrete. Equipment utilized in these measurements included the following: Larson Davis 2900 sound level analyzer. SN A0386 • Larson Davis 900B Preamp SN 2603 • Larson Davis 2560 Microphone SN 2123 ■ Larson Davis CA 250 Acoustic Calibrator SN 1193 One of the key issues to be addressed by this study is to characterize the random and somewhat impulsive nature of the sound of skating activity. For this study, sound levels were measured within 5 feet of the skater. Measurement duration was 1 second for each event. Results of the measurements are shown in Table 6 below: Table 6. Measured 1 Second Average Sound Pressure Levels Within 5 Feet of the Ar:tiuity Activity Equipment Modular In Ground Notes T e Jump and drop Ramp 81 dBA 78 dBA Metal transition edges of the down ramp modular panels tended to "rattle" on impact. Up ramp and Ramp 85 dBA 81 dBA Metal transition edges of the impact landing modular panels tended to "rattle" on impact. Grinding and Rail/bench 82 dBA 74 dBA Asphalt surface at modular Land installation was significantly rougher than concrete of in round Jump and Land Small ramp 80 dBA 74 dBA Metal transition edges of the modular panels tended to "rattle" on impact. Wheel roll -by Worst case 76 dBA 72 dBA Asphalt surface at modular installation was significantly rougher than concrete of in round Source: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. p) 206.378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www.v-reenbusch.com Page 5 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 85 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Music was turned off during the measurements at the SkateWave Demo. Music was not allowed in the Connie King Skate Park. Approximately 10 to 15 skaters were present at each location, although no more than three skaters were active simultaneously. Acoustical Model The predicted noise exposure for the proposed new Edmonds Skate Park was created with acoustic modeling using Cadna/A, a software program for prediction and assessment of noise exposure levels. Cadna/A uses the CADNA (Control of Accuracy and Debugging for Numerical Applications) computation engine developed by the Pierre et Marie Curie University of Paris. Conditions were modeled with typical atmospheric conditions and topology accounted for. The model assumed a worst case condition of 3 simultaneous skaters with the following activity: Jump and drop down ramp Grind and land Skate -general wheel roll A conservative approach was taken for this model. It was assumed that this level of activity .. would occur not more than 25% of the time, thereby coinciding with Code limitations. In reality, the frequency of this level of activity would likely be lower. 77 Frequency Characteristics Third octave band measurements were also made during the test to characterize the spectral content of the skating activity. These data were entered into the model. Evaluation Code Compliance The park will be open for use during daytime hours only. The facility will 10:00 PM or before 7:00 AM so no nighttime penalty is required and has Two configurations were considered in the models: • Modular System • in -ground construction Results of the analysis are shown in Figures land 2 below. not operate after not been applied. p) 206.378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www. reenbusch.com 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Page 6 Packet Pg. 86 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH. GROUP, INC. U Figure 1 Modular System Figure 2 In Ground System p) 206,378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www.breen�osch.corn Page 7 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 87 6.A.e THE GREENBUSCH GROUT', INC. Given the conservative assumptions as to location and frequency of this activity, both systems are predicted to be code compliant. A concrete system is preferred from overall sound level generated. It is our understanding the Parks is considering the purchase of Modular units with concrete panels, rather than the steel types that were measured. This would reduce the sound exposure from the modular system further. Community Impact Further evaluation was conducted on the sound exposure along the residential adjacencies, with the greatest sound exposure, assuming the conditions stated for the model. This analysis relied on guidelines presented in the EPA Region X document entitled "Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines." (EPA Region X, 1973.) In the published document, increases in noise are discussed in relation to expected community response to the introduced noise source. The responses are described as follows: Up to 5 dBA increase - few complaints if gradual increase ■ 5 to 10 dBA increase -more complaints, especially during sleeping hours ■ Over 10 dBA increase -substantial number of complaints. Generally no mitigation is required if the increase is less than 5 dBA. Some mitigation should be considered for increases of 5 to 10 dBA. Increases greater than 10 dBA would be considered serious and would warrant close attention The EPA guidelines are not standards and do not have the force of law, but do serve as useful indicators for potential noise impacts of projects undergoing evaluation. The published 1973 document does not indicate either the time interval (e.g., hourly or daily) or the noise metric (e.g., Leq or Lmax) to which these impact/mitigation thresholds should be applied. Therefore, these guideline recommendations are applied in this noise analysis to the predicted cumulative hourly levels (1-25) with some reservations as to their usefulness. The EPA guidelines also do not specify if the increase should be determined from the lowest measured level, the highest measured level, or the average of measured levels. Given the large range in existing average sound levels over a multi -hour period, the ambiguity inherent in the language of the rule makes it difficult to make an objective conclusion for the significance of a noise increase. However, in the absence of another method of determining impact, it is reasonable to assume that the skate park activity would coincide with times of high use of other Civic Playfield activities, when the children are not in school. Assuming that the conditions are similar to those modeled, the increase in average sound level will not exceed the 5-dBA threshold. Table 7 below shows the relationships to existing noise characteristics. Table 7. Comparison of Measured and Modeled Sound Pressure Levels, During Peak Park Use at the Nearest Residence Condition Sound Pressure Level, dBA Above Ambient, dBA Measured 5-6 PM L25 54 Modeled Modular 51 -3 Modeled In Ground 47 -7 source: The Vreenbusch croup, Inc. Since the predicted levels from the new skate activities are below the measured existing levels, the overall noise levels would not be measurably increased, to p) 206.378.0569 0206.378.0641 Page 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 88 6.A.e January 26, 2005 264 Beach Place: Early this year the City acquired waterfront property adjacent to Olympic Beach Park. The intent was to increase public access to the waterfront. Waterfront acquisition remains a high priority identified in the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Marina Beach Park: Due to the failure of the Willow Creek stormwater outfall pipe under the park's north parking lot last fall, the park has been closed since November. The emergency repairs have been completed. Coincidentally, the western outfall pipe replacement for this line was also scheduled to begin last fall and has immediately followed the emergency project. Current contractors should be finished in early February and clean up work, which includes irrigation line replacement, turf, paving new pathways and parking lots, picnic table and bench replacement, etc., will begin immediately after the contractors are off site. Access to the off -leash area at South Marina Beach Park should be open by early February. The entire park should be restored by late spring. Next, Mr. McIntosh reviewed the upcoming projects for 2005 as follows: Complete master plans for Edmonds Marsh and Hummingbird Park. Work with the Department of Natural Resources and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a 3 master plan/maintenance plan for the Edmonds Underwater Park in anticipation of the renewal of the City's nine-year tL lease. Work with the Port of Edmonds -to complete a property line adjustment at the west end of Dayton Street and in a partnership with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to enter into another -30-year lease for the Edmonds Fishing Pier. rn tc Complete the 2004 Community Development/HUD Grant project for elevator replacement and kitchen upgrades to the South County Senior Center and complete application procedures for the 2005 Community Development(HUD Grant V project that includes fire detection system improvements and construction of a new entry vestibule and walkway canopy. V Begin work on a new sixyear Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. Upgrade the playground at Pine Street Park and rename the playfield "Meyring Field" in honor of Edmonds Little League pioneer, Don Meyring, who passed away last fall. r Renovate the restrooms at Olympic Beach Park and the fishing pier cleaning stations. U) Replace 150 feet of trail and bridges at Yost Park by the end of March. W Board Member Freeman inquired if the City has any plans to plant more shade trees at Marina Beach Park. Mr. McIntosh answered that he does not have specific details at this time about the landscape plans for the park. The park's landscaping will likely remain close to what it previously was. None of the existing trees were removed as a result of the project. He said he would speak with his staff to see if more shade trees could be provided at the park. Board Member Dewhirst recalled that the City went through a fairly emotional process regarding the -traffic circulation at City Park. He questioned the outcome. Mr. McIntosh replied that City staff decided to take a common-sense approach to the issue. While they did not discount the consultant's recommendation, they did not feel the situation was critical enough to wariatit a total reverse in the traffic flow direction. The staff determined that reversing the traffic would not improve the entrance and exit situation at the park. Therefore, it would be best to leave the traffic in its current configuration. Chair Young suggested that it would be helpful to the Board for staff to remind them where Edmonds fits in as a community in terms of the amount of parkland and park facilities they have per capita. He referred to Mr. Southcote-Want's statement about the need for more athletic facilities in the City. Mr. McIntosh explained that the standards in the City's Comprehensive Plan represent the standards identified by the National Parks Association as the ideal situation. While the City would like to reach these ideal standards, there are deficiencies in many areas. Howtvcr, given the age of the City and the land that is available, they are doing the best they can. REPORT FROM FDAIONDS SKXI-E PARK WO1tK GMOUP Mr. McIntosh advised that on March 23, 2004, staff met with the Edmonds Police Foundation to update them on the possibility of building a skate park in downtown Edmonds. In 1999 the Foundation made a financial donation for this specific Planning Board Minutcs January 26, 2005 Page 7 Packet Pg. 89 6.A.e purpose. Following this discussion a decision was made to form a Skate Park Work Group. Mr. McIntosh further reviewed that on May 17s' the Skate Park Work Group held its first meeting to talk about the possibility of developing a skate park facility. This meeting was organized by members of the Edmonds Police Foundation and the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department in response to requests from Edmonds skaters, parents, police and community members who believe a facility in downtown Edmonds would be a valuable asset for the community's youth. He noted that the need was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan and included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. McIntosh referred the Board to the attachments that were provided to each of the Board Members titled, 'location Analysis Chart" and "Healthy Communities 40 Development Assets." He noted that both of the documents would be referenced in the group's presentation to the Board. He advised that the work group has been meeting monthly to research and prepare their proposal, and they would provide a 15-minute presentation that includes significant background data explaining their process. He advised that the work group would like to move ahead with planning the development of a skate park in the downtown, and they would like to hear from the Board regarding the process they should follow for this type of project. He noted that David McMillan put the PowerPoint presentation together, then he turned the presentation over to the group members. Kai Taylor said she is a mother of skateboarders, She said there are many benefits to having a skate park in Edmonds. In addition to skateboarding being a popular and healthy sport, skate parks are a safe place for kids to play. However, at this time there is a lack of facilities in the immediate area, with Lynndale being the closest. Ben Pruitt pointed out that the growth of skateboarding continues to increase at an exponential rate. About 11.6 million M people between the ages of 6 and 18 were skateboardingin the year 2000, and b 2003 the number V Y Y grew to 13 million. •� Researchers expect 15 million skateboarders by 2005. As the number of skateboarders -increases, so does the need for facilities V to accommodate the sport. He advised that the Skate Park Association ofthe USA has stated that skateboarding is the third most popular sport in the nation for 6 to 18 year olds, behind only basketball and soccer. The fact is that the sport of W skateboarding is growing, and at the core of this popular sport are energetic young kids who now surpass the number of Little League Baseball players. _ Aaron Taylor continued the presentation by pointing out that aspiring young riders are usually drawn more to the excitement than the fitness benefits, but experts say that skateboarding does provide a great workout. It is cardiovascular and many trainers say it's better than running. In addition, balancing and timingg is key, and the sport develops one's sense of direction and agility. He said that while learning to skateboard requires patience and perseverance, the rewards are many. For example, kids are always progressing, and they are always learning something new. The sport is goal oriented, and is a no -cut sport. Kids see tricks and they want to replicate them. The closer they get to performing the tricks, the more the mystery is solved and the more excited they get. It is a great thing for kids to do. The trend also means that kids spend a lot less time in front of the television and on video games and more time being active. Skateboarding actually gets them outside doing something physical, and that is good. Kai Taylor advised that the City adopted the 40 Developmental Assets Model in their Comprehensive Plan as a goal for youth. She pointed out that a skate park would address the following assets: ? Caring Neighborhood: ? Community Values Youth: The development of a skate park would send the message that adults in the community value youth, ? Safety: By enhancing support for something,kids enjoy, the City can help young people feel safe at home, at school and in the neighborhood. ? Neighborhood Boundaries: Neighbors can take responsibility for monitoring young people's behavior by identifying a place for kids. ? Adult Role Models: Parents and other adults would be present at the park to provide a model for positive, responsible behavior. ? Youth Programs: A skate park would provide a safety place for kids to spend their time. ? Interpersonal Competence: A skate park would provide a place for young people to develop friendship skills. Piaruling Board Minutes January 26, 2005 Page 8 Packet Pg. 90 6.A.e ? Self Esteem ? Sense of Purpose ? Positive View of Personal Future David Boubel explained that safety risk is another issue to touch upon while discussing the skate park. He said that according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there are fewer skateboarding injuries per capita than other popular sports such as baseball, soccer or snowboarding. In comparison, kids under the age of 15 are three times more likely to suffer a bicycle injury and twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment. In addition, he pointed out that active skate park use yields more positive activities in all areas of the park. With such a young population utilizing skate facilities, it makes sense that by providing additional facilities, communities can provide safe places for kids to go and take part in constructive activities. Also, by encouraging the use of helmets and other safety equipment, the City can send a message that they care and that they want kids to be safe. As other communities have done, the City can develop programs that reward kids who wear helmets. A good example of this is in Poulsbo where police officers patrol the skate park and give kids who are wearing helmets a coupon for a free sandwich courtesy of Subway. He further pointed out that this would not only encourage the use of helmets, but it would also create a bond between skateboarders and police officers, and this foundation could go a long way towards kids making the right choices in life. He concluded his remarks by pointing out that the Recreation Immunity Act protects cities from liability for skateboarding accidents. Dylan Packard advised that according to skate park industry statistics, in 2002 there were approximately 1,000 skate parks in the United States, and there are as many as 2,000 more parks projected to be built by the end of 2004. According to the Skate Park Association, 168 communities in the United States have currently posted a want, need or urgency for skate park M development in their area. This is just one good example of the popularity of skate parks. He further stated that as the V popularity of skateboarding continues to increase, the need for skate parks in neighborhood where kids live also increases. V At this time, kids living in or around the downtown Edmonds area have to be driven or ride a bus or ferry to get to a skate .park. For this reason, the likelihood of kids skating on the streets of Edmonds has increased. He emphasized that a lot of kids to are looking for alternative forms of recreation, and skateboarding is a way for them to express their creativity. He suggested r that Edmonds could best support its kids and families by providing a skate park right here in the community. ,,, Mr. Packard reviewed slides of nearby skateboard parks that have been constructed in neighboring communities such as Bothell, Everett, Lynnwood/Edmonds, Marysville, Mill Creek, Monroe, Shoreline, Tukwila and Woodinville. Alex Witenberg explained that when the group first started meeting, they asked the City's crime prevention officer to email other cities in order to learn more about the positive and negative impacts of skate parks based on location. These responses were used to develop the following site selection criteria: ? Natural visibility 7 Easily assessable by sidewalk or bus lines ? Good neighborhood response and the proximity to residents 7 Adequate parking or drop off areas 7 Minimal impact to the active uses already located in the area 7 Natural buffers for noise ? Close proximity to services such as food and drink, restrooms and telephone ? Easy access for skaters to get in and out. ? Easy access for police and fire Mr. Witenberg advised that after'reviewing each of the potential sites based on the above criteria, the work group identified the Edmonds Civic Center as the preferred location for the skate park. He pointed out that this site would be easy to get to, and it is located close to fire and police services. The visibility of the site is good, and a sanican and the facilities at the Boys and Girls Club could provide restroom facilities. It is located close to businesses that provide food and beverages, and because of its location near the Boys and Girls Club, it could attract new skaters. The site provides an open and wide area, and because it is visible to.people passing by, it is an attractive location from a parent's standpoint. Planning Board Minutes January26, 2005 Page 9 Packet Pg. 91 6.A.e Ms. Taylor concluded the presentation by pointing out that the Civic Center location would encourage further development of this popular and healthy sport, provide a safe place for kids to skate and address the lack of facilities in the area Board Member Henderson congratulated the group for their excellent presentation. Board Member Dewhirst asked if the City owns the property that has been identified as the preferred site. Mr. McIntosh answered that the property belongs to the Edmonds School District, and the City currently has a 40-year lease arrangement for the use of the property. There is about 20 years left on the lease, and this would likely exceed the Iifespan of the skate park components. The school district has offered verbal approval of the park, but the City must still obtain their written approval. Board Member Dewhirst inquired regarding funding options for the skate park construction. Mr. McIntosh explained that developing the site would be similar to creating a basketball court. Because the skate park would consist of various components, each of them could be purchased separately. The City has received a donation from the Police Foundation to purchase a component for the park, and the group will continue to look for other donations, as well. The City's Capital Improvement Program includes funding to develop the park, itself. Chair Young asked regarding the time frame for construction of the park. Mr. McIntosh answered that it is important to make sure the project is done right. At this lime, there is no definite time schedule for the project, but they would certainly like the park to be completed some time on 2005. Board. Member Freeman inquired if the park could be built in phases, with components being added as the funding is available. Mr. McIntosh answered that the group intends to approach service groups in the community with a request for funding to purchase more components. Board Member Guenther inquired if the skate park would be built to serve a particular skill level. Mr. McIntosh answered that to to the ]iynndalc Skate Park is built to serve a higher skill ieveI than is anticipated for the Edmonds Skate Park. The new park would be designed to meet the needs of younger kids who do not have the transportation to go to the other parks. He U) pointed out that the skate park would be designed by the youth who are. participating;- in the work.group. Board Member w Freeman inquired if there would be. a way to monitor the skate park to make sure the young. kids are not squeezed out of the facility. Mr. McIntosh answered that they have used the -.Tukwila Skate Park asa_good--example. of providing a separate area J for the younger kids. He said he is confident that the skate park could be designed for all ages. Mr. McIntosh asked that the Board provide guidance to the group as to what the next step should be. He suggested that if the Board agrees with the project so far, he could work with Mr. Chave to schedule a public hearing as soon as possible. Board Member Dewhirst inquired if the new skate park would require a special use permit. Mr. Chave answered that it would not, as long as the funding is consistent with what is identified in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. Because the project is already identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Cbave noted that no formal action by the Board is required at this point, but he would work with Mr. McIntosh to schedule a public hearing. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK FROM 8:30 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. .- i ayy yy ■■ , _ . • t i- o I�MIN Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, depending on the final action of the City Council, there might be a number of zoning changes to complete in order to implement the update of the Comprehensive Plan. These changes include: ? Zoning code amendment implementing the Comprehensive Plan update related to the RS-10 zoning designation. ? Zoning code amendment implementing the Comprehensive Plan update related to the downtown waterfront districts. Planning Board Minutes January 26, 2005 Page 10 Packet Pg. 92 6.A.e March 9, 2005 ;,q Chair Young summarized that while single-family development is an allowed use in the existing zoning designation, the property owners do not feel that the current zoning is compatible with what the neighborhood has been and will continued to be used for. Again, Mr. Underhill pointed out that anyone who wanted to take advantage of the current zoning would have done so by now, and they would like the zoning designation to comply with that fact. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, at some point later in the year, they would be reviewing the mixed -use zoning around the hospital. He said he relayed to Mr. Underhill that, absent of the neighborhood submitting their own application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone; the other avenue would be to present their request at the same time the Board is reviewing the entire mixed -use area. He noted that this review process would include public hearings, and the property owners would have ample opportunity to make their desires known. PUBLIC HEARING ON EDMONDS SKATE PARK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PkRK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS (FILE NUMBER CDC-05-_2.4) Because the Board received a high volume of written correspondence regarding the. Skate Park Proposal, they took a 10- minute recess to read through the information prior to starting the public hearing. Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, said he has had the pleasure to work with the Skate Park N Group since it was formed in the Spring of 2004 to investigate and come up- with ideas for locating a skate park in the downtown Edmonds area. He reminded the Board that the Skate Park Group provided their initial report to the Board in January and requested that they be allowed to move to the next step in the process, which is a public hearing on the proposal. > He said he has spoken with numerous. citizens over the past few weeks regarding the project, and he appreciates their V comments and ideas, as well. He reiterated that the project is still just a proposal, and no final decisions have been made. co Mr. McIntosh explained that the skate park proposal came about through impetuous from the Edmonds Police Foundation, who donated funding to the City after the Lynndale Skate Park had been constructed and it became apparent that many of the U) beginning skaters were being squeezed out. He met -with the Fowidation on March 3, 2004 to discuss the possibility of LU developing -a skate park in the downtown area. Shortly after, an ad hoc group of youth skaters, parents, members of the Police Foundation,°police officers and other citizens was formed. They held their first meeting on May 17`t'. He turned the time aver to the Skate Park Group to present their proposed project'. Kal Taylor said she is a mother of skateboarders. She said there are many benefits to having a skate park in Edmonds. In addition to skateboarding being a popular and healthy sport, skate parks are a safe place for kids to play. However, at this time there is a lack of facilities in the immediate area, with Lynndale being the closest. Ben Pruitt pointed out that the growth of skateboarding continues to increase at an exponential rate. About 11.6 million people between the ages of 6 and IS were skateboarding in the year 2000, and by 2003 the number grew to 13 million. Researchers expect 15 million skateboarders by 2005. As the number of skateboarders increases, so does the need for facilities to accommodate the sport. 'He advised that the Skate Park Association of the USA has stated that skateboarding is the third most popular sport in the nation for 6 to 18 year olds, behind only basketball and soccer. The fact is that the sport of skateboarding is growing, and at the core of this popular sport are energetic young kids who now surpass the number of Little League Baseball players. Aaron Taylor continued the presentation by pointing out -that aspiring young riders are usually drawn more to the excitement than the fitness benefits, but experts say that skateboarding does provide a great workout. It is cardiovascular and many trainers say it's better than running. In addition, balancing and timing is key, and the sport develops one's sense of direction and agility. Ile said that while learning to skateboard requires patience and perseverance, the rewards are many. For example, kids are always progressing, and they are always learning something new. The sport is goal oriented, and is a no -cut sport. Kids see tricks and they want to replicate them. The closer they get to performing the tricks, the more the mystery is solved and the more excited they get. It is a great thing for kids to do. The trend also means that kids spend a lot less time in front of the television and on video games and more time being active. Skateboarding actually gets them outside doing something physical, and that is good. Planning Board Minutes March 9 Packet Pg. 93 6.A.e Kai Taylor advised that the City adopted the 40 Developmental. Assets Model in their Comprehensive- Plan as a goal for youth. She pointed out that a skate park would address the following assets: • Caring.Neighborhood, • Community Values Youth: The development of a skate park would send the message that adults in the community value youth. ■ Safety: By enhancing support for something kids enjoy, the City can help young people feel safe at home, at school and in the neighborhood. • Neighborhood Boundaries: Neighbors can take responsibility for monitoring young people's behavior by identifyinga' place for kids. . • Adult Role Models: Parents and other adults would be present at the park to provide a model for positive, responsible behavior. • Youth Programs: A skate park would provide a safety place for kids to spend their time. ■ Interpersonal Competence: A skate park would provide a place for young people to develop friendship skills. ■ Self Esteem • Sense of Purpose • Positive View of Personal Future David Boubel explained that safety risk is another issue to touch upon while discussing the skate park. He said [list according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there are fewer skateboarding injuries per capita than other popular sports such as baseball, soccer or snowboarding. In comparison, kids under the age of 15 are three times more likely to.suffer a bicycle injury and twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment. In addition,'he pointed out that active V skate park use yields more positive activities in all areas of the park. Willi such a young population utilizing skate facilities, it makes. sense that by providing additional facilities, communitiesearl provide safe places -for kids to go and take part in W constructive activities. Also, by encouraging the use of helmets and other safety equipment, the City can send a message that 77 they care and that they want kids to be safe. As other communities have done, the City can develop programs that reward kids U) who ,wear helmets. 1A good example of this is in Poulsbo where-police:officers patrol : the-skaw park and give kids who are w wearing helmets a coupon for a free sandwich courtesy of Subway. lie further pointed out that this would not only encourage the use of helmets, but it would also create a bond between skateboarders and police officers; and -this foundation could go a long way towards kids making the right choices in life. He concluded his remarks by pointing out that the Recreation Immunity Act protects cities from liability for skateboarding accidents. ,Z Dylan Packard advised that according to skate park industry statistics, in 2002 there were approximately 1,000 skate parks in the United States, and there are as many as 2,000 more parks projected to be. built by the end of 2004. According to the Skate Park Association, 168 communities in the United States have currently posted a want, need or urgency for skate park development in their area_ This is just one good example of the popularity of skate parks. He further stated that as the popularity of skateboarding continues to increase, the need for skate parks in neighborhood where kids live also increases. At this time, kids living in or around the downtown Edmonds area have to be driven or ride a bus or ferry to get to a skate park. For this reason, the likelihood of kids skating on the streets of Edmonds has increased. Ile emphasized that a lot of kids are looking for alternative forms of recreation, and skateboarding is a way for them to express their creativity. He suggested that Edmonds could best support its kids and families by providing a skate park right here in the community. Mr. Packard reviewed slides of nearby skateboard parks that have been constructed in neighboring communities such as Bothell, Everett, Lynnwood/Edmonds, Marysville, Mill Creek, Monroe, Shoreline, Tukwila and Woodinville. Alex Witenberg explained that when the group first started meeting, they asked the City's crime prevention officer to email other cities in order to leant more about the positive and negative impacts of skate parks based on location. These responses were used to develop the following site selection criteria: ■ Natural visibility + Easily assessable by sidewalk or bus lines Planning Board Minules March 9, 2 Packet Pg. 94 6.A.e • . Good neighborhood response and the proximity to residents • Adequate parking or drop off areas • Minimal impact to the active uses already located in the area • Natural buffers for noise • Close proximity to services such as food and drink, restrooms and telephone • Easy access for skaters to get in and out. ■ Easy access for police and fire Mr. Witenberg advised that after reviewing each of the potential sites based on. the above criteria, the work group identified the Edmonds Civic Center as the preferred location for the skate park. He pointed out that this site would be easy to get to, and it is -located close to fire and police services. The visibility of the site is good, and a sanican and the facilities at the Boys and Girls Club could provide restroom facilities. It is located close to businesses that provide food and beverages, and because of its location near the Boys and Girls Club, it could attract new skaters. The site provides an open and wide area, and because it is visible to people passing by, it is an attractive location frann a parent's standpoint. Ms. Taylor concluded the presentation by pointing out that the Civic Center location would encourage further development of this popular and healthy sport, -provide a safe place for kids to skate and address the lack of facilities in the area Board Member Dewhirst said he.is perplexed at to why the skate park proposal is before the Board as a public hearing when N no conditional use permit or grading permit would be required. He questioned what type of action the Board is expected to take on the proposal after the public hearing. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that no design has been put forth for the skate park. The public hearing is regarding; the location of the proposed facility. They would not complete any design or permit work > until after the location has been selected. Board Member Dewhirst pointed out that the Board would not typically hold a v location hearing for any other type of recreational facility that is proposed for one of the City's park spaces. He suggested that the public hearing falls outside of any of the Hoard's procedures or rules. if public hearings on park facilities are going to occur on. a regular basis, the Board should have a better understanding of the process. Mr. Mclntosh:.explained that because a skate facility would be a unique use in a park, it is important that everyone have an opportunity to voice comments and concerns. Board Member Dewhirst questioned if the Board held the same type of review and public hearing.::for the Yost Park Pool. Again, he expressed his concern that the public hearing process could end up setting a very bad precedent. Board Member Works asked if the skate park would be supervised and if there would be set hours of operation. -Mr. McIntosh answered that, generally, skate parks are not supervised. They are the same type of amenity as a drop -in basketball court at a neighborhood park. He explained that, in the State of Washington, the Recreational Immunity Act includes skateboard parks, so this provides protection for cities and other government agencies. If the site were supervised or if the City were to charge a fee to use the facility, the Act would not provide the same level of protection. Therefore, skate parks in most communities are self -policed. The City would maintain the facility and check on it to make sure there are no -problems. He noted that the proposed location is close to the police station, and the police officers would make their presence known at the park. Ile said the hours of operation for the park would likely be from 9 a.m. until sunset. Board Member Young inquired if the facility would have lighting. Mr. McIntosh answered that there could be security lights installed around the site, but no lighting would be provided to allow the facility to be used after dark. Board Member Cassutt questioned if the City would be responsible for keeping the skate park clean. Mr. McIntosh said the City has it policy to take.care of issues such as graffiti within a 24-hour time period. Board Member Freeman inquired if the City has plans to monitor tfie park to ensure no one is using it after the posted hours. Mr. McIntosh answered that anyone found in the skate park beyond the posted hours would be. considered a trespasser. He said the area would be fenced off for security, but because the facility would be open seven days per week, there would not be a park employee available, to lock and unlock the gate each day. Signs would be posted around the facility to make sure everyone understands the hours of operation. 'istttling Board Minutes March 9, Packet Pg. 95 6.A.e Chair Young asked why the Skate Park Group feels it is so important to have a facility in the downtown area as opposed to somewhere else in the City. Mr. McIntosh said the City made a commitment to the youth to provide 'a facility in the downtown area. Right now, the kids living in the bowl area have to travel quite a distance to get to any other skate park in the area. The skate park in downtown Edmonds would be designed for kids who do not drive. The more experienced skaters would not be interested in the park since it would be designed for beginners between the ages of 6 and 14. The older kids would travel to the other facilities that provide more challenging features. He pointed out that as soon as the Lynndale Skate Park opened, the younger and less experienced skaters were squeezed out. Chair Young asked if an evaluation of the noise impacts associated with the skate park had been completed. He noted that several of the written comments were related to noise. He questioned how the noise level of the proposed skate park would compare to the noise associated with a soccer or baseball game or a tennis court. Mr. McIntosh said the Skate Park Group reviewed literature that supports the level of noise as being comparable to that of a soccer or basketball game. Because the facility would be located in a high activity area, the noise would blend in' at the same level as the other activities that take place in the park throughout the day. Board Member Dewhirst inquired if any measurements have been done from the proposed location to the peripheral boundaries of the park. Mr. McIntosh answered that they have not taken these measurements. Board Member Freeman inquired if the Skate Park Group has discussed the option of installing a sound barrier. Mr. McIntosh said a number of methods could be used to mitigate noise such as berms, landscaping, acoustical fencing, etc. He also pointed out that the type of pieces that would bei placed in the facility are now being designed to be less noisy. While the features, themselves, would not be constructed of concrete, the pad that they are placed on would be made of smooth concrete. There would be a certain level of sound as the skaters transfer from the. pieces to the concrete surface. m Chair Young asked if the City contemplates that the -facility would be used for skateboard competitions that draw youth from throughout the region. Mr. McIntosh said the modulated park that is being proposed would have a section set aside for real beginner skaters. The idea would be to progress to the higher and more challenging ramps.. But once the skaters get to a W certain level ('intermediate and beyond), they would -likely move to a facility that, providesmore challenging opportunities. w _The proposed park would not. likely be a site for competitions. However, there::could be: opportunities to provide instruction w opportunities. W Chair Young inquired- about the anticipated peak usage at the facility at any given time. Mr. McIntosh said the Skate Park Group has not investigated these numbers, but the usage would depend on how many features are put in the facility. There are usually about eight to ten skaters at the Lynndale park at any given time, and about eight to ten spectators or people waiting to skate To address Board Member Dewhirst's concerns; Chair-Youngpointed.out that this situation is similar to the traffic circulation proposal for City Park. Since the Planning Board is also the City's acting Parks Board, they have a responsibility to gather information and advise the City Council and staff on the matter. Chair Young opened the public hearing. He pointed out that the Board received written comment letters from David Thiele, Carol Green, Brian Berry, Elizabeth Lundstrom, Berry Ehrlich, Emily Ehrlick, Tracy Zickuhr, Lorna Dunsdon and Phillip Butler. David Thiele, 610 Daley Street, said his condominium looks out onto the Civic Center Playfield, and he is opposed to the City's proposal to construct a skate park in this location. He said that much of the Skate Park Group's presentation was related -to the benefits of skateboarding as a recreational activity, but that is not the issue before the Board at this time. The issue is whether the proposed location for the skate park is appropriate, given the fact .that it would become a noise polluter in a park that is surrounded by a densely populated residential area. He suggested the facility should be located -in another area of the City, which has the natural features necessary to absorb the sound associated with the skateboarding use. Ph=bg Board Minuto . Mawh 9, 2005 Page 5 Packet Pg. 96 6.A.e Mr. Thiele said his perception of the facts is much different than that of the Skate Park Group. He said he recently visited the Lynndale Park on a warn Sunday afternoon and found that the majority of the skaters appear to be in the same age group as those who spoke in favor of the Civic Center location. They_were not being squeezed out of the existing City skate park. There were very few older youth in attendance. Therefore, he questioned the rationale of opening a skate park at the Civic Center Playfield on the basis that the younger kids have been squeezed out of the Lynndale facility. With regard to the issue of noise pollution, Mr. Thiele said he hag several years of experience listening to the sounds of soccer, baseball, basketball and tennis at the Civic Center Playfield, and those sounds are tolerable and do not constitute a noise.:nuisance. However a skate park would be a particularly harsh noise polluter. The whole purpose of the park would be for the kids to go up the ramps, into the air, and then come crashing down onto the concrete pad. This activity produces a harsh, sharp sound that carries quite far, and is very different in kind to the other sports that take place at the. playfield. . He concluded that a skate park facility would significantly multiply the noise pollution problem in the park. Mr. Thiele pointed out that a long-established high -density residential area surrounds the Civic Center Playfield. Along the four streets that border the playfield, there are 56 homes (42 condos and apartment units and 14 single-family units). There are also two churches, one on the corner of Sixth and Bell Street and one on the corner of 7"' and Daley Street. He expressed his belief that the harsh noise impacts of the proposed skate park facility would adversely impact the well -established neighborhood. In fact, he suggested that noise pollution should disqualify the Civic Center Playfield as a potential site for the skate park. Mr. Thiele explained that the Civic Center Playfield is located at the bottom of the bowl, with hills rising around it on three � sides. It would be very enticing for the skaters to ride their boards down the streets in order to get to the new skate park since .> it would be all- downhill. Some of the City's busiest streets (5'" Avenue and Main Street) would only be l'/Z blocks away from v the skate park; °and he would expect that skaters would use these heavily traveled arterials; which would create a traffic hazard in the downtown. As is common for youth bicyclists, many of the skaters would blow through the stop signs, thus creating the possibility of a real tragedy occurring in the downtown. Next, Mr. Thiele -referred to the methodology that was used by the Skate Park Group to select a site for the now facility. He suggested that"their locational analysis was flawed, and a two-step procedure should have been used. The first step should have been to recognize that the facility would be noise producing. Selection should have been limited to only those sites where the noise would not be a nuisance to the surrounding properties. The next step in the selection process should have been to apply the other criteria to the remaining sites. However, the methodology used by the Skate. Park Group gave one point, either pro or con, for each of the factors identified. on their list. The fundamental factor of noise impact was not given any greater -consideration than any of the other less relevant factors such as restrooms, places to eat, etc. Mr. Thiele asked that the Planning Board find the Civic Center Playfield to be an unsuitable site for the new skate•park. The Board should review -the other sites that would be more suitable for the use because of natural sound barriers, etc. He also suggested that the City expand their search for a site to include areas with the City that are outside of the bowl area. No matter where the facility is located, kids would have to travel from other parts of the City to use it. Therefore, he concluded that there would be no reason to tie the site to the downtown. Planning Board Minutes Mamh 9 packet Pg. 97 6.A.e Derry Ehrlich, 628 Daley Street, said his condominium overlooks the Civic Center Playfield, also. Ile said that although he wrote a letter to the Board regarding his concerns, he also wanted to bring up a few additional points. He pointed out that the Edmonds bowl has the lowest elevation in the City. Ile would suspect that if the skate park were located at the Civic Center Playfield, youth would skateboard down the major streets to get to the park. people currently living oat these streets have indicated that the skateboarders that go past their homes are loud. If a skate park were constructed at the Civic Center Playfield, it would act as a magnet to draw kids to Ole downtown. He said that while lie is a firm supporter of youth activitios, he is concerned about the proposed location. When the kids leave the park to go and get snacks, they will likely use their skateboards for transportation, and this would create a nuisance in the downtown, as well, He also noted that since the Boys and Girls Club closes at 3 p.m. each day and all day on Sunday, their restroom facilities would not be available for the skate park users a great deal of the time. The only restroom facility would be the sanican. He summarized that he felt the City could find a better location for the skate park such as the Meadowdale Athletic Complex or a second park at the Lynndale location. Emily Ehrlich, 628 Daley Street, referred to the chart that was prepared by the Skate Park Group to -rank the nine potential sites. She suggested that the Board reject many of the arguments the group offered regarding the alternative sites. For example, the Skate Park Group cited that the Edmonds Elementary site would be unsuitable because there are kids in school during the day. However, she felt this would be a positive factor since the park would be designed to serve that age level of kids. While the group also indicated that there would be no natural visibility at the Edmonds Elementary School site, there is a wide area of open fields in which the skate park could be located. She questioned the validity of the group's statement that there would be no police or fire access at this site. Since if is used for a school, there must be adequate emergency access opportunities. She concluded that the group's reasons for not supporting the Edmonds Elementary School location are fluffy. Ms. Ehrlich said the Skate Park Group also indicated several negative aspects associated with the treatment plant site. One of 'cj their major reservations was that there was no concrete pad available for the facility. However, site noted that a pad would also have to be constructed at the Civic Center Playfield to accommodate the new: facility. The group indicated that City Park m would not be a good location because of poor visibility. Since the berms in City Park could act as a sound barrier, they co should be considered a positive rather than a negative. Ms. Ehrlich pointed out that the group indicated that the 76 and Elni to Street site would be unsuitable because it is surrounded by too marry residential homes. But as pointed out by Mr. Thiele, W LU there are numerous residential homes surrounding the Civic Center Playfield, 'as well. The group also purports that no parking would be available at the 7'h and Elm Street site, but -this is not .the only City block where there -is no parking available J on the street. The youth could either walk to the park or find a parking space further away. In addition, there is a major bus -J stop at 5 h and Elm Street that could serve this site. She concluded that many of the group's conclusions on each of the nine w potential sites are inaccurate. Ms. Ehrlich pointed out that the 40 Development Assets document referenced by Mr. McIntosh and Ms. Taylor indicates that a caring neighborhood is the key to developing projects for young people. She said she felt she could safety say from the letters and testimony presented by the citizens, that a caring neighborhood would not be among the attributes the skateboarders would enjoy at the Civic Center Playfield, Jim Underhill, 7410 -- 21P Street, suggested that if one were to read the history of Edmonds; they would find that, decade after decade, the youth have approached City leadership with the request for youth facilities and opportunities. It is clear that the City has tried to respond, but has been pushed. back by the adults of the community. He said he is surprised at the selective views that have been expressed about the impacts skateboarding would have on the community, while people have neglected to talk about the Saturday Market or the Taste of Edmonds that take place at or near the Civic Center Playfield during the summer months. It appears that people have learned to deal with the noise and other impacts associated with these two events_ He pointed out that other communities have learned to accommodate skate parks. Mr. Underhill congratulated the you for doing a good job of coming up will)_appropriate plans. He asked that the Board give consideration to the researcli the youth completed and their willingness to prepare and present their best consideration of a site that would best serve the community. As they went through the entire process, they tried to be very sensitive to the needs of the community of which they are a part. March 9, 2 Packet Pg. 98 ti.A.e Kendall Berry, 610-Daley-Street, said the proposed skate park would be located below her window. She thanked the youth for all of their hard work and said she was impressed with their presentation. She said -she believes skateboarding is a good activity that promotes good health, but she asked that -the Board not just consider the best interest of this one group over the interest of the -community. While i4c youth are the.future of Edmonds, the Board should keep in mind that not everyone would choose skateboarding as an activity at.411 times of -the day or night. She agreed that residents living around the Civic Center Playfield have learned to accommodate the noise from the Time of Edmonds, sporting events and other community events. However, they have significapt concerns about the proposed skate park.- She suggested that the City find another place that would work for everyone in the community. M. I Griffeth, 610 Daley Street, said that when he heard about the proposal to construct a skate park at the Civic Center Playfield, he took the opportunity to visit skate park facilities in., Woodinville and in Wenatchee. He pointed out that the Woodinville Skate Park is located between the freeway and a park -and -ride lot, and there are no negative impacts to residential property owners. In.Wenatchee.the skate park is located between a middle school and a baseball field. Again, the negative impact to residential neighborhoods would be minimized. The location being proposed by the ,City of Edmonds is close to a. residential neighborhood. He also pointed out that the Civic Center Playfield property has drainage problems during heavy rains. He concluded by suggesting the City find another location for the skate park by conducting a correct impact analysis that considers the impacts to the nearby neighborhoods. Brian Berry; 610 Daley Street, said that although the Skate Park Group's presentation extolled the many benefits the project N would have on the youth of the community, it is important to consider the impacts the proposal would have on the people who live around the park. He said he does not believe the Civic Center Playfield is the correct location for a skate park. He asked U if the City has completed a study of the impacts the proposal would have on the surrounding neighborhood. The City cannot > just address the needs of the youth while ignoring the community that would be impacted by the skate park. He said he is v supportive of the City's desire to construct'a skate park in Edmonds, but it should be. built in a location that would have fewer negative impacts --to .the surrounding residential properties. r Don Stay, 715 Sprague Street, said he has been reasonably active in the community over the years. He served on the Planning and Parks Board, as well as the Fdmonds Port Commission. He pointed opt that there is a.lot of activity on the playfield now, and --he encourages this use. However, he said he is opposed to the proposed plan to enhance the use by creating a skate pack. He said he finds no fault with the team sporting events that take place at the Civic Center Playfield because they are both healthy and necessary, for the community. While skateboarding is a good recreational sport, the Civic Center Playfield is the wrong location despitq the value it would have for the youth. Nancy McDonald, President of the Edmonds Police Foundation, said the Foundation has had an interest in helping the City create an additional skate park for quite dome time. It was six years ago this spring that the Foundation agreed that there was a need in the community for a skate park, and they donated $4,500 as seed money. She said the Foundation is concerned about the youth of the area, as well as the safety of the entire community. She said she has heard from citizens -about encounters they have had on the streets and Perking lots with.skateboarders who are going very fast. The Foundation's hope is that a skate park would provide a safe place for the youth so they no longer have to use the sidewalks and parking lots. This would, in turn, improve safety for the entire community. Ms. McDonald explained that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and the Skate Park Group have worked hard to keep the Foundation up to date on their progress, and the Foundation would continue to support their efforts on behalf of the youth and the entire community. Shp reported that she recently spoke with a representative from the United States Skateboarding Association. According to a recent poll, there are about 12.5 million skateboarders now, which is an increase of more than 100 percent since 1995. They expect the sport to continue to grow at a rapid pace in future -years. She congratulated the youth for doing such a great job to prepare and present their plan to the community. Don Krieman, 24006 — 95* Place Wept, said he was impressed by both the youth presentation and the community comments. He suggested that when reviewing the site alternatives, oneof the most important aspects should be the site's proximity to police service. The Civic Center Playfield is located very close to the Police Department, which would help to ensure safety. He pointed out that the playfeld has been a park for longer than most of the residential property owners have owned their homes. The residents knew the location of the park when they purchased their homes. He said he supports the Planning Hoard Minutes March 9, Packet Pg. 99 6.A.e proposed location because the kids would be safe. If the noise is too great, the police who are right next door could take care of the problem. He took.exception to citizen comments that the youth would skateboard down the streets and sidewalks to get to the new skate park. Skateboarding is not allowed on the streets and sidewalks in the downtown area, He said he bicycles five days a week, and often in the downtown area. He has never seen more than three or four skateboards in a single day. He said the citizens should not assume the youth would break the law, He concluded by stating that if the kids who participated in tire presentation or indicative of the type of youth who would use the park, the neighbors should be pleased. The kids worked hard on the project. He said he understands that adults like to enjoy nice quiet neighborhoods, but he questioned if they should ask the kids to do the same. He pointed out that there are not very many recreational opportunities in downtown Edmonds for the youth, and a skate park would provide a place for them to get their energy out. Bruce Witenberg, 8725 Madronno Lane, pointed out that what sets this project apart from the many others the Board has reviewed is that it has been planned and presented primarily by the youth of the community. During his two terms on the Planning Board, he. cannot recall a time when the youth of the community worked so hard on a project and made a presentation to the Board, and they deserve credit for their hard work. He said many citizens are aware of the problem of kids skating in downtown Edmonds because there is no skate park. During the last ten months, he said he has had the pleasure of working with the Skate Park Group as a liaison from the Edmonds Police foundation, with support from. the Police Department, the Parks Department and other citizens in the community. Throughout this process, the.youth have learned how an idea can develop into what they hope wiII become a reality for them. They have also received a hands-on lesson about how a project winds its way through City government, Mr. Witenberg said that while the kids are likely disappointed with many of the comments that were received, he is confident f° they will approach the comments with the same resolve and enthusiasm they have demonstrated over the past ten months. He is confident that the kids will attempt to mitigate resolutions for the issues that have been raised. He thanked the citizens who > provided constructive comments and suggestions. But lie suggested that those who condemned the concept using innuendo V and generalities about skateboarders did a disservice to the youth of the community. He asked that the Board and community support the dedication and commitment of the youth and work with them in a positive and constructive manner to make the skate park a reality. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Henderson pointed out that sound seems to be a major issue with 'the surrounding property owners. He inquired if the Parks Department Staff had ever visited the Lynndale Skate Park with a decibel reader to record the noise level. This type of recording could be played hack at the proposed site to determine the noise impacts the new skate park would have oil the surrounding properties. lie suggested that this would be a logical next step. Mr. McIntosh said staff' has not taken a sound reading at the Lynndale Skate Park. He suggested that a better choice would be to meastrre.the decibel readings at a modular skate park that is similar to [lie one being proposed. Board Member Crim pointed out that, according to data collected from the National Skateboarding Association, the noise level of a skate park would be fundamentally the same as the noise created by -other recreational activities such as soccer, basketball and tennis. lie emphasized that national organizations such as this one are typically very careful about making these statements, and they likely have the data to support their claim. He applauded the youth who worked so hard to put together a well thought out plan and proposal. He suggested that the community does them a disservice when they criticize their proposal without hard facts to support their claims. Chair Young agreed that the youth did a great job of putting their proposal together. They have shown the need for the skate park and that it is a great idea for the community. The question is whether or not the Civic Center Playfield is tite appropriate site for the facility, lie suggested that the next step in the process would likely involve another public hearing. He said it would be interesting to hear how the other communities referenced in the group's presentation have reacted to their skate parks. in addition, he agreed with Board Member Henderson's suggestion that decibel readings be taken and played back on the proposed site to determine if the noise impact would be significant. He also agreed with Board Member Crim that the Board and community should deal with the facts and not what they think miglit happen. if it can be demonstrated that noise. would not be an issue, they need facts and ettperiences from other communities to support that claim. LM Planning Board M inuteA March 9, 2005 Page 9 Packet Pg. 100 6.A.e Board Member Dewhirst said he would like to see a site plan for the Civic Center Playfield that identifies the proposed location of the skate park and the distance between the proposed skate park and the various edges of the park. Personally, he felt the issue boils down to whether or not the noise would be significant or if it could be mitigated. He said the Civic Center Playfield could be a good location for the skate park because it is across the street from the Police Department and is centrally located to serve a wider area .of youth. The ambient noise level that currently exists at the Civic Center Playfield is probably no different than any other park in the area, given the location of the Police and Fire Departments and the team sports that take place on the site. The existing noise level would probably act as a good buffer, itself. However, he agreed that further research on noise impacts should be conducted. . Board Member Works asked that the Skate Park Group offer ideas for mitigating the noise impacts associated with the proposed skate park. The Board took a ten-minute recess at 8:50 p.m. BRIEFING OF EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN-(CFP) UPDATE Mark Johnson, Edmonds School District Planning and Property Management' Specialist, 9003 Olympic View Drive, provided a brief overview of the Edmonds School District's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). He said that very few changes have been made to the document since the City approved it two years ago. He advised that the district is the largest in Snohomish County, which covers 36,000 square miles of land and serves a student population of 20,175. He explained that the CFP is a planning document that is required by the Growth Management Act. Its objective is to forecast future capacity and facility needs and articulate a facility and financial plan to address the future needs. Mr. Johnson said the Edmonds School District does not qualify for funding from mitigation fees because they are experiencing a downward trend in their student enrollment, and they have adequate. capacity in their existing facilities. However, the district is still recommending that cities within their boundaries adopt a school mitigation ordinance in the event U) that it would become necessary in the future. w Mr. Johnson provided a graph depicting the downward trend of enrollment for the Edmonds School District. He noted that J although Snohomish County projects an increase in student enrollment in the next six years, the Edmonds School District's enrollment has and will continue to move downward. He pointed out that while Snohomish County projects that the Edmonds W School District would have a student population of 23;085 by the year 2014, the District believes the actual number of M students would 'be about 17,000. The District's forecast is similar to that of the Office of the Superintendent of Public M Instruction. He concluded that the projected student enrollment demonstrates enough capacity for the next several years to v come since enrollment is turning downward. Y Q Board Member Dewhirst asked if the District has any plans to surplus. or sell any of their school properties given the a - significant downward trend in enrollment. He said he has always felt schools were underutilized as a community asset, and he v questioned how the City and the District could come up with a plan to utilize the schools, particularly those that are not v needed by the District, as community facilities. He said he has been part of a regional design effort in Puget Sound, and the role of schools in the future has entered into the discussions. While he doesn't expect an answer right now, the concept is E definitely something the District and City should work to encourage. He felt this effort could provide interesting t opportunities in the future. Mr. Johnson advised that the Edmonds School District has interlocal agreements with various jurisdictions regarding the community's use of existing school facilities. He said the District is aware of the opportunities for a interacting with the local cities to more effectively use the community assets. Chair Young noted that the District encourages municipalities in which they operate to establish a mitigation ordinance, even though they cannot utilize the concept this time. He questioned how this type of ordinance would benefit the District right now since enrollment in the Edmonds area is static. Mr. Johnson said the District would like -cities to adopt an ordinance to g s address lontanding issue m areas where infrastructures need to be improved. They would like to receive funding for these projects from view development. 'Planning Board Minutes March 9, Packet Pg. 101 ti.A.e October 26, 2005 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 26, 2005 Chair Young called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 50' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT James Young, Chair Janice Freeman, Vice Chair Virginia Cassutt Judith Works John Dewhirst Cary Guenther Jim Crim Don Henderson STAFF PRESENT.' Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Frances White -Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder m to r READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER WORKS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2005 AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The Board agreed to place Item 7a (Further Review and Discussion on the Skate Park Work Group's Proposal) before Item Sa (Progress Report on Public Streetscape Plan) so the young people in the audience could go home earlier. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Don-Kreiman expressed his belief that many citizens in the community support the proposed skate park in the proposed location. Because it would be located close to the Police and Fire Department Buildings, emergency access would be readily available if a problem were to arise. He said it is important that the kids who use the skate park are safe. He pointed out that the older kids in the City need a place to play. Edmonds currently has a lack of these facilities, and kids tend to get in trouble if they don't have something to do. He concluded by stating the proposed location for the skate park is excellent, and the facility would be a wonderful addition to the City. Roger Hertrlch said he attended a recent Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting at which they conducted a design review for File Number ADB-05-124. He pointed out that while the public was not allowed to comment on the proposed design, he was able to provide some general comments about the requirements of the newly created Master Planned Office and Residential (MPOR) zone such as height, massing, transition, etc. He said he was surprised to find that, although the Packet Pg. 102 6.A.e ADB was being asked to conduct a design review for a development proposal in the MPOR zone, they had received very little education about the zoning requirements,;, They were being asked to make a decision with very little information and no public input. He noted that the ADB expressed numerous concerns regarding the proposed design. He concluded by expressing his objection to the fact that there was neither audience participation nor adequate information provided for the design review, and he asked the Board to keep this in mind for future situations. Emily Erlich said she wants the City to develop a good skate park facility for the youth, and that is why she has been so involved in the project. She distributed the proposed plans that were prepared by the group, Friends of the Civic Playfield, which outline the intended uses of the civic center playfield and their commitment to the youth. She said this group is concerned that the new skate park be a "state of the art" park that Edmonds can be proud of. She noted that more information is available to the public on their website at www.friendsoftheeivicplayfield.org. She said she appreciates the City's willingness to fund this important project for the youth. Sharon Ellingson said she was present to represent herself and three other families who live in a residential building in the vicinity of the proposed site for the skate park. She said they are concerned that a premier skate park be developed in the area that would be suitable, permanent, and would not need water maintenance. She recalled that a few years ago the City ran out of money and couldn't even pay for the flower program. It is important that the skate park can be maintained for a long time for all of the children to enjoy. Alex Witenberg said he is 16 and a sophomore at Edmonds Woodway High School with a 4.0 grade point average. He said he enjoys many activities, including guitar, friends and skateboarding. He pointed out that skateboarding is a healthy opportunity for youth who are not interested in team sports. He expressed his belief that youth should actively participate in M the community, and that is why he volunteered to participate on the Skate Park Work Group for the past 18 months. He 2 received a good civic lesson and worked hard with the other group -members to put together a plan for the Board to consider. > U They listened to all of the views and tried to accommodate the concerns to the best of their ability. He urged the Board to recommend approval of the skate park plans so the next phase of the project could begin. r FURTHER REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE SKATE PARK WORK GROUP'S PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS, INCLUDING CONSULTANT REPORT FROM SKATE PARK NOISE STUDY(FILE NUMBER CDC-85-29 Brian McIntosh. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, reported that since the March 90s Planning Board hearing on the skate park, two refinements have been made to the proposal to further address the concerns presented by the public. First, he explained that after reviewing the original location adjacent to the current basketball courts and observing the play patterns in the park, it was noticed that shifting the skate park slightly to the south and east (See Exhibit D) would better utilize the field space. In particular, he noted that the north field would keep most of its usable dimensions and the softball field would keep its consistent 285-foot parameter. In addition, the distance from the north perimeter fence to the proposed: skate park would be increased from 120 feet to 220 feet. Secondly, Mr. McIntosh reported that since the March 9a' meeting the Skate Park Work Group continued to visit other skate parks, including a recently installed pre -cast concrete modular park in Kenmore (See Exhibit E). They found that this product would be much quieter than wooden or steel components, and coupled with an equally smooth concrete pad; it would be a considerable improvement in comparison with the asphalt landings currently in place at the Kenmore Park. He further pointed, out that the newly proposed concrete modular type of skate park would incorporate simpler "streetscape" features that are popular with skaters, more appealing aesthetically, and should result in less maintenance concerns than other types of modular ramps. Mr. McIntosh advised that a scope of work was developed (See Exhibit B) to perform an ambient noise study and The Greenbusch Group, Inc., an acoustical, mechanical and audio/visual design firm, was selected to perform the study. He introduced Julie Weibusch, Company President, who was present to review the findings of the Skate Park Noise Study (See Exhibit C) and answer the Board's questions. Planning hoard Minutes October 26, 2005 Page 2 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.e Ms. Weibusch. provided some background information regarding the terminology used in the report. She advised that the study included three primary components: establishing the pre -construction ambient conditions for the area, measuring sound levels associated with both modular and in -ground skate systems, and predicting sound levels from skate activity at the adjacent residential properties based on two orientations of the skate park and two skate systems. She referred to Figures 1 through 4 on Pages 7 and 8 of the Report. She explained that the City has decided to look seriously at the concrete version of the modular system. She advised that although she did not model that particular system, it would be very similar to an in - ground system and significantly quieter than the modular system that was originally proposed. In addition, since the report was prepared, the City has decided to pull the skate park 100 feet further away from the north property line, which would make the noise level about 5 or 6 decibel (dB) less for the residents to the north. Ms. Weibusch explained that the human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequency sounds falling outside the range of speech and has a frequency response that is dependent on the overall level of listening environment. Sound level meters and monitors utilize weighting systems to approximate human perception of a sound. Measurements made utilizing the weight system designed to simulate the perception of human hearing at medium high levels are referred to as "A weighted" and are called "dBA". Ms. Weibusch referred to Chapter 5,30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), which regulates noise and quantifies the maximum permissible environmental noise levels for the proposed site. She noted that the Civic Center a Playfeld, where the skate park is proposed to be located, is zoned Public Use, which is considered "Open Space" or °r "Residential" by the code. Adjacent properties to the North, South and West include condominiums, which are also uJ considered "Residential." She further noted that the proposed site of the skate park is currently an active playfield, which a includes a track with grandstand bleachers, outdoor basketball courts, tennis courts and fields for soccer and baseball/softball. V In addition, the Boys and Girls Club is co -located on the site with scheduled outdoor activities. Measurements were taken on > September 29't' and 290' and were made along, the north property boundary, near the residential property in close proximity to U the skate park. m r Ms. Weibusch advised that the maximum permissible noise level at neighboring residential property lines is 55 dBA. She U) reported that the average measured 24-hour ambient conditions were about 50 dBA. The peak -hour (4 - 6 p.m.) conditions tY were measured° -at 54 dBA at the fence line of the condominiums to the north. If a concrete system were used instead of a modular system, the reading would be less. Also, shifting the skate park 100 feet to the south would also lower the reading by w about 5 or 6 dBA. She concluded that the noise level from the new skate park would be less than what is currently generated J by the existing baseball field and basketball courts, Therefore, it is her professional opinion that the noise levels from the new z facility would pose very little impact on the community and no mitigation should be required. - S Ms. Weibusch said that as she observed the behavior of kids using other skate parks in the region, she expected to see more noise as a result of the voice levels. However, she found the kids- to be very focused on what they were doing and the behavior was quite good. She concluded that the noise level from the civic center playfield would not increase as a result of the new skate park, particularly now that the site would be shifted more to the south and a concrete design would be used. The new facility would have very little impact to the surrounding community. Chair -Young said he appreciated that Ms..Weibusch's report was very well laid out and straightforward. He summarized that people who live near the Civic Center Playfield hear a certain level of background noise all the time that they don't pay attention to anymore. According to the report, there would not be a perceptible change in the noise level that would require regulatory action or relocation. He asked Ms. Weibusch to characterize what the difference in noise level generated by normal skate park use would be compared to people driving by on the street. Ms. Weibusch answered that other than the occasional slap of a skateboard when someone jumps, she does not anticipate the surrounding property owners would hear any noise from the facility. Mr. McIntosh said it is the goal of the, Skate Park Work Group to have the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council as soon as possible. Chair Young noted that although a public hearing has already been held on the proposal, significant changes have been made to the location and design. Therefore, he suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to conduct another public hearing prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. The remainder of the Board agreed to schedule a public hearing for the proposal on November 160'. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2005 Page 3 Packet Pg. 104 6.A.e Chair Young noted that the proposed footprint for the skate park would be 45 by 120 feet. He asked how this size compares with other skate parks in the area. Mr. McIntosh answered that the Kenmore skate park is 40 by 135 feet, so the square footage would be similar. However, a whole range of dimensions can be found when reviewing skate parks in the region. He reminded the Board that the new skate park would be intended for beginning and intermediate skaters, so it would be smaller in size. Board Member Freeman asked if there would be an age limit placed on the new facility. Mr. McIntosh explained that there would be no age limit, but -the more advanced skaters would probably only try the park once and then find that it is not challenging enough. Board Member Dewhirst referred to Exhibit D, which illustrates the proposed location of the new skate park. He pointed out that all of the dimensions identify the public street right-of-way widths except for the north dimension, which stops at the southern boundary. In order to be consistent, he suggested that all public right-of-way widths be identified on the exhibit. In addition, Board Member Dewhirst requested that staff prepare an updated, comprehensive report outlining the goals and, intent of the proposal. In addition, the report should identify ideas regarding operations, maintenance, etc. He noted that the public and the Board raised many issues previously, and verbal answers were provided. But it would behoove everyone to have all the information in one report. This same report could then be•forwarded to the City Council along with the Board's recommendation. Board Member Crim said it would also be helpful to incorporate the new location and design into the report that is presented at the public hearing. Issues related to maintenance should also be addressed. PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC STREETSCAPE PLAN (FILE NUMBER, CDC-05-101), Frances White Chapin, Cultural Services Manager, said she was present to provide an update on the Streetscape Plan Study U and to allow the Board Members an opportunity to comment on what they would like to see in the project. She reported that a > public meeting, facilitated by CREA Affiliates, was held on October 171h to invite public input on the 40' Avenue Arts U Corridor concept. The meeting was attended by 28 people, including members of the Planning.Board and Councilmember Moore. Over half of those in attendance were residents or property owners in the corridor. t° r Ms. White Chapin reported that the consultant resented examples of Streetscape treatments in other communities followed by brainstorming in two groups for ideas about 4 Avenue. The groups generated several dozen ideas toward creating a vision for the Arts Corridor, noting both the constraints and the opportunities. The groups specifically discussed -concerns regarding narrow the existing sidewalks, street lighting and street parking. It was noted that 4a' Avenue is already heavily used by pedestrian traffic, and there seemed to be an interest in making it more attractive as a pedestrian corridor. There was comment that not much happens along 0 Avenue and in the downtown after 7:00 p.m., and 4ei Avenue is pretty dark at that time. Comments also emphasized that 4 h Avenue should be considered a major connection between the new art center that is being constructed and downtown Edmonds. It also acts as a gateway to the downtown. There were comments about the need to preserve the scale and feel that exists along the street, as well as the different art elements, street lighting, etc. that could be provided to enhance the street. She advised that the consultants would present some preliminary concepts, based on ideas generated at the public meeting, to the staff advisory committee (consisting of staff from Parks, Planning and Engineering, Public Works, Economic Development, and Community Services Departments) on October 281h.' She further advised that the next public meeting would be scheduled for mid -November; possibly November 10 h. At the meeting the consultant would present preliminary concepts for the Arts Corridor. A work session with the Planning Board and the consultant has tentatively been scheduled for January I Vh, and a third public meeting would be held before the final designs are presented to the Planning Board for review in February. Board Member Works asked if there are participants on the advisory committee who can provide a reality check on the feasibility of some of the ideas that have been presented to date so that the end result is realistic and within the context of what the City can actually do. Ms. White Chapin answered that the Staff Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from various City Departments, will serve in this capacity. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2005 Page 4 Packet Pg. 105 Novein b er 16, CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2005 Chair Young called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 -- 50i Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT James Young, Chair Janice Freeman, Vice Chair Virginia Cassutt Judith Works John Dewhirst Cary Guenther Jim Crim Don Henderson RE' ADIIHGIAPPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder Approval of the minutes from the November 9m meeting was postponed until December 14'h. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Mr. Chave suggested, and the Planning Board concurred, that Item 7a (further discussion on the downtown waterfront component of the Comprehensive Plan) be replaced with a discussion about the Planning Board's extended agenda and 2006 work plan. AUDIENCIE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC FEE ARING ON THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS LFILE NUMBER. CDC-05-29 Chair Young clarified that the Planning Board is also the acting Parks Board for the City, and that is why the public hearing for the proposed skate park is being heard by them. After the public hearing, the Board would make a recommendation to the City Coutncnl, who would be responsible for making the final decision on the matter. Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, explained that the intent of the Skate Park Work Group's presentation is to provide a complete report on the history of the proposal, their findings, answers to previous questions from the Planning Board and public, improvements and changes from original recommendations, and to answer any further questions that may arise. cc W Packet Pg. 106 6.A.e Mr. McIntosh reviewed that at the October 26, 1999 City Council Meeting, the Edmonds Police Foundation donated'$4,500 towards the fixture development of a skate park facility in downtown Edmonds. At that time, Mayor Fahey, the Council, and City staff recognized the health and social benefits of skateboarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park, which - was jointly funded by Edmonds and Lynnwood after a lengthy development process. It was also identified that the park was heavily used and many younger, inexperienced skateboarders had difficulty getting to the park. He pointed out that the need for a local skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and has been included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Mr. McIntosh further reviewed that on March 23, 2004, staff met with the Police Foundation to discuss the possibility of building a skate park in the downtown area, and it was decided to form a Skate Park Work Group. The first meeting of this group was held on May 17, 2004, and participants included Edmonds skaters, parents and community members who believed a skate facility in downtown Edmonds would be a valuable asset to the community's youth. On January 26, 2005, the Skate Park Work Group presented a report to the Planning Board of their findings to date. Committee members reported on different aspects of the proposal, which included health benefits; growth and popularity of the sport; the 40 Development Assets that are nationally recognized building blocks that help young people grow up healthy, caring and responsible; safety; risk management; the Recreation Immunity Act; pictures of skate parks in surrounding communities; criteria for selecting a skate park site; and the proposed location of the Civic Center Playfields. Mr. McIntosh reported that a public hearing was held on March 9, 2005, and at the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Board asked the Work Group to return at a later date to answer questions concerning noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and provide an accurate site plan of the park. On October 26, 2005, Julie Weibusch from the Greenbusch Company,Inc. resented a comprehensive noise study. Two other refinements to the original ro osal were also resented at 2 P P Yproposal P > that time. First, the location of the proposed facility was changed within the Civic Center Playfields. Second, there was a L) significant change proposed for the product that would be used for the facility. m m Mr. McIntosh reviewed the following twelve points: Goal: The parks and recreation community recognizes skateboarding as a healthy and popular recreational activity and a legitimate use to be accommodated in our parks system The goal of the Skate Park Work Group is to continue their efforts to gain approval to plan and construct a skate park in downtown Edmonds at the preferred Civic Field site for beginning to intermediate skateboarders. Popularity of Skateboarding: The interest in this sport continues to grow at a fast rate. Estimates of the number of people between the ages of 6 and 18 who skateboarded in 2003 was 13 million, with numbers expected to reach 15 million this year. This number exceeds the number of Little League Baseball players and trails only basketball and soccer in participation. As the sport grows, so does the need for facilities as evidenced by the installation of skate parks in most communities surrounding Edmonds. Safety/Liability: As mentioned in earlier presentations, there are far fewer skateboarding accidents per capita than many other popular sports such as baseball, soccer, or snowboarding. Children under the age of 15 are twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment and three times more likely to suffer a bicycle injury. The skate park would not be directly supervised, but if constructed to industry standards and maintained properly, the Recreation Immunity Act would protect the City from liability for skateboarding accidents. All City playground and park amenities are inspected and maintained regularly, and equipment logs are kept on all inspections. The City's Park Maintenance Staff respond immediately to reported problems with equipment or vandalism. Due to the high active use at Civic Field, park crews visit the site almost daily. Security/Police: Early in the development of the proposal, the City of Edmonds Crime Prevention Officer solicited information from surrounding communities, specifically to determine what common problems they may have. In addition to emphasizing the need for the facility to be in a highly visible area, many communities encouraged a strong police presence, especially during the fast few weeks. This sets a tone early that the police are aware of and interested in the success of the facility, and it helps create a bond between skaters and officers. Parents watching and community spectators also promote security and caring and give the participants a chance to perform. With a good start, users do take ownership and peer pressure to protect the facility can be powerful. At the present time, the police are not able to Planning Board Minutes November 16, 2005 Page 2 Packet Pg. 107 6.A.e direct kids that are skating on public facilities and restricted areas to a local park in downtown Edmonds. Lynndale Park is the closest facility, and it is about three miles away. • Location; The survey conducted by the Crime Prevention Officer and other readings and research by the Work Group. yielded a set of criteria that the group used to determine the best location in the downtown area for the skate park. The group identified nine areas that might have potential as a site. Members traveled independently to each site, applied criteria to those sites, and selected the Civic Center Playfrelds as the preferred location. None of the criteria was weighted so having easy access to police and fire was scored the same as availability of restrooms and phone. Attachment 6 is a location analysis chart that provides more information about the site that was selected by the Work Group. • Location Within Civic Playtield: The original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence line and 140 feet from the nearest residences. Upon further observation, it = was noticed that shifting the skate park south and slightly east would keep most of the usable dimensions of the north a field a consistent 285-foot perimeter softball field. Distance from the nearest residents was increased from 140 feet to = 240 feet. Attachment 7 illustrates the proposed location of the facility, which would be more centrally located and 2 provide more direct site lines from the police station. • Noise Study: At the request of the Planning Board, due to concerns from the neighborhood about the potential noise (- impacts from a skate park facility, a scope of work was developed to perform an ambient noise study. The Greenbusch M Group, Inc., an acoustical, mechanical and audio/visual design firm, was selected to perform the study. The original a - study measured from the location adjacent to the basketball courts and concluded that noise levels would pose very little impact to the community. The analysis did not recommend mitigation. The study provided in the Board's packets was updated to reflect noise levels at the new proposed location, which would be 240 feet from the nearest residences. The noise study, continued to use the wooden ramp design, which is considerably noisier than the new proposed design of concrete structures. V ■ ` Rules: Simple rules similar to other skate parks and following the recommendations of the Washington Cities insurance Authority would be posted. This type of park is designed for skateboards and roller blades. The Washington Cities Insurance Authority is the City's insurance carrier, and staff has talked at length with them about the proposed facility. They have indicated no problems with skate parks in municipal areas. to • hours of Operation/Lights: The facility would not be equipped with lights and would be open from 9 a.m. to dusk, w -which is about %: hour past sunset. Anyone using the facility beyond those hours would be trespassing. � • Fencing: To protect skaters from errant baseballs, soccer balls, etc., the proposal includes an 8-foot fence on the north, a w -^ 1 0-foot -fence on the east, and a 4-15oot fence on the west and.south where play is minimal and spectators could observe. The fencing would be removable to enable flexibility for special events. Z • Drainage: The field area north of the proposed site and east of the basketball courts has had an ongoing problem that w makes the area unplayable for significant parts of the year. In coordination with the development of the park, a separate p drainage project would be undertaken to rectify this problem, This would extend the season in which the field could be U used for events. Y • .. Design/Accommodation: The original proposal called for a modular park with steel, wood, or like surfaces to enable a removal for special events such as the Taste of Edmonds. The Work Group continued to visit other parks to explore v surfaces, including markedly quieter pre -cast concrete recently installed at the Kenmore Skate Park. This product can be > designed to match any skating feature and usually duplicates the "streetscape" forms that are designed, requested by, and v popular with skaters. Streetscapes mimic real street features. These are Iow maintenance, permanent and the 2 to 6-tone concrete weight of each piece absorbs sound and creates stability. The forms would be place don an approximately 5,400 square foot smooth concrete pad. The Chamber of Commerce endorses the design and would be able to work on and E around the skate park. Board Member Works asked if the City has funding available to maintain the park. Mr. McIntosh explained that the City's Capital Improvement Plan identifies $200,000 for construction of the new facility, and the project should stay within that range. The facility would be maintained on the regular maintenance schedule and they do not anticipate a lot more maintenance than is currently done at the Civic Playfields. Planning Board Minutes November 16 Packet Pg. 108 6.A.e Board Member Freeman noted that the proposed new pre -cast concrete design would be permanent. She asked if the structures could be moved if the proposed location doesn't work out. Mr. McIntosh said that once the pieces are installed, they would be considered permanent. However, because they are modular, they could be moved to another site if necessary. Board Member Works pointed out that the noise study indicates that the noise would be within a tolerable range for the nearby residences. However, she asked what kind of mitigation could be done in the future if the noise is found to be greater than anticipated. Mr. McIntosh answered that there are several different mitigation options, such as landscaping and rubber padding on the side walls to the east and north to reflect the noise back into the park. However, the staff has discounted the use of permanent berms or solid concrete walls. Chair Young said he found the background packet provided by staff to be very thorough, and it provided a good summary of all of the information provided thus far. He pointed out that the need for the skate park facility was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and has been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan since that time, as well. However, it would be helpful for the Board to have a clear understanding of the specific Comprehensive Plan policies x that pertain to skate park facilities. He reminded the Board that they must formulate tight recommendations to the City 2 Council showing that they are good policy decisions and that the potential impacts have been evaluated. .0 a Mr. McIntosh explained that the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan is updated every six years, and the next update is scheduled for 2006. This element of the Comprehensive Plan was compiled after a lot of public input and is considered to be a_ the official planning document for parks. Because skateboarding was a recognized need as long as ten years ago, a policy was 2 included in the plan to emphasize the need to provide varied recreational opportunities for the youth of Edmonds. 0 Emily Erlich said she was present to represent the group, Friends of the Civic Playfield, which consists of approximately 100 V residents whose homes surround the playfield. She said the group is seeking a comprehensive and objective siting analysis for V a premier skate park in Edmonds, one that creates a winning situation for the kids and the residents. She provided pictures comparing modular skate parks to underground concrete parks. The Friends do not feel the aesthetics of a modular park would meet the same quality standards of some of the other parks in Edmonds. She provided pictures to compare what the v City might be able to construct using the same amount of money were they to construct a premier underground park instead. v) Ms. Erlich said the Friends are thrilled and grateful that so many concessions have been made and so many of their points w have been addressed. She thanked the Skate Park Work Group, the City Staff and the Nanning Board for all the work that has J been done. However, the Friends would like to see a little more work done in the direction of a premier, in ground skate park that would require less maintenance, be more durable, and available to the youth year round. Z w Ms. Erlich referred to the location analysis chart that was prepared by the Friends using the work performed by the Skate Park Work Group. She noted that the location analysis chart places Edmonds Elemcntary School at the top of the list along with OU City Park. The Civic Playfield site was actually seventh on the chart when measured straight across. In addition, the natural �d buffers that were seen as a positive aspect of the City Park location were not balanced with the fact that the Civic Playfield a site did not have natural buffers. She explained how the Friends evaluated and weighed each site differently than the Work a - Group. First, to address the point of children who cannot drive being able to walk to the park, the Friends analyzed the school v population date from the Edmonds School District. This data indicates that the lowest number of children live in the v downtown area.. If a skate park were to be placed in a neighborhood where the highest number of non -driving children live, it would be located in the Seaview or Chase Lake neighborhoods. E Next, Ms. Erlich referred to two pages of comments that were provided in the packet to represent what other organizations and the media are saying about residential setbacks and the sounds that come from nearby skate parks. These comments a illustrate how other residential neighborhoods have been impacted by the proximity of skate parks close to their homes. Ms. Erlich said the decibel readings provided in the sound report prepared by the Greenbusch Company, Inc. matched those identified by the Friends, but it would be helpful if the study could explain why the dynamics of sound reflection was not addressed since this is a significant concern of the people living near the playfield. Planning Board Minutes ' November i 6, 2005 Page 4 Packet Pg. 109 6.A.e Ms. Erlich noted that several references were made in the documents provided to the Planning Board regarding the impact the skate park would have on economic development, which is a valid and strong point. However, the construction of a premier skate park, as proposed by the Friends, would have an even greater economic impact than would the modular design. People from outlying areas would likely be more interested in driving to downtown Edmonds if the park were unique. In summary, Ms. Erlich asked that the Board consider the points provided by the Friends of the Civic Playfield through letters to the editor in the local newspapers, ad campaigns, their website and their presentation to the Board. She asked them to give the children in Edmonds a premier skate park that would do the City proud. Jim Underhill said he finds the proposed park would be good for Edmonds and a right use of the public field. The plan for the placement of the park at the Civic Field has been developed over time, allowing all parties to participate, evaluate and consider the goodness of the proposal. It has been an open process with scheduled meetings, minutes posted for public review, and allowance for continent. The skate park project married policy with data and scientific processes. By use of a good matrix assessment tool by the youth, research about skateboarding as a worldwide sport, the determined need for this type of park for a segment of Edmonds' youth population, and by data presented by a reputable acoustic measurement company, the Work Group has shown that the policy is solid ground and is defensible. Mr. Underhill further stated that the addition of the new facility would be consistent with the City's policy of providing many a and varied activities through its parks and recreation programs. He pointed out that the Fall CRAZE Catalog includes 21 (; pages of offerings for all ages just in Edmonds. The skateboard park could provide introductory classes for the younger residents and any adult willing to strap on a helmet and knee pads. Finally, he stated that construction of the skate park would provide a sign of respect for the youth of the City. Several youth have worked with the City staff, the community and the 2 2 Police Foundation to prepare and preseixt a solid plan. Having waited five years, it is time to act by offering support for the C) project. He referred to the other ideas that have been offered regarding the design and location of the facility. However, he pointed out that a "premiere skate park" has not been the plan for the past five years. The proposal should move forward using the current design and proposed location.. Aaron Taylor said that last April he had an opportunity to visit New Zealand. While there he had the privilege of visiting 11 different skate parks in towns of less than 1,000 people. When talking to the local police departments, he learned that many of these parks were designed by children working with the cities. All spoke positive about the asset to the community. He said that in his opinion, New Zealand is forward thinking as far as communities supporting the youth. He asked Edmonds to support the youth by moving forward with the proposed plan to construct a skate park. Sandy Zickuhr said she feels it would be wonderful to construct a skate park for the youth, but she hasn't heard anything about how the City would address the concerns raised by the residents who live in the condominiums adjacent to the proposed site. She said her home is located uphill from the proposed site, and she invited Board Members to visit her, property and listen to the sound that tonnes from the Civic Playfield on a regular basis. Because noise from the Civic Playfield reverberates Uphill, the skate park should not be constructed in the proposed location. She said she is not really bothered by the soccer games, etc. that take place on the field, because these are not year-round activities. If the skate park is added, the noise would drive the uphill residents crazy. She reminded the Board that they are taxpayers and their concerns should be considered. She summarized that there must be other locations for the proposed skate park that would have less impact to neighboring residential properties. Katy Re€schling said her son enjoys skateboarding, and they live near the proposed site. She said the noise would not be as significant as what comes from the current soccer games that take place on the playfield, the Acts Festival, or the weekly Sumner Market. There are already a lot of adds hanging around the Boys and Girls Club until quite late at night, and the skate park would provide the youth with something to enjoy that is legal. She noted that the kids get in trouble when they skateboard on City streets. Because she works, she is not able to take her son to the other skate parks in the area during the weekdays. She said that placing a skate park in the proposed location, in clear view from the Police Department, would be appropriate. The skate park would fulfill the need for pre -teens and teens that do not like to play team sports but want to develop a skill of their own. Planning Board Minutes November 1 Packet Pg. 110 6.A.e Cal Taylor said she spent a lot of time working with the Skate Park Work Group and visiting different parks in the area. She visited the new Kenmore Skate Park recently because it was the type of facility they wanted to build in Edmonds. She took time to listen to the noise that was generated by the park users. She found that while the skateboarders are on the ramps, the noise level is very low. The only noise was generated when the skaters were on the asphalt surface. This would not be the - case for Edmonds, since the proposal is to start with a concrete surface. She suggested that the noise concerns have been overestimated. She invited the Board Members to visit the Kenmore Skate Park and see how quiet it actually is. William Tamblin said he likes to skateboard, but it is not allowed on many of the City's streets. His mother works during the day, so she can't drive him to skate parks in the surrounding areas. He said he prefers skateboarding over team sports. Before he was told he couldn't skateboard on City streets, he and his friends used to be outside all afternoon. He was invited by the Police Department to get involved with the Skate Park Work Group. He said he feels the Civic Center Playfield would be the best location for the new skate park, and he hopes the Board will support the proposal. Don Kreiman complimented Ms. Erlich for a wonderful presentation on behalf of Friends of the Civic Playfield. However, he reminded her that the Civic Playfield was in place before she purchased her home. It is a central place for the youth to hang out since it is located near the Frances Anderson Center and the Boys and Girls Club. He said he rides his bike around Edmonds almost every day, and he would be able to watch the kids at the proposed location. He noted that the users of the new facility would be younger children. He reminded the Board that the youth designed the facility and the Police Department has indicated their support, as well. He asked them to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Nancy Crim said she lives in the Bowl of Edmonds and understands the concerns that have been raised by the residents :g regarding noise. However, she asked how many of them hear the trains at night. She suggested that to live in the Bowl means V you must accept noise. She said she is a volunteer with the Edmonds .Police Foundation, who .gave the City $4,500 six years v ago as seed money for the skate park. She said she would like to -see construction of the new facility get started soon, and she asked for the Board's support of the project. She concluded by stating that she is a real estate agent and could help people o sell their condominiums if they don't want to be located so close to the new facility. rn John Pierre said that as he came through the east entrance of. the Public: Safety Complex he noted that there were several w soccer .games going on at the Civic Playfield, and there must have been 100 children participating. He said that when he was � raising his children in Edmonds, they would have been overjoyed to have such a facility as the one proposed available to w them. He asked that the Board support the project in the proposed location. J z Kristen Leupold said she recently experienced a situation in which she was in her car and a skateboarder came out into the street in front of her. This illustrates the need for the City to provide a safe place for the children to skateboard. She concluded that the proposed park is very important to the youth in the community. v Y Roger Hertrich reported that last evening the City Council considered a problem raised by residents living between Walnut a and Alder Streets regarding a trail. The City Council listened to the residents' concerns intently, which is something the v Board should do, as well. It is important that the Board work to protect the fragile status of the neighborhoods surrounding > the playfield. They already have to deal with a number of different disturbances. He expressed his belief that if v neighborhoods are disturbed too much, the residential uses eventually become multi -family. In this situation, the uses are +: high -quality multi -family units that are already subject to many disturbances from the playfield. E t Mr. Hertrich said the Board has the opportunity to look at the entire City when deciding the appropriate location for the new facility. However, they have only focused their review on the Civic Playfield site. While they did much more than they a started out to do because of public pressure from those who live in the neighborhood, they should have given more consideration to the impacts the proposed project would have on the surrounding properties. He suggested that a more appropriate location would be the old Woodway High School site, where quite a bit of development is currently being planned for future sport uses. He noted that this area is isolated from residential development and would be a good location for a skate park. Planning Board Minutes November 16, 2005 Page 6 Packet Pg. 111 6.A.e Mr. Hertrich said it appears the Board has made the decision to not talk about the other sites. Instead, they have talked about how to mitigate the impacts for the central location at the Civic Playfield. He said he can picture skateboarders riding their boards on City streets to get to the new facility. He urged the Board to follow the City Council's example and work to protect_ the fragile neighborhoods. A skate park can be constructed anywhere, but a neighborhood cannot be moved. Bruce Witenberg said he is a member of the Edmonds Police Foundation and has served as a liaison to the Skate Park Work Croup. He son, Alex, also had the opportunity to serve as part of the Work Group. He wasn't able to attend the meeting, so he asked him to read the following letter into the record: My name is Alex Witenberg. I am 16 years old and attend Edmonds Woodway High School. Tonight, I am attending a _ lecture on Hurricanes with my honors chemistry teacher at the University of Washington. c •L The City of Edmonds needs a skate park for the youth. It is really intended for younger, beginner and intermediate skaters. c� °' Since I am a sophomore, in two short years I will be in college and therefore, will not be able to use the park. However, this x U is not the issue. The issue is that there are kids who will come after me, wanting a skate park. This.is our opportunity to .0 fulfrll their dreams. There are people here tonight who will say that Edmonds needs a premiere skate park: a concrete, in- a. ground facility that is world class. This is an excellent idea, however, in the words of the Rolling Stones, arguably the greatest rock band of all time, ' jyou can't always get what you want, but ifyou try, sometimes you can gel what you need". a This is the situation that we are faced with. A premiere, in -ground, concrete facility would be excellent. However, especially in politics, you can't always get what you want. N The answer,- therefore, is the skate park design at the Civic Playfeld location that the Skate Park Work Group has 2 reasonably presented after 18 months of work The design is supported by the noise study done on the area by the > Greenbusch'Group. The youth generally do not have a large say in what goes on in this city, This is our chance for input on C) an issue that -we care about. This about the future of our city, and the youth are the future. We will not be around forever, but there will always be kids. Therefore, I implore you, listen to the voice of the youth, listen to the science, and pass the to skate park on to the City Council. U) W Mr. Chave4eferred the Board to a -mails the Board received just prior to the meeting regarding the proposed skate park project. He reviewed each one as follows: w J • Pat Gow: I do not have any strong feelings one way or the other, but if the skateboard facility does happen, can we z please be assured that the kids will be leaving that area no later than 9: 00 p.m. I live directly across from the field and w if someone from the decision making panel has time to go over to the field at that time of night, they will notice how lovely and peaceful it is then. I would love to keep it that way. Kids should be home by that time anyway, don't you 0 UY think? • M.B. Walsh: I attended the last meeting when the noise study was presented. There is one question I have regarding Q the study. When the study was presented, they used three skateboarders to determine the noise levels at the proposed tL park. Does this mean there will be limits for the number of skateboarders using the park atone time? Or does the noise v level of three skateboarders mean the proposed park can only accommodate three atone time? I > people would suggest that the -noise study be revised to consider use by store than three people. If the park is so limited that only a few people U can use it atone time, ]'would suggest that the site selection be revisited to accommodate a larger park: Kendall Berry: During the Planning Board Meeting last spring, I spoke in opposition to placing the skateboard park E on the Civic Mayfield. I believed that other sites in the bowl area could easily accommodate a skate park I was also concerned about using modular equipment. After that meeting, I joined the Skate Park Work Group as a neighbor Q interested in finding a resolution that could benefit both the neighbors and the skaters. I do still feel that another site could work for the skate park, but the Civic Playfreld is the one being considered this evening. The Skate Park Work Group has done a fabulous job of revising their plan to address the legitimate concerns of residents surrounding the park: Many thanks to Renee McRae and Brian Mclintash and all of the Work Group members for their efforts. I support the plan and ask you to approve it in its current form. • Chris Brevik: This letter is in support of the skate.park being considered for downtown Edmonds. The Brevik family are residents of the Edmonds bowl and unanimously support this effort. Our family has two children (12 and 14) that have often referred to Edmonds as "Deadmonds. " Their friends also reflect this attitude because Edmonds is not a kid Planning Borud Minutes November 16 Packet Pg. 112 6.A.e friendly city_ It almost seems like if a project is not in direct support of senior citizens, there is a high chance it will fail. My kids and their friends are goad kids that are doing very well academicaIIy. They enjoy riding skateboards (like most kid that age) but would be breaking the law if they were caught riding downtown. My wife and I are constantly amazed when we visit other waterfront cities and communities that encourage the public of all ages to enjoy their waterfront by - providing paths that people can walk, run, ride, roller skate, skateboard, etc. Look at West Seattle, Lake Washington, Bothell Kirkland, along with a multitude of other waterfront communities. These areas have vibrant waterfront areas that invite all age groups to participate in healthy activities. Edmonds needs to quit being afraid of change and truly become "The Friendliest City on Puget Sound. " Please support and allow a skate park in a location that is convenient to the bowl kids that will provide a health activityfor all our children. Lisa Conley: I think it's a great idea to put a skate park at the Civic Center. I live near the Lynndale Skate Park and my two boys (ages 7 and 9) enjoy riding their skateboards and scooters at the park. We try to go before 11:00 a.m. because after that time the park is crowded with the bigger kids. Since my youngest plays soccer at the Civic Center, my oldest would enjoy having the opportunity to skateboard while his brother is playing soccer. I also have noticed skateboarders at our school because there are not enough skate parks for them. They like to grind on our concrete curbs which costs the schools money to repair. If there were more parks for them, I feel they would be less likely to go to the schools. Bill Dalziel: I am writing to show support for the skateboard park to be located at the Civic Field in Edmonds. I look forward to working with the City staff in maintaining the park and the appropriate behavior at the park. My reservations are only that the Boys and Girls Club will be the focal point with any issues that may arise. Obviously, my largest concern is from the negative aspect. I am confident that with open communication and the involvement of all stakeholders, the skateboard park in Edmonds will be an asset to the community. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:07 P.M. U Mr. Chave informed the members of the audience that they could place their names on the -sign up sheet in order to be notified if the City Council decides to hold a public hearing on the proposal. He noted that anyone who received a notice for this public hearing would also be notified of a future public hearing. to Mr. McIntosh expressed his belief that many of the questions: that.. were.raised-by thet=audience=were also answered by other w speakers. However, he pointed out that a premiere skate park would cost at least $300,000 to construct, and the one that was recently built in Mukilteo cost about $900,000. Typically, these types of parks are much.•larger in size than the one that is w J proposed for the Civic Playfield. z w Julie Wiebusch, Greenbusch Group, Inc., requested an opportunity to respond to the comments that were made regarding the Sound Study. She pointed out that there is not much located around the proposed site. It is an open field, and the Boys and 0 Girls Club building is the only structure the sound could reflect off of. The little reflection coming from the Boys and Girls U Club structure would not have a significant impact on the properties located uphill. She further explained that they reviewed the worse case conditions by identifying the highest levels of sound from the loudest events and combining them for the study. a They compared these numbers to the noise levels identified in the City's noise ordinance. Even if the sound created by the v Fowl effect were doubled, the levels would still be below the noise ordinance and below any of the activities that already exist j on the site. , , Second, Ms. Wiebusch explained that while the study reviewed the noise created by three skaters, the park would not be limited to just three skaters. She explained that while there would typically be a larger number of kids using the park, only a maximum of three skaters would be able to use the ramps at any one time. The rest of the skaters would be waiting in line for their turn. The kids are very polite because of self preservation. Regarding the possibility of siting the new facility at the old Woodway High School site, Mr. McIntosh agreed that this would be a great location for a skate park in the future, but it is two or three miles from the bowl area. A presentation would be made at the November 290' City Council Meeting regarding preliminary ideas for the high school site. Board Member Freeman said staff mentioned that they are planning to have the skate park open from 9 am. to %s hour after sunset. She noted that this would be quite late in the summer. If the park is being designed for younger children, perhaps it Planning Hoard Minutes Novmbex 16, 2005 Page 8 Packet Pg. 113 6.A.e could close before sunset in the summer. In addition, she noted that most of the kids are in school so there would be very little activity at the new facility during the daytime hours on the weekdays. Mr. McIntosh agreed that during the school hours, the facility would be used very little. Most of the activity would occur when the weather is dry and kids are out of school. Board Member Freeman also inquired if the gate for the new facility would be locked during the evening hours. Mr. McIntosh answered that the gate would not be locked. In answer to Board Member Dewhirst's question, he further stated that the Boys and Girls Club is typically staffed from about 10 a.m. into the evening hours. Chair Young pointed out that the proposed location is the most centrally located site with maximum access for the greatest number of kids. He asked if this was considered as one of the siting criteria. Mr. McIntosh answered that the siting criteria was not specific as to the greatest number of kids who could access the site. However, the proximity of the proposed site to the Boys and Girls Club and the opportunity to welcome the kids to the downtown were very important. Chair Young expressed his belief that the skate park should be located in an area that is accessible to the greatest number of kids. Mr. McIntosh agreed and noted that the Civic Playfield is certain an active area already, as is the Boys and Girls Club and the Frances Anderson Center. Board Member Dewhirst recalled that when the proposal was first presented to the Board, staff stated that isolated sites in other communities have not been successful because they are hard to get to and there are no eyes on the facility to keep problems from starting. Ms. McIntosh referred to the survey the Crime Prevention Officer conducted of 14 or 15 skate parks in surrounding jurisdictions. The survey indicated that skate parks should not be put in isolated locations. He referred to the comments provided by Mr. Dalziel from the Boys and Girls Club, who has personal experience with a skate park that was constructed in Sultan next to the Boys and Girls Club. Both facilities were relatively isolated and he was often called upon to solve problems at the skate park Chair Young asked if the proposed design of the facility would hold the long-term interest of skateboarders in the community. v The skateboarders in the audience answered affirmatively. m W r Board Member Crim summarized that the Board has heard a lot of opinions from the public regarding the proposal, and it is to clear that Edmonds is a divided community on many issues_ Many people have the attitude that there mind has been made up. w Oftentimes,,when they encounter a report that supports something they are opposed to, they tend to dismiss it as inaccurate. He pointed out that the noise study was thorough and well based, and he believes it supports the conclusion that the impact of w the skateboard park would be minimal, at best. Therefore, he said he would support the proposal as presented. J Board Member Dewhirst said that no matter where the facility is proposed, it would be opposed by someone. Based on that, he feels that the proposed central location is good. Having knowledge of some of the other sites, he feels that most do not have anywhere near the proverbial eyes as what would exist at the Civic Playfield. The Boys and Girls Club would be able to provide a restroom facility, telephone service, and drinking fountains with no additional cost to the City. In addition, the close proximity to the fire and police station make the site a superb location. He noted that the old Woodway High School site is isolated. and kids tend to get in trouble in these situations. While there are other possible sites for the skate park, none of them have the amount of setback from surrounding residential uses that the Civic Playfield site can offer. Board Member Dewhirst said he read through the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan pertaining to skate parks, One of the supporting documents contained in this plan is the Community Youth Report dated July of 2001, which emphasizes the need to engage the youth of the community in the decision making process. He said he doesn't know of a better example of the kids being engaged from the beginning of a process. They have followed it all the way through to the public hearing. The location was moved and the design of the facility was changed to address the concerns of the surrounding property owners, and the noise study indicates that the impacts would be minimal. He said he would support the proposal. Board Member Freeman said that before the noise study was completed, she was concerned about the impact the skate park would have on the residential properties. However, the results of the study have alleviated these concerns. She said she likes the central location and what the kids have done to promote the plan. The fact that the site would be in an open area and all eyes could be on the facility is definitely a good thing, as well. She said she would support the proposal. Planning Board Minutes November t Packet Pg. 114 6.A.e Board Member Cassutt agreed with the comments provided by her fellow Board Members. She said she would support the proposal, too. Board Member Works said that when the proposal was first presented to the Board, she didn't think it would be a good idea. - But after reading the facts presented in the noise study, she now plans to support it. However, if there is a problem with noise after the park is constructed, she would hope the City.cou',[d mitigate the problem. She also commented that, given the economic climate of the City, a premiere skate park is not a reality at this time. Board Member Guenther said he likes the proposed location because it can create a synergy between the Frances Anderson Center, the Civic Playfield, the Boys and Girls Club, and the downtown. Also, the site's proximity to the police station is another important positive factor. He said he does not believe the park would create significant noise impacts to surrounding properties, and he plans to support the proposal as presented. Board Member Henderson said he was initially concerned about noise, but the noise study was well done and answered his concerns and questions. He said he plans to support the proposal, with the proviso that he would like the City to make a commitment to measure the sound levels once the park is operational to verify that the projected sound levels identified in the study are accurate. If they are not, the City should take action to mitigate the problem. Chair Young pointed out that the proposed skate park is supported by the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This a. type of facility has been discussed and a need has been identified. The proposal has been reviewed and analyzed to identify negative impacts, and the closest residential property would be 240 feet away. In addition, only two or three skateboarders would be making noise at any one time. He emphasized that the Civic Playfield is the outdoor recreation center for the City, and that is the type of activity that occurs there. The site is not located on the edge of a wetland or swamp. It is located in the •2 middle of Edmonds. He said he would rather the kids be at the Civic Playfield skateboarding with eyes on them than at the G mall playing video games. If there were a better location to consider, they would have something to talk about, but they have to do something now for the children who live in the community. If the proposed project would help the kids in the community, he doesn't see any externalities that haven't been dealt with. BOARD MEMBER:WORKS MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FILE NUMBER CDC-05-29, A PROPOSAL BY THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS, WITH ALL OF THE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS. BOARD MEMBER CRIM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:35 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA AND 2006 WORK PLAN Mr. Chave recalled that at the Board's last meeting, they talked about the need to create -a new extended agenda and identify their work items for 2006. He said that as he started working on this project, it becameapparent that there are many items on the Board's plate for 2006. He pointed out that as the new year starts, there will be new City Council Members and perhaps a new direction for the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, he suggested it would behoove the Board to present their proposed work program to the City Council early in 2006 for additional direction. This would enable them to obtain feedback from the City Council before they spend a lot of time addressing each issue. The Board discussed comments from some City Council Members about the possibility of reconsidering their previous Comprehensive Plan decisions. Board Member Crim explained that City Council Members_ can only ask for an issue to be reconsidered if they voted one way on the issue and they want to change their vote. Mr. Chave said the rules that apply depend upon the type of decision that was made. While some decisions can be reconsidered, those associated with Comprehensive Plan amendments must go through the process again. Zoning decisions cannot be revisited once a property owner has acted upon the action. Punning Bmw Minutes November 16, 2005 Page 10 Packet Pg. 115 6.A.e concern has been compliance with the case law, Anderson v. Issaquah, which requires specific and processes. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMPKBER MOORE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE NO. 3577, EXTENDING ORDINANC O. 3556, A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070 {3) RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT V S. Councilmember Dawson recalled she voted against this matter ce previously due to her opinion that the Council should be able to clarify via the ordinance that vipWprotection could be considered. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBPKDAWSON OPPOSED. 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING Administrative Services Director Dan ements advised this year end ordinance had been reviewed and approved by the Council Finance nmittee on November 7. The amendment adjusted the $70.3 million 2005 budget by approximate 459,000. He highlighted major adjustments such as $62,800 in the General Fund for insuranc nd fire training grants, $170,000 for LID bonds, $126,000 to close the Public Safety Construction F , and $30,000 for additional fuel costs for fleet management. Mayor Haake opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audi e who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3578, THE FINAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh addressed questions raised by the Council at the November 29 meeting. With regard to Councilmember Wilson's inquiry about the history of siting park amenities and other controversial installations, he recalled when the playground in City Park was scheduled for replacement, the existing location was deemed too small for peak usage. Residents of the adjacent condominium located within 100 feet of the proposed playground expressed concern with the noise, size and color of the playground. Following installation, the neighbors realized they enjoyed watching the children and their previous concerns had not been realized. As an added bonus, the increased visibility increased safety and deterred vandalism. In response to Councilmember Wilson's request to compare the cost of the skate park to other playgrounds, Mr. McIntosh pointed out there were often hidden costs associated with playgrounds. He explained to withstand the normal wear and tear, playground amenities must be durable, low maintenance and built to current industry and safety standards and park staff must be certified to inspect and perform necessary playground structure repairs when necessary. The City had replaced half its aging playground structures in the past four years which have a standard unlimited warranty. The cost of the 1995 installation at City Park was $154,000 with over half for retaining walls and drainage systems; $85,000 for the installation in Seaview Park in 2001 with $28,000 for retaining walls and drainage; $59,000 for the installation at the Frances Anderson Center in 2001 and $53,000 for the installation at Pine Street. WOODELL Att. 4 - Council Draft Minutes 12.6.05 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 8 to r Packet Pg. 116 6.A.e In response to questions raised by Councilmember Plunkett regarding the budget, Mr. McIntosh explained the need for a skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and the project has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Currently $200,000 was budgeted with 50% for site preparation and the approximately 5,400 square foot concrete pad and the remainder to purchase and install features. Due to the peat bog under the Civic Center Playfields, development at the site in the 1980's required additional excavation and fill. He referred to information regarding the estimated cost of the skate park that detailed components of the total cost for construction and concrete modular features of $195,200. He advised the construction costs were calculated within the last week and the concrete modular features were similar to the features installed at the Kenmore skate park three months ago. Mr. McIntosh pointed out the $30,000 cost of removing 600 yards of peat type soil, recalling a question regarding the cost savings if removal of the peat type soil were not required. He explained even on a perfect site, a 1-foot excavation would be required; he estimated savings of approximately $18,000 if the peat type soil did not have to be removed and $8,000 for installation of dry pit run, a total savings of $26,000 if the skate park were installed on a perfect site. In response to Councilmember Plunkett's questions regarding maintenance, Mr. McIntosh explained all city parks and playgrounds were inspected and maintained regularly with inspection logs kept. Parks W maintenance staff responded immediately to reported problems or vandalism and visited the Civic Center a Playfields nearly daily due to its active use. Due to high use and the visibility of the site, staff did not 2 2 anticipate the skate park being a maintenance burden. He noted in many communities skate park users v took ownership and peer pressure helped control vandalism. The preferred streetscape style features were fiberglass reinforced concrete with a double polyurethane finish. These have been used in Europe for approximately ten years and North America for six years and have proven to be virtually indestructible. The features have an initial 5-year unlimited warranty and extended 10-year parts replacement warranty. Cn Other communities who have installed this product have been satisfied with the product and service. w To address Councilmember Plunkett's question regarding the cost of other cities' skate parks, Mr. McIntosh provided costs for parks in Everett, Snohomish, Lynnwood, Marysville, and Mukilteo. He pointed out each park was different and used various funding sources including in-house labor, etc.; therefore, it was difficult to compare costs on a square footage basis. He noted some of the parks had been constructed as early as 1999; construction and material costs have increased considerably since then. Mr. McIntosh reviewed the background of the project, explaining in October 1999 the Edmonds Police Foundation donated $4,500 toward the future development of a skate park in downtown Edmonds. At that time, Mayor Fahey, Council and staff recognized the health and social benefits of skateboarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park jointly funded by the cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood after a lengthy development process. It was also identified that the Lynndale Park was heavily used and it was difficult for inexperienced skateboarders to get to the park. The need for a skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. In March 2004 staff met with the Foundation to discuss the possibility of a skate park in the downtown area and a decision was made to form a Skate Park Work Group. The Work Group, comprised of Edmonds skaters, parents, Foundation and Police Department members, Parks & Recreation Department staff and members of the community held its first meeting in May 2004. Staff and the Work Group met with the Council's Community Services/Development Services Committee in July 2004 who encouraged the group to move ahead with planning and development of a skate park in the downtown area. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 9 Packet Pg. 117 6.A.e In January 2005, the Skate Park Work Group made a presentation to the Planning Board and following questions, the Planning Board scheduled a public hearing for March 2005. At the March 9, 2005 public hearing, the Skate Park Work Group was asked to return with answers to the Planning Board's questions regarding noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and to provide an active site plan of the park. The Greenbusch Group provided a comprehensive noise study to the Planning Board on October 26, 2005 and refinements to the original proposal were presented, 1) a revised location within the Civic Playfields, and 2) a significant change in the product proposed for the site. Mr. McIntosh explained the Parks & Recreation community recognized skateboarding as a healthy and popular recreational activity and a legitimate use to accommodate in the City's park system. The goal of the Skate Park Work Group was to gain approval to plan and construct a skate park in downtown Edmonds at the preferred Civic Field site for beginning to intermediate skateboarders. Mr. McIntosh commented on the increasing popularity of skateboarding, 11.6 million riders between the ages of 6 and 18 skateboarding in the year 2000 with an expected 15 million skateboarders by 2005 which he noted exceeded the number of little league baseball players and was only exceeded by basketball and soccer participation. He pointed out the need for facilities as the popularity of the sport increased as evidenced by the installation of skate parks in communities surrounding Edmonds. With regard to safety and liability, Mr. McIntosh reiterated there were far fewer skateboarding accidents per capita than any other popular sport such as baseball, soccer and snowboarding. Children under the age of 15 were three times as likely to suffer a bicycle injury and twice as likely to be injured on a U playground. The skate park would not be directly supervised and if constructed to industry standards and maintained properly, the Recreation Immunity Act protected the City from liability for skateboarding accidents. 77 With regard to security and police, Mr. McIntosh recalled early in the development of the proposal, the City's Crime Prevention Officer solicited information from surrounding communities regarding common problems they encountered. Other cities emphasized the need for the facility to be in a highly visible area and many encouraged a strong police presence particularly in the early weeks to set a tone that the police were aware of and interested in the success of the facility and to assist in creating a bond between skateboarders and officers. Parents watching and community spectators also provided security and caring as well as provided the participants an opportunity to perform. This facility would also provide a place for the Police Department to direct skateboarders who were skating in restricted public/private areas. With regard to location, Mr. McIntosh explained the survey conducted by the Crime Prevention Officer and other readings and research by the Work Group yielded a set of ten criteria the group used to determine the best location in the downtown area for a skate park. The Work Group identified nine potential sites. Following independent visits to each site, the Work Group applied the ten criteria and selected the Civic Center Playfields as the preferred location. None of the criteria was weighted so easy assess by the Police and Fire Department was scored the same as availability of restrooms and phone. Mr. McIntosh explained the original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence and 140 feet from the nearest residents. Upon further observation, it was discovered that shifting the skate park south and slightly east retained most of the usable dimensions on the north field and the consistent 285-foot perimeter of the softball field and increased the distance from the nearest residence to 240 feet. Mr. McIntosh advised rules similar to other skate parks and following the Washington Cities Insurance Authority would be posted at the park. The park would be designed for skateboards and rollerblades. The park would not be lighted and would be open from 9:00 a.m. until dusk; anyone using the facility Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 10 Packet Pg. 118 6.A.e outside of these hours would be trespassing. He note the hours could be adjusted. To protect skaters from errant baseballs, soccer balls, etc., the proposal includes 8-foot fencing on the north, 10-foot fencing on the east, and 4-foot fencing on the south and west. Fencing will be removable to enable flexibility for special events. With regard to drainage, Mr. McIntosh advised the field area north of the proposed site and east of the courts has had an ongoing drainage problem that made the area unplayable for significant parts of the year. A separate drainage project will be undertaken to rectify this problem in coordination with the development of the park. Mr. McIntosh explained the original proposal was for a modular park with steel, wood or like surfaces to enable removal for special events such as the Taste of Edmonds. The Work Group visited other sites and explored alternate surfaces including the markedly quieter precast concrete recently installed at the Kenmore Skate Park. This product could be designed to match any skating feature; units that duplicate real streetscape forms are popular with skaters. The features are low maintenance, permanent and the 2-6 ton weight of each concrete piece absorbs sound and creates stability. Forms would be placed on an approximately 5,400 square foot, smooth concrete pad. The Chamber of Commerce endorsed the design and indicated they would be able to work on and around the design for special events. Julie Weibusch, Greenbusch Group, Inc., advised they were contracted to conduct a noise study to evaluate the noise from a modular and an in -ground system. She reviewed the three components of the 2 study, established the preconstruction ambient condition at the site, measured noise from each system �j type and put the data gathered into a computer model to predict the exposure level on the surrounding neighborhood. She explained noise measurements were made of the loudest events within 5 feet of the m skaters during a 2-3 hour visit to a modular facility in Issaquah and an in -ground system in Shoreline. She clarified the noise measurements were not an average taken over a long period of time. The study Cn concentrated on the closest residential properties, three condominiums on 6t" Avenue. The study first w compared the noise exposure levels to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.30 that identified permissible noise w levels based on zoning. The Civic Center Playfield is zoned Public Use which has the same permissible noise levels as residential; the maximum permissible noise level at the neighboring property line is 55 Z dBA. w Ms. Weibusch noted at the time the meter was set, the background levels were dominated by traffic on local streets and yard maintenance equipment operating in the area. She commented the operation of the yard maintenance equipment was part of the overall condition and not intended to elevate the noise level. The ambient condition at the site, determined via a 24 hour average, was 51 dBA. She noted the average noise level increased during the hours of 5:00 — 6:00 p.m. due to activity on the field. The measured levels from skateboard activity were then placed in the model. She reported her observation when making the noise measurements of how polite the skateboarders were and taking turns for safety reasons, with usually no more than three skaters moving at a time. She noted there was not a lot of conversation occurring as the skaters were focused on their tricks and no music was allowed. For the model, three of the loudest events were used and assumed to occur simultaneously which she noted was unlikely to occur. She commented the measurement of three events did not limit the park to three skaters; it was unlikely more than three would be actively using the features at one time due to logistics. She noted the measurement was conducted on a modular steel unit as the decision to use concrete modular features was made after the study was complete. She noted the concrete features were heavier and the noise levels would be similar to the in -ground features. The noise was measured at 51 dBA at the condominium for the steel modular features and 47 dBA for the in -ground features. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 11 Packet Pg. 119 6.A.e Ms. Weibusch explained the study also considered impact on the community. She clarified this was not whether residents would hear the sound or be annoyed by it, but how much the noise level increased over existing conditions. She referred to established EPA parameters that indicate a 0-5 dBA increase had a slight impact. Comparing the existing noise level to the predicted noise level, their study found the predicted noise levels were below existing conditions during the sports use, meaning there would be very little impact on the neighborhood. She clarified this did not mean the neighborhood would not hear the sound but that the exposure level did not increase a great deal. With regard to a question about the topography, she explained their study was based on the nearest residences, however, she made predictions of sound to 71h Avenue of 47 dBA with the modular units and 42 dBA with in -ground units. She noted even if the noise energy were doubled for the topography, it was a logarithmic addition and would only add 3 dBA. With regard to a question about reflections, she noted there was not a lot for the sound to reflect off and other than the Boys & Girls Club, the skate park was located in the center of an open field. She did not consider the barrier affect provided by the Boys & Girls Club building in order to consider the worst case scenario. She noted the area was not a complete bowl thus there would be little reflection from the hillside. Ms. Weibusch stated their conclusion that the impact on the community would be marginal predicated on the amount of activity already occurring on the site. N �a Councilmember Orvis asked the impact of shrubs and trees on sound. Ms. Weibusch answered 100 feet of dense forest would reduce the sound by 3-4 dB. She explained the human ear perceived 3 dB as barely > U audible. Councilmember Moore asked how construction of the skate park would affect the use of the rugby field. cc Mr. McIntosh answered the width of the field remained quite large, approximately 70 yards. He noted the to rugby players did not use the field for games, only for practice and it was his experience that they would w practice anywhere there was space. w J Council President Marin asked how long the fields had been in use. Mr. McIntosh answered the City z took the fields over when the junior high school was vacated in the mid-1970's. He estimated the LU playfields had existed for at least fifty years. Councilmember Orvis asked if the hours of operation could be changed if problems arose. Mr. McIntosh O Y answered yes. a a Councilmember Dawson referred to an email she received today from Darrell Marmion stating neighbors v had not received adequate notice. She asked what notification was provided to residences within earshot v of the park, commenting if the neighbors learned more, they may realize their concerns would not come to fruition. Mr. McIntosh pointed out this was the third public hearing on the skate park proposal; for E each public hearing the site was signed two weeks in advance, notices were published in the newspaper as t required by law, notices were mailed to residences within 300 feet of the site and articles appeared in the 2 newspaper. Councilmember Dawson noted this was the first public hearing before the Council. She pointed out sound traveled more than 300 feet and questioned the rationale for mailing notices to residences within 300 feet. Mr. McIntosh answered that was the standard radius for notices. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised in addition to the notice Mr. McIntosh described, notice was posted at several public buildings throughout the city, notice was broadcast on Channel 21 and the City's website, and notice of tonight's public hearing was included on the Council's November 29 agenda. Councilmember Dawson Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 12 Packet Pg. 120 6.A.e acknowledged the City had done more than the required notice but was concerned the sound impacts may affect a larger area. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the time frame for approval. Mr. McIntosh advised once a decision was made, planning would begin in the spring. Construction would not begin until after the Taste of Edmonds in mid -August. Councilmember Dawson asked if the project would be delayed if the Council requested further public input. Mr. McIntosh answered it would depend on the length of the delay. As this was not a complex project, he estimated three months lead time would be sufficient. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He referred to the additional communication the Council received from Phil Burkhart, the Griffith family, Emily Ehrlich, Ron Bussiere, and Darrell Marmion in opposition; and from Kendall Berry, Debbie Daniels, Bill Evans, Ron & Carol Robinson, Doug & Carol Sheldon, Ann Brown, Joanne Otness, Jim Underhill and Cheryl Hay in favor. He added that as he reviewed the correspondence there seemed to be a recurring theme that the City had acquired or was acquiring property at the old Woodway High School. He advised that was incorrect; the City was working on a joint venture to provide athletic fields at the former Woodway High School. In discussions with the Edmonds School District today, they indicated there was no space in the current or future athletic field configuration for a skate park. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the former Woodway High School had not been considered by staff as a potential location. Emily Ehrlich, Friends of Civic Playfield, extended her thanks to the following people for their efforts: 2 2 Mary Beth Walsh who walked the neighborhood collecting signatures, Finis Tupper for his historical v perspective, the mayor and her husband. Ms. Ehrlich provided a presentation, listing topics discussed at each Work Group meeting and expressing concern that not as many youth as they had hoped participated in that effort. She referred to comments made by the Boys & Girls Club Director expressing his reservations. She displayed photographs of the Friends of Civic Playfield's preferred skate parks, parks Cn with in -ground features. She displayed a comparison of other municipalities' costs for skate parks. LU (Council President Marin agreed to allow Ms. Ehrlich additional time to make her presentation due to the w number of people she represented.) _J Ms. Ehrlich reviewed the Friends of Civic Playfield's analysis of the sites identified by the Work Group. She referred to Mr. McIntosh's statement that the skate park was intended for youth who do not drive, noting it appeared this skate park would be located in a neighborhood where the least number of children lived. She provided a brief audio recording approximating the noise at a skate park. She read a quote from a resident near a skate park in Vancouver that expressed support for a managed skate park facility and describing their inability to open their windows or use their balcony due to the noise from the skate park. Ms. Ehrlich estimated the noise from skateboards impacting a surface was 75-80 dB. She urged the City to consider other funding sources such as from skateboard and apparel companies. She asked whether the City had sought grants from state agencies or the Tony Hawk Foundation. She recommended an in -ground facility via a process that included input from all citizens and broad funding sources. Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, expressed the need for more activities for young people. He recalled his pride when during his tenure as a Councilmember, the Council approved and built the Lynndale Skate Park that is well used year-round. He explained the Civic Center Playfields was nearly an ideal site, it was central, within walking distance for thousands of residents and there were many young people interested in skateboarding. He reported on his visit to the Kenmore Skate Park that had the concrete modular units, commenting it was very quiet and not nearly as loud as the tape the Friends of Civic Playfield played. The Kenmore Skate Park had asphalt between the modular features which made it much louder than the smooth concrete platform proposed for this skate park. He recalled there were about 15 youth between the ages of 7 and 18 skating at the Kenmore facility today who were very respectful and supportive of each other. He was impressed by the participation and leadership of the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 13 Packet Pg. 121 6.A.e young citizens who have worked tirelessly on this effort. He hoped the Council would recognize that the youth had identified the best location and answered all the questions that had been raised. He pointed out the need to encourage families to live in Edmonds, noting the children here tonight were the City's future. He encouraged the Council to approve the skate park tonight. Mary Beth Walsh, Edmonds, commented her concerns regarding the noise survey had been answered. She expressed her support for an in -ground skate park and would accept that at the Civic Center Playfields. She asked how much the existing noise level at Civic Playfields increased between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Nancy Crim, Edmonds, Edmonds Police Foundation, commented on negativity and NIMBY (not in my backyard) and suggested residents strive toward more positive efforts. She commented on the negative affects of negativity on ones health. She noted one of the things that made Edmonds such a wonderful place was the diversity of ages. She recalled the number of children at the tree lighting ceremony, a positive aspect of Edmonds. She urged the Council to approve the skate park as planned and studied. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented he was not necessarily opposed to the skate park but as a 2 resident on the hillside to the east, he was concerned about constructing a skate park on the Civic a Playfield absent sufficient data to ensure it would not negatively impact the neighborhood. He referred to N information he provided to the Council, a map from the noise study that identified affected buildings and the map superimposed on an aerial photograph, pointing out properties that should have been notified of the public hearing due to the noise impacts. He urged the Council not to make a decision tonight due to the incomplete noise study that did not consider the amphitheater affect of the hillside. He noted from his v house on the hill he could hear a Police Officer close his car door at the police station when conditions to were right. He advised they moved to their house because of the view of the park and they enjoyed the sounds of sports in the park, however, the proposed skate park would be a different type of noise. Cn Leslie Haan, Edmonds, parent of four boys two of whom skateboard, referred to comments regarding the importance of doing things for kids and questioned the impact on adults and taxpayers. She pointed out children interested in skateboarding had Lynndale. She acknowledged there may be a need for another skate park but questioned whether the Civic Playfields was the appropriate location due to the numerous activities on that site already. She disagreed the City needed to site a skate park within a few blocks of downtown to prove the residents loved children. She suggested the funds allocated for the skate park be used for a year-round pool which would provide activity for a broader range of residents. She summarized the playfields were already overrun with children and adding a skate park would be too much. She questioned how the skate park would affect the Taste of Edmonds and recommended more time be devoted to considering alternate locations. She referred to the audio of a skate park, noting the ongoing noise from a skate park was different than the existing noise. Nancy McDonald, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Police Foundation, commented the Foundation had supported the concept of a downtown skate park since 1999. The Foundation received regular updates from the Work Group and Parks Department and members attended several meetings and public hearings. She commended the youth involved in the Work Group for their tremendous efforts. The Work Group has been thorough and fair and addressed the concerns expressed by the community. She concluded the Civic Playfields was the right location for the skate park, particularly in its revised location. She encouraged the Council to approve the proposed plan for the skate park so that it could be built before some of the older members of the Work Group left for college. Teresa Pruett, Edmonds, parent of a 13-year old skateboarder who is a good student at Meadowdale Middle School and who takes his citizenship very seriously. To dispel the perception that skateboarders were a different type of person and would attract trouble to a skate park, she assured her son and his Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 14 Packet Pg. 122 6.A.e friends were good kids who developed amazing friendships via that activity as well as participating in this process to bring the skate park to the Council. She reported on visits with her son to skate parks in the area and in California, commenting they were amazing facilities and there was nothing detrimental about skate parks in other communities. She agreed the Civic Playfields was the best location due to the great visibility and proximity of the Police and Fire Departments. She agreed with Council President Marin's point that the playfields had existed for a long time and anyone moving near a playfield did so because of the open space and a skate park was a foreseeable use of a playfield. Because the playfields were used for a lot of activities, she supported the finding that the skate park would not have a large impact on the neighbors. She concluded the Work Group had provided scientific analysis regarding the noise, had moved the skate park to a better location addressed concerns and have presented a good project. She urged the Council to approve the proposed project. With regard to notice, she pointed out the community had been on notice for the past 18 months. Christin Leupold, Edmonds, relayed a near -accident she had with a skateboarder while driving on an arterial. When discussing the incident with the teens involved, she realized they were unaware of the potential danger of colliding with a car. She concluded constructing a skate park would make a difference by providing a place for skateboarders to ride without putting their lives in danger. She pointed out the skate park gave the Council the opportunity to save a child's life every time they used it. Robin Heslop, Crime Prevention Officer, Edmonds Police Department, explained her professional opinions regarding the preferred location of a skate park in Edmonds were largely influenced by Crime 2 2 Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) which used the existing built environment to reduce v fear and the incidence of crime. She described her evaluation of the potential sites for a skate park, noting the two that influenced her selection the most were natural surveillance and the current and future users. 'O m Combining these principles, the goal was to attract the appropriate young people and adults to the site and make it a place that was safe and devoid of crime which required it to be a highly visible site with regular Cn daily usage where positive activities occurred. She noted the old Woodway High School site was isolated w and completely surrounded by woods, making it a poor location for a skate park. She sited positive w reasons for selecting the Civic Playfield site, the site is well used but not over used, open natural _J surveillance of the site and use by numerous members of the public throughout the day, current use by Z good users make it less likely to attract bad users, and close proximity to emergency services, telephone, w restrooms, and convenient for officers to visit. She commented parents would likely feel safe leaving their children at the skate park while shopping downtown. 0 Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented the family ambiance of City Park was not compatible with a skate park and trees in the woodland area in the southern area of City Park would have to be removed to construct a skate park. Conversely the water logged section of property at Civic Center Playfields proposed for a skate park would be fixed prior to construction, improving the existing condition. He pointed the Civic Playfields had been playfields since the high school was constructed and were leased to the City by Edmonds School District for recreation only. He found the Civic Playfields the ideal location for a skate park due to its proximity to the Police and Fire Departments, visibility, and proximity to the Boys & Girls Club where restrooms, water, telephone and a safe environment for youth of all ages was available. He expressed concern with statements on the ACE website that they did not support a skate park at the Civic Playfields, recalling the history of Edmonds was blue collar workers whose priority was their children. He feared if the residents around Civic Playfields could prevent the City from siting a skate: park, what would be next — the Taste of Edmonds, 4th of July, sports teams or the Boys & Girls Club? He expressed dismay that ACE appeared to be prioritizing their interests over the best interests of children. Michelle Bretz, Edmonds, expressed support for the skate park at Civic Playfields. She suggested the Council consider which members were supported by ACE. She stressed the importance of having a place Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 15 Packet Pg. 123 6.A.e for young people to hang out, to support each other, and be mentored by each other. She commented it appeared Edmonds wanted to hide their kids; she did not like Lynndale Park due to its limited visibility. She assured youth would walk, skate, bike from all over the city to use the proposed skate park. She noted the skateboarders were among the City's future voters and she urged the skateboarders who would be voting soon to vote for candidates who supported kids and their projects. She thanked the youth involved on Work Group for their efforts to move the skate park forward. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the 2001 survey to determine the types of facilities and services residents wanted. He recommended the skate park issue be sent back to the Planning Board for further study. 0 c Evie Wilson-Lingbloom, Lynnwood, reported on her participation on the Edmonds Youth Advisory Committee that prepared a Community Youth Report in July 2001. She recalled talking with many young = people during the preparation of the report who, although they knew Lynndale Park was being 2 constructed, expressed the need for more skate parks due to transportation issues. She suggested the Council reexamine the Community Youth Report, pointing out the skate park would address many of the a recommendations in the report. She recognized the efforts of the youth involved in the Work Group, c learning about grass roots political organization and the importance of proper research and a documentation. She quoted from the report, "involve us, listen to us, plan with us, and hold us N accountable, we will not disappoint you." She urged the Council not to disappoint these youth. Tom Knutson, Edmonds, representing the rugby team that used the Civic Center Playfields, expressed > the team's support for the skate park. After reviewing the revised plan and the proposal for a new field at v the former Woodway High School site, the team determined they could work with the Parks Department to play at the Civic Playfields until the new field was available. v Aaron Taylor, Edmonds, skateboarder, commented visitors to New Zealand often refer to the country as Cn w going back in time; however, his experience touring New Zealand earlier this year gave him the impression that in terms of their support for kids, they were well ahead. He relayed skating at 11 different U.1 skate parks, many in towns with less than 1,000 residents, most in parks or near schools and in areas z frequented by other support and activities. He learned from talking to the local Police Department in LU Arrow Town, a small town on the south island near Queenstown, that most of the parks were the result of kids working with the cities and towns and that the skate parks have been a positive enhancement to the v community. He encouraged the Council to approve the skate park in support of youth. Y a_ a Alex McDonald, Edmonds, skateboarder, explained a skate park served youth that were not necessarily involved in team sports. He pointed skateboarding was just as legitimate a sport as baseball, football or v soccer and was at least if not more physically demanding and provided the same camaraderie. To those p Y Y g P t� who think youth should use Lynndale, he pointed out many do not have transportation to Lynndale. He concluded a lot of kids would use a skate park at the Civic Center Playfields and the young people here tonight represented a much larger group of skateboarders. z Molly Thomson, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the skate park and urged the Council to make a decision Q soon. Kaylene Wilson, Edmonds, expressed her support for the skate park and urged the Council to vote on it tonight. She noted the skate park also provided a venue for kids who did not skate to watch. Kal Taylor, Edmonds, commented no one had spent as much time watching at a skate park as she had at parks through the U.S. and other continents. She noticed when talking to parents in other communities that originally adults were opposed to skate parks but once they are constructed, the parents and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 16 Packet Pg. 124 6.A.e community supported them. She recalled hearing the wish at many parks that the skate park was bigger once residents realized what a wonderful thing it was for the community. She encouraged the Council to approve the skate park tonight. Nancy Carroll, Edmonds, noted the Edmonds Police Foundation provided a significant amount for a skate park for the youth of Edmonds and the Foundation and Police Department agreed on the importance of the skate parking being within eye and earshot of the Police Department. She expressed her thanks to the young people for their perseverance in their cause and for standing their ground, urging them to be proud of their presentations and the manner in which they conducted themselves. She hoped the youth would remember the importance of these meetings and to instill in their own children the values exhibited during this issue. Robert Rhein, Edmonds, stated it would be a mistake to deny these youth this skate park because they were asking for so little. He commented on the difficulty asking the presenters, boys between the ages of 13 and 16, for anything if this reasonable request were denied. He questioned why one would purchase property adjacent to a park and not expect noise from children's activities. He encouraged the Council to vote in favor of the proposed skate park to show the youth that the City would stand behind them. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, endorsed skateboarding but was concerned with the proposed location and 0 the sound from the park. The Work Group did not consider the Woodway High School site and the City a had not approached the school district. He was concerned with the City's budget and the cost of this 2 project. He could endorse a skate park that was well received by the neighborhood but did not support a �j skate park that was a deterrent to reasonable living in the neighborhood. He noted none of the Council lived near the proposed skate park and most of the proponents did not live in close proximity. He emphasized the importance of preserving the quality of neighborhoods. He relayed a conversation with a neighbor who planned to move because she could not stand any more activity at the Civic Playfields. He Cn referred to the $26,000 savings if the skate park were sited elsewhere, noting the $4,500 donation from w the Edmonds Police Foundation resulted in a $30,000 excavation and drainage project. He concluded the w decision regarding the location of the skate park was short sighted, recalling a similar short sighted _J decision 15 years ago not to purchase a cover for the Yost Pool at a cost of $100,000. He urged the Z Council to consider the concerns expressed regarding the location, cost and noise. He expressed concern w with the safety of the raised modular units compared to in -ground units. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, original member of the Skate Park Work Group, emphasized the need for a skate park for beginner and intermediate skaters. He acknowledged more advanced skaters would not enjoy the proposed park, reducing the potential for young skaters to be intimidated by more experienced skaters. He referred to the noise study that indicated there would be minimal noise impact on the neighbors by the location proposed by the Work Group. The park would be in a central location that was safe due to its proximity to the Police and Fire Departments. He described the experience of participating on the Work Group, transforming an idea into a project for presentation to the Council. To those who questioned the need for a skate park, he found it difficult to describe the joys of skateboarding because it had to be experienced to be fully understood. He found skateboarding exhilarating to do and awesome to watch. Youth often did not have much say regarding what happened in the City; this was their chance to have input about a subject they cared about. He implored the Council to listen to the voices of youth and the science, reflect on the compromises they made and the good citizenship they have exhibited and unanimously approve the skate park at the Civic Playfields as a testament to youth in Edmonds. Ray Martin, Edmonds, suggested further consideration needed to be given to alternate funding sources such as those suggested by Ms. Ehrlich. He questioned whether now was the appropriate time to expend 1/4 million dollars plus annual maintenance. He commented there were good and bad kinds of noise — skateboard noise was among the bad kinds, the sound of a train was a good kind of noise. If Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 17 Packet Pg. 125 6.A.e skateboarding was such a fast growing sport, he questioned why schools did not have skate parks. He also questioned why proximity to the Police Department and visibility was an important feature of a skate park. He pointed out the importance of considering the concerns of residents surrounding the playfield, suggesting consideration be given to a sound barrier to address Mr. Marmion's concerns with noise impacts on upslope properties. He questioned the number of skateboarders the park would serve. He suggested this was an opportunity for the Council to get it right and suggested they conduct further research so that the skate park was sited in a location that was best for the entire community. John Pierre, Edmonds, questioned how much more research was needed, pointing out this issue had been researched since 1999. He strongly encouraged and recommended the Council approve the skate park tonight. Andrew Manning, Edmonds, pointed out there were a lot of kids in Edmonds who liked to skateboard; however, most schools, parks and private property had signs prohibiting skateboarding. He recommended the Council approve the proposed skate park. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, stated although he had the opportunity to serve on a number of committees ca in the past 16 years, none had given him greater pleasure than the opportunity to work with the youth of a the City on this skate park project as the liaison to the Edmonds Police Foundation who provided seed N money to the project. He described the citizenship and responsibility displayed by the youth, often in the face of harsh criticism of skateboarders as a group from the opponents of this skate park. He pointed out U the flexibility the youth displayed in revising the original location within the Playfield and in selecting > different, state-of-the-art materials for the modular units out of respect for the neighbors' concerns. In the v face of demeaning remarks early in the process, the youth were undeterred. They reflected on the comments of the opposition, made significant compromises in an effort to satisfy reasonable and justifiable concerns while maintaining their position that the Civic Center Playfields was the ideal and Cn location supported by the Edmonds Police Department, Police Foundation, research, professional noise w study as well as many adults and youth in the community. The youth involved in this process have demonstrated maturity far beyond their years and should be an example for all; they've stuck to the issues LU and not gotten into innuendo and personal attacks on their opponents. They have willingly engaged in z dialogue with all who have raised questions. w Mr. Witenberg recalled Kendall Berry, a Main Street condominium owner and early opponent of the project who attended many of the Work Group's meetings and voiced legitimate concerns on behalf of her neighbors which the Work Group addressed. Ms. Berry now supports this location as confirmed by a letter in the Council packet. He noted none of the other opponents attended any of the Work Group meetings. Several of the Work Group members would receive little benefit from the group efforts because they were advanced skaters and the park's design was for beginner and intermediate skaters, but they have served unselfishly so that others could benefit from their work. He urged the Council to reward the youths' efforts and show their faith in the youth of the community by approving the proposed skate park in the Civic Center Playfields. Harold Huston, Edmonds, complimented the youth for their efforts with regard to the skate park. He commented on his completion of a motorcycle defensive driving course attended by a number of young people. A volunteer in many programs, he urged the City to do something for kids in the community to keep kids involved. He commented on the amount of study that had been done on this issue, pointing out there was no need for another survey or further public hearings. He viewed this as a golden opportunity for the Council to take an affirmative action and he urged the Council to approve it tonight. Aaron Greenmun, School Resource Officer, Edmonds Police Department, explained police were responders. In his job he had the good fortune to be on the positive side of Police Department, dealing Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 18 Packet Pg. 126 6.A.e with young people in a positive manner. He was honored to serve on the Skate Park Work Group, commenting the youth had been mentors to him, pouring their hearts into the project. He relayed that the youths' passion about the project was an inspiration to him and truly what civil service was about — getting involved in the community. The only question now was how the City would respond to the youth. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. In response to questions regarding funding, Mr. McIntosh assumed the grants suggested were IAC grants, a grant process the City had utilized in the past. He noted the City usually sought IAC grants for major renovations and not park amenities; however, that was a route that could be pursued if the Council chose. With regard to the Taste of Edmonds at Civic Playfields, he met with the Taste of Edmonds Committee who indicated they did not have a problem with the proposal. In response to Mr. Martin's suggestion for a sound barrier on the east side that did not block views, Ms. Weibusch explained a wall would need to be exceedingly high to block the sounds because usually if you could see an activity, you could also hear it. She noted a wall around the skate park would also create a shadow zone that would block the sound near the skate park but would reflect the sound that would have gone toward the water onto the hill. She noted the only solution to that problem would be to create a concrete box with a lid which would eliminate visibility. In response to the question regarding increase in existing noise during evening hours, Ms. Weibusch 2 advised the existing dBA averaged over the hour of 4:00 & 5:00 p.m. was 52 dBA and 56 dBA between U 5:00 & 6:00 p.m., and 54 dBA between 6:00 & 7:00 p.m. cc co With regard to the audio demonstration by Ms. Ehrlich, Ms. Weibusch commended her for the diligence with which she had studied the issue, but pointed out it was extremely difficult to enter audio recordings U) into evidence. She noted although the recording may have been 45 dBA when recorded, it was not when w it was played back. She noted if everyone in the Council Chambers was extremely silent and held their LU breath, the ambient sound level might be 45 dBA. With movement, etc. the ambient level was likely up to 50 dBA and the recording was at least 75 dBA. She noted the sound quality of the recording was also z very different than what she heard at the skate parks. She cautioned the Council regarding the weight w they gave the recording as it was not 45 dBA. Mayor Haakenson agreed with Mr. Martin that this was an opportunity for the Council to get it right, noting the skate park was one of the rare opportunities for the City to do something for the youth of Edmonds. He explained the Work Group and City staff had done an excellent job researching this project and even better job of addressing the neighbors' concerns. He questioned what better place for a skate park than an existing area of high youth activity, next to the Police Department and adjacent to a Boys & Girls Club. He pointed out a playfield was land used for and usually equipped with facilities for recreation, especially for children. He concluded this was an opportunity for the Council to put their money where their mouth was, recalling comments by candidates regarding the need to support the youth of Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson supported this project and this location because it was the right thing to do for the youth of Edmonds and they deserved it. Hearing no further questions of staff, he remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF AND THE SKATE PARK WORKGROUP TO PROCEED WITH THE SKATE PARK PROJECT AS PROPOSED AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS. Councilmember Orvis did not fault anyone's concern with impacts or process but he was impressed with the arguments made by those who supported the skate park and particularly the changes that were made in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 19 Packet Pg. 127 6.A.e response to the sound study as well as the proximity of the site to the Public Safety facility. He indicated he would support the motion. Council President Marin referred to a letter in the packet from a doctor in Mukilteo about his concern when he learned there would be a skate park next to their building and their dread of the noisy and crazy teens, tweens and twenty -somethings disturbing them. The doctor went on to state that after the park went in, they did not regret having them there at all. Council President Marin described his experience in San Diego where at an intersection in Pacific Beach various performers would provide periodic exhibitions. He was fascinated by the tricks they would do and soon found he had favorites he liked to watch. He hoped as the park was constructed and used, nearby residents would discover they developed favorites and would enjoy the free entertainment. He indicated he would support the motion. Councilmember Olson referred to the Council's decision to ban motorized foot scooters for riders less than 16-years of age. If the Council took activities away from kids, they had to provide places where they could go and experience things like skateboarding. With regard to the comment why schools did not have skate parks, she recalled soccer became popular with teams before it was incorporated into the school. She envisioned in the future schools might have skate parks. Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the skate park. Having been involved in the public N process for 25 years, he estimated he had attended 4,000 — 5,000 public hearings; the presentation by the f° Skate Park Work Group was the best he had seen and especially from a lay group. He commended the Work Group for their efforts and actions, commenting the group had always held themselves to the > U highest standards, standards the Council and other participants in the public process should hold themselves to. He agreed it was time for the community to give back to the youth and provide opportunities. Too often adults want kids to fit into a mold or activity and if they did not fit the mold, 77 adults did not support it. The skate park would provide an opportunity for youth to express themselves in U) an increasingly popular sport, allowing them to achieve goals they set for themselves. w In response to the comment that none of the Council lived close to the Civic Center Playfields, Councilmember Moore clarified she lived about 2'/z blocks away and looked forward to watching the skateboarders. She noted everyone who used the track would enjoy the entertainment while doing laps. She thanked the kids for their citizenship as well as the adults who testified on behalf of the kids and who complimented the kids on their citizenship. Councilmember Moore referred to the petition submitted by the Friends of Civic Playfield and her skepticism whether those who signed it understood it. She reported the comments made by 18 of the 37 signers who provided telephone numbers when she contacted them: 1) still concerned abut noise; I just don't believe the study, 2) the noise is a trouble and kids riding to the park on skateboards, 3) I don't feel strongly about it at all the youth need something to do, 4) I don't think it's a problem because I realize people who move next door to a park should really expect the noise, 5) things have changed now and we no longer oppose it, 6) I was caught off guard by a woman, I'm not opposed to it at all, I just signed the petition, 7)1 don't like skating by the ferry, it has to be legal and safe so if it's a sturdy park I would feel good about it, 8) it's not a concern to me, 9) 1 think the noise might be loud; I just don't know, 10) I was at the farmers market and this woman came up but I have no information and I don't really care about it, 11) no I want the skate park; the lady told me it would be metal and I just wanted something more solid, 12) six members of the rugby team who believed their field would be eliminated (a representative indicated tonight they had changed their position), 13) a woman from the condos just asked me to sign it but I don't really know anything about it, 14) my opinion really should not count; I really don't have an opinion, 15) my grandchildren skate at every park in the area and I was just concerned about the flimsy construction; I want something permanent; 16) the condo owners really ought to know better if they bought here, 17) I'm not opposed to kids having fun so I'm not adamantly opposed to this unless the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 20 Packet Pg. 128 6.A.e noise is too bad, and 18) I really don't care about that skate park; what I'm really concerned about is the Taste of Edmonds that's when we get some really bad people around this neighborhood who drink at the beer garden and come into my yard to relieve themselves. Councilmember Moore cautioned the Council and others about the value of signatures on petitions such as this. Further this petition was quite dated and the people who signed it were not aware of the changes the Work Group had made. She looked forward to having the skate park in her neighborhood and was pleased to have a facility for kids in that age group to use. Councilmember Dawson agreed the Civic Center Playfields was a very good site for the skate park; however, what made it a good site was also what people didn't like — it was visible and it was already being used by a lot of people. She acknowledged no matter where a skate park was sited, there would be concerns of some kind. She expressed her support of the motion with the caveat that the Parks & Recreation Department and Work Group explore funding alternatives such as the State Wildlife and Recreation funding as well as opportunities for private groups to co-sponsor the skate park. She anticipated the neighborhood would be surprised by the sound level because the ambient noise level would be so much less than other sports that occur in the park. Student Representative Steven Landry expressed support for the skate park, noting none of the students he spoke with felt the skate park would be a bad idea or anticipated sound being a problem. He referred to a comment made by Mr. Huston regarding senior skaters, commenting he was sure there were skateboarders who would be willing to teach skateboarding to adults. He commented there was not a lot for youth to do in the Edmonds area; positive choices were better than possibly doing something negative. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RELATED TO AUDIENCE COMMENTS PROC Council President Marin asked whether any Councilmember objected to the add�,e he following sentence in the Council meeting procedures: "In accordance with RCW 42.17.13portunity for public comment shall not include comments which promote or oppose can tes for public office or ballot measures except during the course of a public hearing." He ciarif his sentence was intended to address statements promoting or opposing specific candidates dur' the campaign period and was not intended to infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights. Councilmember Dawson did not see a need to inclu is sentence in the Council procedures. She noted the City's long standing policy of not encour g campaign speeches at the podium had been honored other than two people who made stateme abou# specific candidates this year. She was concerned that this had gone too far unnecessarily. noted this issue had never arisen before and she was concerned it was content based even thoug ' was intended to be neutral. She concluded it perhaps sent the wrong message. She appreciate r. Snyder's memo regarding the PDC's indication that the Council could include this langua oting the PDC regulations had also been struck down by the Supreme Court recently based ontent. rpinember Plunkett recalled opponents of certain Council candidates made campaign statements at podium prior to the 2001 and 2003. He agreed it needed to be clarified whether that was allowed Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 21 Packet Pg. 129 6.A.e Response to November 29, 2005 City Council Questions History of Siting Amenities in Parks: When the playground at City Park was scheduled for replacement, the existing location was deemed too small to construct the playground needed when peak numbers of families, day camps, and school groups were using it. In June -September, it is not uncommon to have 50+ children enjoying it at one time. Neighbors in the adjacent condominiums, located within 100 feet of the proposed playground, were concerned about too many children and the associated noise, size, and color of the playground. Soon after installation, the neighbors realized that they enjoyed watching the children and their previous concerns have not been an issue. The added bonus is that the increased visibility only helps increase safety and deters vandalism. Cost of Playgrounds: To withstand the normal wear and tear that all park playground amenities experience, playground fixtures need to be durable, low maintenance, and built to current industry construction and safety standards. Parks staff must be certified to inspect and perform necessary playground structure repairs when necessary. The City of Edmonds has replaced half of its aging playground structures in the past 4 years and these have a standard two-year unlimited warranty. The development costs for the 1995 City Park installation and replacement costs for three other parks are: City Park, 1995 Play structure $ 51,000 City labor preparation 30,000 Retaining wall and drainage system installation 73,000 Total cost $154,000 Seaview Park, 2001 Play structure $43,000 City labor preparation 14,000 Retaining wall and drainage system installation 28.000 Total cost $85,000 Anderson Center, 2001 Play structure $47,000 City labor preparation 12,000 Total cost $59,000 Pine Street, 2005 tU Play structure $43,000 City labor preparation 10,000 W Total cost $53,000 5katepark Budget: The need for a skatepark was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Currently, $200,000 is budgeted with roughly 50% dedicated to preparing the site with an approximately 5,400 square foot smooth concrete pad and the remainder to purchase, transport, and install the features. Due to the underlying peat bog nature of the Civic Center, development of amenities at this site, such as the tennis courts in 1980, require additional excavation and fill. Mai tea e: All City parks and playgrounds are inspected and maintained regularly with inspection logs kept. Parks maintenance staff respond immediately to reported problems with any equipment or vandalism and they visit the Civic Playfields site almost daily due to its active use. Due to the high use and high visibility at the site, staff does not anticipate that a skate park will be a maintenance burden. In many communities, skatepark users take ownership and peer pressure helps control vandalism, litter, and bad behavior. The preferred Concrete Concepts streetscape style features are fiberglass reinforced concrete with a double polyurethane finish. They have been used in Europe for 10 years and in North American parks for 6 years and have proven to be virtually indestructible. They have an initial 5- year unlimited warranty and an extended 10-year parts replacement warranty. We have checked with other communities who have installed this product and they are satisfied with both the products and service. Other City Skate Parks & Costs: Everett, 1999 14,300 square feet $267,000 Lynndale, 1999 5,000 square feet $120,000 plus design costs Snohomish, 2002 Marysville, 2002 Mukilteo, 2004 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 20,000 square feet $243,000 $387,000 $900,000 Background/History At the October 26, 1999 City Council meeting, the Edmonds Police Foundation donated $4,500 toward the future development of a skate park facility in downtown Edmonds. At that time, Mayor Fahey, Council, and city staff WOODELL Att. 5 - Response to 11.29.05 Coun Packet Pg. 130 6.A.e recognized the health and social benefits of skate boarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park, jointly funded by both Edmonds and Lynnwood after a lengthy development process. It was also identified that the park was heavily used and many younger, inexperienced skateboarders had difficulty getting to use the park. The need for a local skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. On March 23, 2004, staff met with the Edmonds Police Foundation to discuss the possibility of building a skate park in the downtown area, and it was decided to form a Skate Park Work Group. On May 17, 2004, members of the Police Foundation and the Parks & Recreation staff organized a meeting. a� Edmonds skaters, parents, and community members who believed a skate facility in downtown Edmonds would be aCU L valuable asset to the community's youth attended to form an ad hoc committee. On July 13, 2004, staff and committee members met with the City Council Community Services Committee and were encouraged to move ahead with planning the development of a skate park in the downtown area. 3 a On January 26, 2005, the Skate Park Work Group presented a report to the Edmonds Planning Board with their c CU findings to date. Committee members reported on different aspects of the proposal which included health benefits; growth and popularity of the sport; the 40 Developmental Assets, nationally recognized building blocks that help N young people grow up healthy, caring and responsible; safety; risk management; the Recreation Immunity Act; f° pictures of skate parks in surrounding communities; criteria for selecting a skate park site; and the proposed location at the Civic Center Playfields. A Public Hearing was scheduled for March 9, 2005. U On March 9, 2005, a Public Hearing was held with many comments, questions and suggestions from the public. At m the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Skate Park Work Group was asked to return later to answer questions from � the Planning Board concerning noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and provide an accurate site plan of U) the park. W On October 26, 2005, the Greenbusch Company, Inc., presented a comprehensive noise study. Two other refinements w w to the original ro proposal were resented; 1) a location change within the Civic Center Pla ) g p p p g yfields; and 2 a significant J � change in the product proposed for the site. Z w Goal The Parks & Recreation community recognizes skateboarding as a healthy and popular recreational activity and a 0 legitimate use to be accommodated in our parks system. The goal of the Skate Park Work Group is to continue their Y efforts to gain approval to plan and construct a skate park in downtown Edmonds at the preferred Civic Field site for a beginning to intermediate skate boarders. a U Popularity of Skateboarding U The interest in this sport continues to grow at a fast rate. Estimates of the number of people between the ages of 6 and t 18 who skateboarded in 2003 was 13 million with numbers expected to reach 15 million this year. This number a0i exceeds the number of Little League Baseball players and trails only basketball and soccer in participation. As the E t sport grows, so does the need for facilities as evidenced by the installation of skate parks in most communities CU surrounding Edmonds. Q Safety/Liability As mentioned in earlier presentations, there are far fewer skateboarding accidents per capita than many other popular sports such as baseball, soccer, or snowboarding. Children under the age of 15 are twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment and three times more likely to suffer a bicycle injury. This skate park would not be directly supervised. If constructed to industry standards and maintained properly the Recreation Immunity Act protects cities from liability for skateboarding accidents. Security/Police Packet Pg. 131 6.A.e Early in the development of this proposal, the City of Edmonds Crime Prevention Officer solicited information from surrounding communities specifically to determine what common problems they may have. In addition to emphasizing the need for the facility to be in a highly visible area, many communities encouraged a strong police presence, especially during the first few weeks. This sets a tone early that the police are aware of and interested in the success of the facility, and helps create a bond between skaters and officers. Parents watching and community "spectators" also promote security and caring, and give the participants a chance to perform. With this good start, users do take ownership and peer pressure to protect their facility can be powerful. At the present time, the police are not able to direct kids that are skating on public facilities and restricted areas to a local park. Location The survey conducted by our Crime Prevention Officer and other readings and research by the Work Group yielded a set of criteria that the group used to determine a best location in the downtown area for the skate park. The group identified nine areas that might have potential as a site. Members traveled independently to each site, applied the 10 criteria to those sites, and selected the Civic Center Playfields as the preferred location. None of the criteria was weighted so having easy access by police and fire was scored the same as availability ofrestrooms and phone. Location Within Civic Playfield The original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence line and 140 feet from the nearest residences. Upon further observation, it was noticed that shifting the skate park south and slightly east would keep most of the usable dimensions of the north field and the consistent 285-foot perimeter of the softball field. Distance from the nearest residences now increased to 240 feet. Noise Study >_ At the request of the Planning Board, due to concerns from the neighborhood about the potential noise impacts from a �? skate park facility, a scope of work was developed to perform an ambient noise study. The Greenbusch Group, Inc., an acoustical, mechanical, and audio/visual design firm was selected to perform the study. The original study m measured from the location adjacent to the basketball courts concluded that noise levels would pose very little impact Cn on the community. The analysis did not recommend mitigation. The study in your packets is updated to reflect noise W levels at the new proposed location, 240 feet from the nearest residences. uJ Rules Simple rules similar to other skate parks and following the recommendations of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority would be posted. This type of park is designed for skateboards and rollerblades. Hours of Operation/Lights This facility would not be equipped with lights and would be open from 9 am to dusk (1/2 hour past sunset). Anyone using the facility beyond these hours would be trespassing. Fencing To protect skaters from errant baseballs, soccer balls, etc., this proposal includes 8 foot fencing on the north (facing open grass field area), 10 foot on the east (facing the baseball diamond), and 4 foot on the west and south where play is minimal and spectators could observe. The fencing will be removable to enable flexibility with special events. Drainage The field area north of the proposed site and east of the courts has had an ongoing drainage problem that makes this area unplayable for significant parts of the year. In coordination with the development of the park, a separate drainage project will be undertaken to rectify this problem. Design/Accommodation The original proposal called for a modular park with steel, wood, or like surfaces to enable removal for special events such as the Taste of Edmonds. The Skate Park Work Group has continued to visit other parks and explore surfaces including markedly quieter precast concrete recently installed at the Kenmore Skate Park. This product can be designed to match any skating feature and usually duplicates "streetscape" forms designed, requested by, and popular with skaters. Streetscapes mimic real street features. These are low maintenance, permanent, and the 2 to 6 ton concrete weight of each piece absorbs sound and creates stability. The forms will be placed on an approximately Packet Pg. 132 6.A.e 5,400 square feet smooth concrete pad. The Chamber of Commerce endorses this design and will be able to work on and around the design. Packet Pg. 133 6.A.e Cunningham, Diane From: linda malan <lindajoemalan@frontier.com> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:40 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Civic Field Development Dear Ms. Cunningham, We have been Edmonds residents for twenty-six years, the past seven living in the Shelbourne Condominiums at 636 Daley St. The Civic Field is now our front lawn, as our condo faces south across the narrow alleyway on = L the north side of the field. We enjoy living close to downtown and getting to watch many of the activities that take place in the field. Thus we have been active participants in the citizens input for the planned park U construction. a We appreciate the challenge of creating a "Signature Downtown Park" that is surrounded on three sides by 2 a. residences, most especially when the majority of those residents are only a narrow setback from the park borders. Unlike the first two plans presented to the public, this third Hybrid Plan seems to overlook every aspect of concerns that we have mentioned in all of our communication regarding the new park. Most upsetting was the placement of the skateboard park immediately beneath our windows! We have always been grateful for the careful concern given to the placement of the current skateboard park, as it's to placement was equidistant from all residences. We cannot imagine how Walker -Macy could overlook the extensive planning that went into building it in 2005, and place it where it is in this Hybrid plan. Please U) W consider leaving it in the area initially approved by all and that has worked successfully. Living as we do next to the church parking lot on our east side, we have witnessed many near misses between young children dashing across the alleyway to soccer practice and cars traveling on our narrow alleyway. There are 23 garages that empty into this narrow space with cars coming and going all day and evening. Even the UPS driver chooses to use this alley! Placing a children's play area along this busy border feels like a recipe for disaster. In fact, nearly all the busy, active portions of the park have been placed along this north border with nothing to protect children from traffic sharing this same narrow space. Please give some consideration to these concerns. Respectfully, Linda Malan Packet Pg. 134 6.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/9/2016 Public Hearing on 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Staff Lead: Rob Chave / Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The current comprehensive plan was adopted in 2015. Staff Recommendation Forward the plan amendments to the City Council for approval. Narrative The most recent comprehensive plan update was completed in 2015, which was a major review required by the Growth Management Act. Typically, the City undertakes relatively minor amendments in intervening years. The Capital Facilities Plan is reviewed and updated each year. This year there are also a few minor amendments (see the summary in Attachment 1). Amendments 1a, 1b and 1c involve minor amendments to the Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan. Amendment 2 is an amendment to the text of the Capital Facilities Element which would add an implementation action (similar to other plan elements). In addition, there are a couple of more substantial amendments that are being developed; these will be ready for Planning Board consideration after the first of the year (i.e. in early 2017). These are also indicated in the attached summary. The additional attachments show the actual drafts of the current amendment proposals. These are the subject of this public hearing. Attachments: Attachment 1: Summary of 2016 Comprehensive Plan Updates Attachment 2: PROS Plan Amendment 1a (new Appendix D) Attachment 3: PROS Plan Amendment 1b (Appendix A) Attachment 4: PROS Plan Amendment 1c (Policy 4.1-1) Attachment 5: Capital Facilities Element implementation action Packet Pg. 135 6.B.a 2016-2017 Comprehensive Plan Updates 1. Parks Plan amendments recognizing the Marina Beach Master Plan. a. Include the adopted Marina Beach Master Plan as a new "Appendix D" to the PROS Plan. b. Modify the PROS Plan, Appendix A, pg. 39, as follows: Under "Site considerations," replace the last bullet with "See Appendix D, Marina Beach Master Plan" Under "Planned Improvements," replace the first bullet with "Implement the Master Plan" c. Modify PROS Plan, Goal 4, Policy 4.1-1, pg. 4-8, to reflect adopted plans and codes: Current: "Relocate incompatible uses from sensitive areas (i.e., waterfront dog park at Marina Beach Park)." Replace with: "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the Shoreline Master Program." 2. Capital Facilities Element Add an implementation action to the Capital Facilities Element (Comprehensive Plan pg. 144): "Develop level of service standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive Plan." 3. Water Comprehensive Plan Plan is being developed with a draft due before the end of the year (2016). Approval is scheduled for first quarter 2017. Any specific references to the current (2010) plan will also need to be updated. 4. Street Tree Plan Plan is being developed with a draft due around the end of the year (2016). Approval is scheduled for first quarter 2017. Any specific references to the current plan will also need to be updated. Packet Pg. 136 6.B.b APPENDIX D: MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN R arm EDMONDS PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES A Packet Pg. 137 6.B.b [Include Adopted Marina Beach Master Plan here] Packet Pg. 138 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan 6.B.c Marina Beach Park Regional Park 200 400 Feet I s Park Features • 3.37 Acres • 0.5 Miles walking trail • Playground • Sand volleyball court • Small boat launch (ramp) • View point • Portable restrooms (3) • Shoreline access, gravel beach • Off -leash dog area Site considerations Replace with: "See Appendix D, Marina Beach Master Plan" • Zoned Commercial Waterfront • Marine Protected Area • 31 additional parking stalls provided by Port of Edmonds under SEPA/SMP approval permit • Likely to be improved by creek daylighting Planned Improvements Replace with: "Implement Master Plan" • Site master plan and implementation • Restroom (large) • Replace play area (large) • Continued maintenance Appendix A: Existing System A-39 Packet Pg. 139 6.B.d City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan 3.J Use the opportunity of upgrades and maintenance at the Senior Center site to integrate the property more completely with the rest of the waterfront. 3.K Secure ongoing funding for the Beach Ranger program, recognizing the important role in tourism, building a connection to the shoreline and expanding appreciation for natural resources and habitat conservation. Goal 4: Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation 4.A Inventory and classify natural resources and habitat areas within of the park system. 4.B Conduct a city tree inventory and map to create a baseline of information to enhance tree canopy. 4.0 Connect new generations of residents and visitors to natural resources in Edmonds through Discovery Programs utilizing ranger naturalists. 4.D Collaborate on public information programs to help property owners (including the City) identify and remove invasive vegetation. 4.E Collaborate with various organizations in invasive plant removal and native vegetation planting in accord with landscaping plans for parks within the city limits. Suggest park maintenance projects that would be good candidates for the annual Arbor Day event sponsored by the Tree Board. 4.F Provide low impact access to natural resource areas to allow for enjoyment and interaction with nature. 4.G Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing information about urban forestry to property owners. 4. H Relocate incompatible uses from sensitive areas (i.e. waterfront dog park at Marina Beach Park). 4.1 Consider expanding the function and facilities around the Willow Creek Hatchery to create a more expansive interpretive center that includes the Edmonds Marsh. 4.H Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the Shoreline Master Program. 4-8 Chapter 4: Action Plan Packet Pg. 140 6.B.e Capital Facilities Element Background General. The Capital Facilities Element identifies the City's existing and needed capital facilities to support the delivery of public services to the community and its visitors. It also provides related goals and standards for meeting the community's needs. Capital facilities include land and buildings for public purpose. In addition to serving existing residents, capital facilities are planned to meet the community's needs as new development occurs in the future. Because Edmonds is a mature city with a full complement of facilities and services, most capital facility planning is targeted to maintaining existing level of service standards and expanding the quality of life of its citizens with new or expanded facilities. Service standards are described in the transportation, utility and parks elements. These service standards are used to assist in developing both short and long range capital improvements projects. The capital facilities element identifies these projects and their funding sources for a six -year period. This schedule will be updated on an annual basis and integrated with the City's budget process. The element also identifies public facility needs for the 20-year planning period. Funding sources will vary as specific projects are developed, and will include a variety of public and private sources. The City coordinates on the siting of essential public facilities with its neighboring cities and the county. Coneurreney Management. Introduced in 1990 by the Washington State Legislature with the enactment of the Growth Management Act, the term "concurrency management" is specifically required for transportation facilities and is defined as the process that cities use to ensure that no development or permit is approved by the city unless the necessary capital facilities are in place or that funding is adequate to complete the required improvements within six years. Concurrency for transportation systems is tied to established level -of -service standards. The City has also established an impact fee system for parks in order to provide for growth -related facilities. Other facilities, such as water and sewer systems, are funded and maintained through utility plans and fee structures, as well as grant -supported projects. Inventory. Publicly owned capital facilities in the City are comprised primarily of those owned by the City of Edmonds. A few of these facilities, while owned by the City, are operated by other entities. For example, fire stations are currently owned by the City but operated by Fire District 1. Other facilities are owned by different governmental agencies, such as the Port of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District. Following is a map and list of public -owned capitial facilities, as identified in 2015. This inventory focuses on larger properties and buildings; it does not include transportation or utility facilities, since these are discussed, repectively, in the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element and in functional plans referenced in the Comprehensive Plan's Utilities Element. Capital Facilities 137 Packet Pg. 141 6.B.e Note: While City -owned parks are included in this Element's inventory, more specific details about them can be found in the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan, which is also adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Edmonds Public Capital ap i I M I p Legend — City 8—dary Police Fire Staflon • City Hall Edmonds Public Facilities Distnct Central Puget Sound Regional Transit -Cty Pales Other Public Parks Edmonds School District PlayiIields - Pon of Edmonds Puget Sound s'ae / - Sta—s Hospital ,� s - Public Hospital District $2 - Dept- of Nalural Resources 8 - Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - City of Edmonds Property - SnoCo Housing Authority P Edmonds C.—irity College Pi s OF i E 0 0-25 0.5 1 Miles I I Figure 41: Public Capital Facilities Map Capital Facilities 138 Q Packet Pg. 142 6.B.e Following is a 2015 map of facilities owned by the Edmonds School District (ESD). { �.. City of Edmonds e School Facilities Map EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES OTHER EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Elementary Schools 22 - St. Thomas 23 - Maplewood Park Elementary 1 - Meadowdale Elementary 24 - Melody Hill 2 - Seaview Elementary 25 - Woodway Elementary 1 3 - Chase Lake Elementary 26 - Holy Rosary 4 - Edmonds Elementary 27 - Edmonds Community College :13 15. 5 - Sherwood Elementary j 6 - Maplewood Parent Cooperative (K-8) 7 - Madrona School (K-8) ` ro 8- Westgate Elementary 22 9- Lynndale Elementary 10 - College Place Elementary 11 - Maplewood Center (K-12) '- t% 23 12 - Edmonds Homeschool Resource Center (K-12) Middle Schools 13 - Meadowdale Middle School - 14 - College Place Middle School High Schools j 2 t9 15 - Meadowdale High School 16 - Edmonds-Woodway High School 17 - Schriber Lake High School Other Properties Z4 18 - Civic Center Playfield �...,,. e a 6:11 .27 19 - Chase Lake Natural Area 20 - Meadowdale Rayfields .:26 21- Administrative Services M. :10 21 �3 16 24 r2 7 t r 25 0 0 1 0.5 1 Miles I I i i i Legend City Boundary Z School Figure 42: School Facilities Map Capital Facilities Public School Sites = ESD 15 Playfields 139 Q Packet Pg. 143 6.B.e Following is a list ofpublicly-ownedfacilities in Edmonds and other nearby areas. x P x 6 m 9 t m V _E t Name Neighborhood Parks 9 m' C p3 Name Other City Owned Facilities m' C p Elm Street Park 1.85 CoE Log Cabin Visitor Center/Chamberof Commerce 0.03 372 CoE Frances Anderson Center Field 1.94 CoE City Hall 0.59 34,074 CoE Haines Wharf 0.69 CoE Edmonds Historical Museum 0.12 2,084 CoE Hickman Park 5.6 CoE Edmonds Library and Plaza Room 3.03 19,520 CoE Hummingbird Hill Park 1.22 CoE Fire Station#16 10,700 CoE Mathay Ballinger Park 0.51 CoE Fire Station #17 9,800 CoE Pine Street Park 1.47 CoE Fire Station #20 6,400 CoE Seaview Park 6.05 CoE Fishing Pier Ranger Station 1,200 CoE Sierra Park 5.52 CoE Fishing Pier Restroom 918 CoE Subtotal 24.85 Frances Anderson Center Karlsten House 0.22 55,000 2,250 CoE CoE Community Parks City Park 13.96 CoE "Old" Public Works 3.94 14,100 CoE Yost Memorial Park 44.14 CoE Sewage Treatment Plant 115,200 CoE Pool 4,808 CoE Public Safety Complex 2.61 30,940 CoE Subtotal 58.1 4.808 Public Works Operation and Maintenance Center 4.35 28,000 CoE Wade James Theatre 2.34 6,289 CoE Regional Parks 144 Railroad Ave Tidelands 0.9 CoE Subtotal Edmonds School District Properties in Edmonds 17.23 336,847 Brakett's Landing North 5.11 CoE Civic Center Playfield 7.92 ESD 15 Brakett's Landing South 2.22 CoE Edmonds Senior Center 2.63 CoE Boys and Girls Club 6,856 ESD 15 Marina Beach Park 3.37 CoE Stadium 7,140 ESD 15 Olympic Beach Park 2.82 CoE Skate Park 6,000 ESD 15 SubtotalI 17.05L Chase Lake Elementary School Edmonds Elementary School 10.26 8.58 57,697 34,726 ESD 15 ESD 15 Special- Parks Centenial Plaza 0.08 CoE Edmonds-Woodway High School 30.19 208,912 ESD 15 Dayton Street Plaza 0.1 CoE Former Woodway High School 39.75 148,740 ESD 15 Edmonds Library & Plaza Room 1.29 CoE Edmonds Homeschool Resource(K-12) Edmonds Memorial Cemetary and Columbarium 6.63 CoE Schriber Lake High School Anderson Center Field 1.62 CoE Madrona School(K-8) 31.3 85,505 ESD 15 Hazal Miller Plaza 0.09 CoE I Maplewood Parent Cooperative (K-8) 7.41 76,554 ESD 15 Interurban Trail 4.88 CoE Maplewood Center(K-12) ESD 15 Lake Ballinger Access 0.19 CoE Seaview Elementary 8.28 49,420 ESD 15 Meadowdale Community Clubhouse 0.99 3,232 CoE Sherwood Elementary 13.19 43,284 ESD 15 Richard F. Anway Park 0.17 CoE Westgate Elementary 8.34 44,237 ESD 15 Ocean Avenue Viewpoint 0.2 CoE Woodway Elementary 9.89 37,291 ESD 15 Point Edwards Scenic Overlook(easement) 0.1 CoE ubtotal 175.11 769,071 Stamm Overlook Park 0.36 CoE Edmonds School District Properties Near Edmonds hase Lake Natural Area 10.8 ESD 15 Sunset Ave. Overlook 1.14 CoEJo Willow Creek Hatchery and Interpretive Center 1.68 CoEollege Place Elementary 9 48,180 Subtotal 19.52 3,232llege Place Middle School 18.7 87,031 Open Space Lynndale Elementary School 10 39,043 Edmonds Marsh/Walkway 23.37 CoE Meadowdale High School 39.56 197,306 ESD 15 Edmonds Marsh East 0.85 CoE Meadowdale Middle School 19.38 102,925 ESD 15 H.O. Hutt Park 4.53 CoE Meadowdale Elementary 8.78 57,111 ESD 15 Haines Tdelands 0.44 CoE Meadowdale Playfields 24.09 ESD 15 Maplewood Hill Park 9.96 CoE Subtotal 140.31 531,596 Meadowdale Natural Area 1.07 CoE Other Publicly Owned Facilities in Edmonds Edmonds Centerforthe Arts 2.54 PFD Olympic View Open Space 0.49 CoE Pine Ridge Park 23.78 CoE Edmonds Conference Center 0.33 11,252 EDCC Seaview Corridor 1.31 CoE Edmonds Fishing Pier 0.61 WDFW Shell Creek Open Space 1.04 CoE Edmonds Underwater Park and Higgins Trails 33.21 DNR Wharf Street 0.12 CoE Olympic View Water District Maintenance Facility 0.83 7,480 OVWD Willow Creek Park 2.25 CoE Public Utility District#1 0.68 PUD Subtotal Port of Edmonds Properties 69.21 Subtotal Other Publicly Owned Facilities Near Edmonds 38.2 18,732 Marina 8.1 PoE Ballinger Playfield and Former Golf Course 52.59 MLT Waterfront Businesses 14.22 Po Esperance County Park 9.59 SnoCo Harbor Square Business Complex 15.11 PoE Meadowdale Beach County Park 144.34 SnoCo Subtotal 37.43 South County Park 118.55 SnoCo Subtotal 325.07 Figure 43: List of Publicly -owned Capital Facilities Capital Facilities 140 Packet Pg. 144 6.B.e Future Needs Future capital facility needs and projects have been identified for the City in a special section "Capital Facilities Projects" at the end of this element. The section is divided into three subsections: General, Transportation, and Stormwater. Within each subsection is a table of capital projects and their anticipated financing over a six -year period. Each section also contains information on longer -term capital projects, for which funding may not yet be available. Some of the projects in the latter category have been considered for an extended period of time and their exact descriptions/costs have not been recently updated. The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, includes more information on future capital facility needs for parks, recreation, and open space. Capital Facilities Goals & Policies This section identifies key goals for the City in managing its capital facilities. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "D.2") Capital Facilities Goal A. Establish service standards for all city -provided services in order to provide public facilities and services that meet citizens' needs and enhance the community's quality of life. A.1 Provide capital facility improvements in order to meet or exceed established service standards. A.2 Coordinate and set service standards that meet the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. A.3 Evaluate and prioritize capital facility projects according to how they achieve established criteria and the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Examples of typical criteria include the following: A.3.a. Whether the project is needed to achieve or maintain a service standard. A.3.b. Whether the facility will contribute to the elimination of a public hazard or safety concern. A.3.c. Whether the facility is financially feasible. A.3.d. The extent to which the facility will impact annual and long-term budgets. A.3.e. Whether the facility is consistent with future facility needs and site considerations. A.3.f. The extent to which the facility will impact natural and cultural resources. Capital Facilities 141 Packet Pg. 145 6.B.e Capital Facilities Goal B. Evaluate and coordinate the provision of capital facility improvements with both annual budgeting and long-term financial planning. B.1. Capital budget decisions will be made consistent with the Edmonds comprehensive plan in accordance with RCW 36.70A.120. B.2. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the comprehensive plan shall be re-examined to review how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that established service standards will be met. B.3. Capital improvements will be planned to achieve fiscal responsibility, maintenance of existing facilities, and protect the quality of life of the community. B.4. The City will continue to adopt multi -year budgets and six -year capital improvement programs as part of its annual budget and planning process. B.5. Six -year capital improvement programs will be coordinated with long-term (at least 20-year) capital needs Capital Facilities Goal C. Seek to use a coordinated array of mechanisms and sources of revenue to fund needed capital facilities. C.1. Make use of the City's budget and structure of funds to identify adequate funding sources for capital facilities. C.2. Seek grants and cooperative funding agreements to supplement internal City funding of capital facilities that benefit the general public or that are required to meet needs not generated solely by Edmonds residents. C.3. Make use of regulatory and incentive programs to assist in achieving service standards for City services. Capital Facilities Goal D. Strategically locate new facilities to complement the delivery of services and provide for efficient and convenient access. D.1. The location of new or improved capital facilities should take into account existing service delivery systems and the location and access of service populations. D.2. Ensure that the siting of essential public facilities is not precluded by the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities Goal E. Essential public facilities are necessary to support orderly growth and the delivery of public services. The City's goal is to ensure that these facilities are sited in an efficient, timely manner while acknowledging and mitigating any community impacts created by these facilities. E.I. Essential public facilities are those defined by state law, through the City's planning process or on application of a service provider. Capital Facilities 142 Packet Pg. 146 6.B.e E.2. Sponsors of essential public facilities should be encouraged to consult with the City prior to choosing a site in order to seek information about potential sites, provide information concerning project proposals, identify potential community impacts, and propose possible siting incentives or mitigation measures. E.3. The City shall assure adequate public notice and participation in the siting of essential public facilities by reviewing these facilities through a conditional use process, allowing the identification of community impacts and mitigation measures. Because the City's normal notification requirements may not provide for adequate public notice to the project's impact area, the project sponsor shall develop a public participation plan designed to encourage early public involvement in the siting decision and identification of impacts and mitigation measures. EA. The City shall develop decision criteria for the siting of essential public facilities which allow the sponsor to demonstrate: EA.a. the need for the facility, EA.b. its consistency with adopted plans and policies, EA.c. its location is designed to serve its service population, EA.d. its location criteria is compatible with the siting of other essential public facilities, EA.e. the site is physically suitable for the facility, and EA.f. the project is able to mitigate community impacts. E.5. City policies and procedures — including any conditional use process — shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the admonition contained in the Growth Management Act that no development plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. Concurrency Management Goal F. Provide a system of concurrency management that will assure that the facilities needed to support city services are provided in a timely and coordinated manner. F.1. For transportation facilities, assure that the facilities or services needed to meet level -of -service standards are in place at the time of development, or assure that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. These facilities or services must be provided by either the City or the appropriate public or private developer. F.2 For park facilities, new growth or development will create additional demand for park facilities. Fees collected from the "Park Impact Fee" can only be appied to projects resulting from city-wide development growth and cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the parks system. Capital Facilities 143 Packet Pg. 147 6.B.e Implementation Actions and Performance Measures Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority sustainability goals. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan contains a small number performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains a small number performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an annual basis. They are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of each major Comprehensive Plan element. The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above criteria and being important to capital facilities goals and will be reported annually, along with performance measures for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the City may use for capital facilities purposes. Implementation Action: Develop level of service standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive Plan. Performance Measure: Project delivery results - based on comparing projects in the Capital Facilities Plan to what is actually done on the projects. Capital Facilities 144 Packet Pg. 148 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and discuss the extended agenda. Narrative Extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 11-09-2016 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 149 of EbAf U� O�6 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLANNNS o CARDD M/p, Extended Agenda November 9, 2016 Meeting Item NOVEMBER 2016 Nov. 9 1. Public Hearing/Discussion on Civic Center Master Plan 2. Public Hearing on 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Nov. 23 Cancelled — Holiday DECEMBER 2016 Dec. 14 1. Public Hearing on the Draft Highway 99 Area Plan 2. Election of Officers Dec. 28 Cancelled — Holiday JANUARY 2017 Jan. 11 1. Presentation on UW/Forterra plan for Five Corners Jan. 25 FEBRUARY 2017 Feb. 8 Feb. 22 MARCH 2O17 March 8 March 22 Packet Pg. 150 Items ana Dates are 9.A.a to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2016 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including: ✓ Five Corners 3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary) Topics 2. Election of Officers (VY meeting in December) 3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary) Packet Pg. 151