Public Document Library Table of Contents
Note that the following text was scanned in from hardcopy using optical character recognition (OCR), so there may be some minor errors.
Denise Derr, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl and Rodgers Park, thanked Dewey Potter and Park staff for their hard work to improve the public involvement policy. Ms. Derr presented a letter to the Board regarding the draft "New Public Involvement Policy Progress Report." The general observations expressed in her letter included: a public involvement policy cannot substitute for an environmental review process, it cannot substitute clear leadership to resolve matters of conflicting park policy and it should strive for meaningful citizen participation. Ms. Derr presented seven points to improve the public involvement process: confirmation of actual notice, follow official channels of communication, accurate signage, encourage attendance, facilitate education, sensitivity training and comprehensive follow-up.
Sharon Levine, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl, has concerns about the 300 feet contact requirement. There are certain kinds of parks which may cause impacts much further away than 300 feet, whether it be noise, traffic, trash or lack of community use of the park. The Friends of Queen Anne Bowl had asked for a larger contact area. Ms. Levine thinks the Department needs to be more responsive. The most important thing during public comment periods is that there be an independent facilitator; someone not associated with the project, to make for a fair process. People need to feel that the outcome is not already pre-ordained and the meeting is not just being held to satisfy public policy.
Dewey Potter, Parks and Recreation Public Relations Manager, briefed the Board on the progress of the "New Public Involvement Policy." 1,400 surveys were mailed out with 107 being returned. The overall results were positive. The new policy represents a major commitment by the Department to actively inform and engage the community in its efforts to building and maintaining a world-class park system. In the fa]] of 1998 the Department worked with a citizen advisory panel to revise the policy. Following discussions with the panel, public workshops were conducted throughout the city. Using the workshop comments a new policy was drafted, reviewed with interested members of the public, the Park Board and the City Council Culture, Arts and Parks Committee, and adopted by the City Council on July 1, 1999. A commitment was made at that time to evaluate the policy after one year of use and to recommend any needed changes. Following up on this commitment, the department undertook an evaluation of the new policy in October 2000 with a two-fold purpose: to determine whether the new policy is working, both internally and externally, and more specifically, to identify whether the public involvement mechanisms in the new policy are working we]] or not.
After one year in use, it is known that the policy will not satisfy the desires or agendas of everyone. For example, there are still individuals who believe the standard distance from a park for notification should be more than 300 feet. The 300 feet notification area is around the park not just the project site. The community organizations, community centers, the Neighborhood District Council and community newspapers are also notified as well as public notices posted in the neighborhood. Dewey will check to see if advisory councils are also notified. The Department believes, consistent with the Zoning Code, that 300 feet is sufficient given that there are multiple communication mechanisms in use. The multi-media approach was found to be working effectively. The Seattle Parks web site is underused. Department staff reports they have a good understanding of the new public involvement policy and are applying it to their work. More thorough review of public involvement plans at Project Steering is necessary.
Public meetings and processes require excellent public facilitation and speaking skills. Many project managers felt they could increase the effectiveness of the new policy if facilitation training could be provided to improve their presentation skills. Several staff members felt training on effective decision-making processes would also help improve public processes. There is a city public speaking and facilitation training course called "NOY A" that is available to the departments. Funds are available for staff to be trained in 200f.--Ken Bounds stated conscious decisions are made regarding meeting facilitators having more neutrality. On particular projects, a facilitator is hired to conduct the meetings.
Several other city departments undertake work in the parks that affects neighboring communities and stakeholders. Each department has its own public notification and involvement process and most are different from the standards set forth in the Parks new policy. The end result has been confusion and lost creditability with the community. The Department is taking substantial steps toward consistency among departments. There is an agreement with Seattle Public Utilities under which it follows the Parks policy when doing work on park property; this has improved communication with other departments and has improved sensitivity to the need for the policy.
In public processes, the Department presents a proposed course of action for evaluation with the benefit and guidance of public input. There can be disagreement over the outcome ultimately chosen. The new policy, while it ensures that public input is a key part of our decision-making process, will not resolve disagreements with outcomes. For those who disagree with outcomes, no amount of process would be adequate.
Based on the results of the policy evaluation, the Department believes the policy is working for both external and internal audiences without major cost increases. Based on this, no major policy revisions are recommended. The evaluation results did point out one area where a minor policy adjustment should be made, and several actions to increase the effectiveness of the policy have been identified. The Department agrees that internal committee meetings open to one stakeholder group also be open to other stakeholder groups in a comparable manner when competing interests are clearly involved.
Recommended actions include: the web site should be more aggressively marketed; implement a system to track and record public involvement costs; facilitation and decision-making training should be provided to staff called upon to interact with the public or lead public processes; actions should be undertaken to ensure participants of public processes are notified about the outcomes or when key milestones have been reached; the Department will work to ensure good direction from the Project Steering Committee to project managers on approved public involvement plans and if project budgets can support the cost, display ads in neighborhood papers would enhance public involvement opportunities or outcomes; project mailing lists should be located in a centralized area for easy access by all staff and the new policy should be distributed more broadly to community members and organizations. Department staff are at work on a draft of a public involvement brochure that explains the new policy and opportunities available to participate with Seattle Parks in user friendly format. Efforts are being made to not have the policy too cumbersome.
The Department of Neighborhoods issues a monthly calendar of meetings which is mailed out to a large list of citizens and community organizations. Parks tries to get its meetings listed on that calendar. The Project Managers are doing better planning public meetings into their schedule so there is adequate time for public notification. First line field staff are given publications to pass out when approached by a citizen or when they see a park policy infraction, i.e. dog leash and scoop law. The Development Division conducts CORE meetings where everyone who is interested in the project can address their concerns at the design stage.
The Board appreciated the update and asked Dewey to report back to the Board next year, including how the training helped staff to facilitate public meetings.
Sand Point / Magnuson Park—An open house is scheduled December 2 to update the community on project accomplishments over the past year, as well as on current and future projects.
Sportsfield lighting—The Park Board acknowledge receipt of a letter form Councilman Nick Licata regarding sportsfield lighting. The Hearing Examiner will make a ruling which is expected the end of October. [The Hearing Examiner file number for this case is W-00-011] A vote before the Landlord/Tenant and Land Use committee is possible in early November with a full Council vote to follow later in November.
by Barbara Guptill, Co-President, League of Women Voters
Barbara Guptill distributed copies of "Keeping the Green in Seattle 2000" to the Board members. The League customarily picks out several topics to study each year. The studies are done by committee, often formed for that specific purpose, or occasionally by an action committee who will get an interest of their own. When the League has new studies they often have a forum of speakers on the topic after the study is completed. They hold discussion meetings with all organizations throughout the city and discuss questions and arrive at a consensus. After the League gets to consensus it writes a position and that position is the basis for all of the League's action, e.g. when the League testifies before the City Council or before other legislative agencies.
"Keeping the Green" was a study that came out in 1991. Its intent was to look at how much green space Seattle had. Green space is a hard thing to define as it includes parks, cemeteries, golf courses, street landscaping, street ends and roof gardens. Alexandra Pye chaired the committee. Since 1991 there have been significant changes in open space in Seattle. Near the end of the decade, Ms. Pye decided it was time to review the study and begin an update as it was felt there would be a parks bond measure on the ballot in the near future and the League wanted to have current information. The Study Committee was comprised of Alexandra Pye, Catherine Anstett, Judy Buchan, Lynn Ferguson, Donald Harris, Eleanor Laxdall, Cliff Marks, T. J. Moore, Patricia Stambor and Ethel Williams. The committee worked very hard on "Keeping the Green" and is very proud of the study.
The report originally intended to compare what the city had gained and lost in green space in the 1990's. It is not possible to make comparisons because of changes in the past decade in databases, search instruments, government personnel and departments, and reliable data. However, it can be indicated what public open space was gained in the 1990's with some indication of land preserved, through both private and public efforts. Green space was gained in P-Patches and parkland but lost some shorelines and a lot of tree canopies.
The League's position on open space is: "Support of preservation, acquisition, and enhancement of open spaces, selected ecosystems and environmentally sensitive areas, and promotion of environmental awareness and sense of stewardship in the public. 1990, 1991, 1999. The Keeping the Green Committee recommendations fall into two categories: funding and city governance (which includes planning, decision making, and implementation). The city budget should include funds for land acquisition, ongoing maintenance and stewardship (including help to citizens who wish to donate land, money, or to use other forms of land preservation). The League of Women Voters is supporting the Parks Levy and hopes people will read "Keeping the Green in Seattle 2000" and really feel how important the green space is in Seattle.
The city and the Park Department should develop a long-range plan with the following goals in mind: to restore, retain and increase Seattle's emerald image" of green, open space, and waterways. Included should be public places for active recreation, quiet places for contemplation, social contact, wildlife and plant observation and learning, emphasizing a diversity of plant and wildlife. In the new millennium, the Park Department might take the long view of a park Master Plan (with the foresight of the Olmsteds) that could lay the groundwork for the next: 100 years of park development. A balance should be maintained as a city policy between sports fields, buildings, and quiet places. The latter is particularly important in our increased density of buildings and concrete. Forest management should be a high priority for the park system. All of the above need sufficient staff and funding to carry out these plans. To help, partnerships should be continued with citizen volunteer groups, park staff and business.
The League's Land Use Committee follows such things as the Denny Triangle and the transfer of development rights and is worried whether the city will lose or gain green space in each of the transactions that will take place in the future.
There needs to be clarification of the role of citizens and of the Parks Department when the City is asking for public comment or working with citizens on a project.. Stronger leadership from all decision makers is needed, to maintain a balance between areas reserved for active sports programs and areas for non-structured activities, such as nature observation and informal sports, keeping the goal of service to the whole community paramount. Decisions should be made in a deliberative manner with adequate information from a broad range of citizens. In the past citizens felt there were contacted too late in the process and that their input was not used or even considered seriously. Planning and city resources should shift back to looking at the city as a whole. The 1990's focused on neighborhoods, which was important, however, one third of the city is not in the neighborhood planning areas, and a more holistic approach is now needed. Schools and parks should make a greater effort to work together toward common use of the school and park playground and fields. This shift not only brings better use of limited open space, but it is also more fiscally responsible.
The Department of Design, Construction and Land Use should not weaken its role as the gatekeeper and enforcer of regulations of codes of the city. The 1996 State Regulatory Reform Act relating to early review determination should be reevaluated for its effectiveness for the welfare of all citizens in the city. The city should apply the same environmental standards to public lands in environmentally critical areas as it applies top private lands in environmentally criticalareas. We have to take care of what we have very well.
In implementation, the League sees there could be a lot of flexibility. One of the things that the study showed in the last decade was the increasing new role of private organizations like the Trust for Public Lands and Land Conservancy and their activity in Seattle. There has been increased cooperation between the public and private sectors to develop creative ways to develop and maintain green space. The League thinks those efforts should be encouraged in any way possible. Developing a citywide coalition of environmental groups can encourage the efforts.
The purpose of this coalition might be advocacy for acquisition and stewardship for land preservation. The coalition could exchange information, work together in restoration and maintenance efforts in the parks, and provide educational field trips for children and adults in the parks. There is a need for an outreach program and funding for the resources to help citizens who wish to donate land for preservation but need guidance as to how to go about it.
The report is a summary and reference for the year 2000. It is hoped that it will stimulate others to do more work on the some of the areas the League was not able to cover and that someone will take another look at it in 2010 to see what changes have occurred in green space.
After the election, the League hopes to get back to some serious discussions about the idea of a long-range plan and make a recommendation of how that could happen.
The Board appreciates the Leagues' efforts and thanked Barbara Guptill and the League for doing a terrific job. Donald Harris stated it was a pleasure to work with the League and it was amazing to see a group of volunteers put in the kind of work they did. The League has sent several copies to the City Council with a cover note. The Park Board will discuss the report with the members of the City Council Cultural, Arts and Parks Committee at an upcoming brown bag lunch.
Three notebooks, 98% pictorial, entitled "Seattle Fields," "Tracks of Seattle and Shoreline" and "Facilities 2000," were presented to the Board. The books will be circulated to the Board members for approximately two months. The books were completed to provide information to individuals and organizations of the sports fields conditions in the City of Seattle. It is not intended to single out any organization but to serve as an educational and learning tool for individuals and their governmental agencies.
Mr. Killien has worked with various department staff including Margaret Anthony, Mickey Merriam, Mike Mirante, Herbye White, Ted Holden and Patti Petesch. He expressed his concern for the track and field conditions throughout the park system. He urged the city to think in terms of tri-county field usage. North Seattle could more conveniently utilize fields in the city of Shoreline. Mr. Killien praised the new Sealth track but thinks the throwing area at Hale is dangerous and poorly designed. The new area at Hale is already being repaired. He believes fields should no longer be grass. He cited a recent expenditure by King County for renovating two unlit grass soccer fields by adding new irrigation systems at a cost of over $1,000,000. Mr. Killien also stressed the importance of getting public control of the 3 million square feet of "cow pasture" fields and asphalt area that is currently "out there." There are asphalt areas that have sufficient space to be converted into athletic fields. He further questioned if soft lids on reservoirs would save money and thinks they would be a mistake. Mr. Killien believes neighborhood community clubs do not fully represent their neighborhoods as only a few people speak on behalf of the whole neighborhoods. He cited the recent voter approval of creating a complex of high quality fields, including the lighting of school fields, being held up by a small group of people.
Mr. Killien has tried to work with the Seattle School District regarding fields to no avail. The University of Washington has acreage that could also be used. The fields belong to the taxpayers. Mr. Killien urged improved parks and school relationships, joint use agreements, contacting other neighboring cities including Shoreline, and developing tri-county field use. He will be going on a "fly-by" in the near future and will continue to update the field books.
Kathleen Warren publicly thanked Phil Killien for his dedicated work regarding the tracks and fields and for preparing the notebooks which were done at his own expense.
Benella Caminiti, distributed at copy of an August 10, 2000 article from "USA Today" regarding urban park ratings. Seattle earned 3 stars, has the most generous per capita budget for parks and recreation. It spends $164 a year for each of its 525,000 residents. Ms. Caminiti is very concerned with the property tax increases as many elderly are finding it difficult to retain their residences. It was also noted that it is difficult to see Lake Union from all the development.
The Superintendent informed the Board there are some issues with the percentage figures in the US Today article as Seattle Parks Department includes a Zoo, Aquarium, parks, open space and recreation and other cities do not.
Sarah Welch, Director of Finance and Administrative Services for the Department of Parks and Recreation, distributed copies of the Parks Proposed 2001/2002 Budget.
The Mayor will be forwarding the Budget to the City Council on September 25. The Mayor is not proposing any tax increase. The Base Budget additions include Coordinator for Teen Life Center, Langston Hughes Coordinator, Resource Conservation Coordinator and a Budget position. New Recreation Programs include: 7-day week operations in 8 community centers and a morning swim at Rainier Beach. New facility additions include Sand Point, South Lake Union, Cascade Building, Belltown Community Center and Zoo Bug World and African Gateway. New Neighborhood Parks include Jefferson Park Trail, Spokane Trail, E. C. Hughes Playfield, Lakewood Playground, Lincoln Park Play area, South Park Play Area, Sand Point Art Studios, Sand Point Off Leash, Sand Point Garden, Plumis Park, Ravenna Woods and Rainier Playfield. Capital Budget items include Aquarium redevelopment, Sand Point Roofs, Langston Hughes Elevator and SAAM seismic.
The total proposed budget for 2001 is $90.2M. Total Proposed Budget for 2002 is $93.4M. Pie charts were attached to the handout showing the budget by line of business and distribution of proposed major maintenance Capital Improvement Program by program.
The Board will participate in the City Council budget hearings which will be held in November.
Michael Shiosaki acknowledged the e-mail received from Kevin Cole regarding the Queen Anne Bowl lighting proposal and questioned what is contained in the Joint Athletic Field Development Plan. The JAFDP was adopted by the Council that states lighting the Queen Anne Bowl is a recommended project. That went through a public meeting process. The plan is being updated now and we will be going back to the City Council with revisions. The Sports Review Committee has gone through a process with user groups and made preliminary recommendations including field surfaces, off street parking. field configurations. The Department is doing a lighting study, developing criteria of trends, determining the distribution of lit fields and what purpose they are serving. There will be a public process regarding the JAFDP update.
The current 5-year joint use agreement expires August 31, 2000. The joint use agreement is a document that delineates how the Parks Department and the Seattle School District will share use of their respective facilities to maximize the recreational opportunities for Seattle youth and community members.
Patti Petesch, Manager, Recreation Programs, stated the Parks Department makes use of the school district's gyms and cafeterias and is making greater use of district fields and facilities as they are upgraded particularly the new levy funded athletic fields. The school district makes use of Park Department swimming pools, sportsfields and tennis courts. Most of this time is programmed through local schools and community centers. The coordinators agree on requests and process permits for each school year. They also at the end of the year count all hours and discuss to see that joint use is working.
Joint use is made possible because the value of services is equal to both. The agreement provides a way to exchange space and each agency calculates the value of space being used.
Ammon McWashington, Seattle School District, stated the agreement goes beyond athletics. Parks are used for recess and lunch and we would not have a swimming program if not for parks facilities.
Fritz Hedges stated we are dependent on the school district to run our programs. We use their gymnasiums extensively and we are making more and more use of school district fields. Cooperation goes beyond joint use. We have mutual goals in wanting to serve the same population. One example of a program that is highly dependent on joint use is the youth basketball program. We could not run this program without this joint use agreement.
Comments/Questions:
Karen Daubert asked for clarification on the requirement of notification if any major changes--any definition of major change?
Is the Joint Athletic Development Field program separate fTom this agreement or part of this discussion? The Joint Athletics Facilities Plan is a separate document that went through a separate process. For example, the West Seattle stadium is not in the document but the document will speak to this by addressing how scheduling will occur.
Stephen Lundgren: City Neighborhood Council, Seattle Community Council Federation, stated the demand for community space is at a premium. We can go further with publicizing schedules and giving more definition into what is major change. Lighting and the impact on adjoining residences is a major issue. The Federation will discuss the agreement further and get back to the Department with additional comments.
Kevin Cole stated his concerns about scheduling. Youth have priority for scheduling and would like to see youth league and adult use spelled out in the agreement. Is there any policy that Seattle users of fields come first? The Parks Department has been responsive to the community's concerns regarding traffic, lighting and pick up of trash.
Kathleen Warren commented people that use fields live all over the area. Teams are formed in a variety of ways and how can you limit use to Seattle residents.
There is no residency requirement for use of our fields. Most of our fields were approved by Forward Thrust funds and it is stipulated in those funds that there be no residency requirements.
Kevin Cole stated he would like to see some monitoring and limiting of regional use. A King County youth sports facility grant was awarded for improvements at the Queen Anne Bowl and the improvements were meant to serve the community.
Margaret Ceis stated it seems self defeating to limit to local play.
Renee Barton, Seattle Residents for Fair School Lighting, stated when the neighborhood asks for consideration regarding lighting issues, they are told to talk to the School District
and their response in in turn is to talk to the Parks Department. The result is no opportunity for the neighborhoods to voice their concerns. Instead of a bilateral agreement, would like to see a trilateral agreement between neighborhood citizens, parks and schools. Citizens in each neighborhood where fields exist need to be involved.
The concern is that there continue to be drop in use available to the neighborhoods next to sports fields. Fields should not be reserved to those who can pay the highest fee. Youth participants pay nothing and adults pay fees based on per hour charge.
Keith Hoeller, Seattle Residents for Fair School Lighting, added neighbors are going to bare the brunt of impacts. Please include neighbors in decisions to increase use and discussions between parks and schools.
Susan Stern, Magnolia Community Club, asked why lights are on at 11 :00 p.m. and no one is playing at Magnolia Playfield. Patti Petesch responded the Department does not have staff available to check each field and turn out lights if no one shows up. Participants pay for the use of the field whether they show up or not.
_Sharon LaVine commented an important part of the agreement should be rules of usage. As fields come on line, there needs to be a way to address the concerns of the neighborhood. There is a different impact between games and practice. Large events at fields should be scheduled in areas not surrounded by homes. Please look at how we can minimize the impacts.
Bruce Bentley stated with added new facilities, there will be a need for more staffing.
The School District use by order of priority is school use, school athletic use and Park Department use after 5:30. For the Parks Department, youth are first then the School District programs and adult programs last.
Charles Prestard stated concerns with the agreement are fear that after facilities are upgraded, adult leagues will displace some of the casual use. There is no provision to safeguard neighborhood drop in use.
Margaret Ceis stated neighbors of fields should talk directly to the leagues rather than go through the Parks Department or Schools.
ORAL REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE The Joint Athletic Development Program can only be facilitated if the joint use agreement is in order.
SandPoint/Magnuson Park: The Sandpoint Community Liaison Committee voted to ask the City Council to undertake an EIS for the entire peninsula before any projects, including the off leash area is commenced.
Sandpoint/Magnuson Park Tour: The Board agreed to schedule a tour of the park before an update. The update scheduled for July 27 has been tentatively moved to August 26 or a September meeting. It was suggested that the Board schedule a tour in lieu of a meeting.
In response to recent discussions with Margaret Ceis several financial snapshots were assembled to provide a big picture of the Department. The Board was presented a small spreadsheet that provides several items - 20 year overview of the operating budget amounts, accumulated impacts of inflation vs. real growth on the current budget, revenue sources by actual dollars and by percentages and personnel growth.
Several other financial items included:
The Revenue Sources chart shows the largest chunk of funding is the city's General Fund. Other revenue composition is primarily made up of fees and charges followed by bonds, levies, intergovernmental, concessions and rentals, Interfund / NMF and miscellaneous donations.
The Department's budget binder is presented to the Budget Office and City Council approves the budget in November. It is anticipated that the City is intending to fund level of service and nothing extra. Seven day operation of community centers as well as funding needed for opening new facilities that the City Council has added to our system such as new trails and new community centers is being proposed.
Sandpoint added 50 percent of new facilities space yet the budget allocation did not increase.
We have neighborhood parks that are being created and developed and need funds in order to open.
The Board agreed to form a Budget Subcommittee to keep in contact with preparation of the Department's budget and provide input form the Board. The Subcommittee will include Karen Daubert, Michael Shiosaki and Margaret Ceis.
COMPLAN (Seattle's Park and Recreation Plan): The Council's Culture Arts and Parks (CAP) committee has been briefed. The Council hearing was on May 31. There were some comments from those opposed to the Magnolia Playfield project. Staff met with Councilmember Nick Licata to review the public hearing comments and to identify areas of concern. The Council's CAP Committee will review and vote on legislation to adopt the plan on June 14.
Susan Stern, Magnolia Community Club, on behalf of the Magnolia Community, voiced opposition to two of the capital improvements identified in the Mayor's proposal that are proposed for Magnolia. The two projects are being put forward without any meaningful community input. Rather than having been derived from a community based neighborhood plan they are being imposed on us through the Parks Department's recent "Comprehensive Plan". The proposed ball field at Magnolia Elementary School Play Field is a regulation ball field and this was not disclosed during the public meeting. There are light pollution issues and the community would like a lighting study. This site has never been o_ a list of community based facilities until recently and is not likely to be supported by a majority of residents in Magnolia. Smith Cove: Although there has been some previous discussions of park improvements at Smith Cove on the Navy's property, there is no consensus within the community or with surrounding property owners as to what should go there. VVe ask that as you consider the Mayor's proposal, you delete any appropriations directed towards improvements at the Smith Cove playfield site and the Magnolia Elementary School play field site until after those of us living and working here have been given an opportunity to participate in a community based neighborhood planning process. (copy of letter to City Council distributed).
Don Harper, Queen Anne Community Council and Queen Anne Bowl Stewardship Committee, commented on the March 20 Queen Anne Bowl public meeting regarding the proposal to increase the annual allowable scheduled hours at the athletic field. What is the criteria on how we involve the community in such decisions? How are notes from the meeting conveyed to the Department? Ken Bounds responded the issue is disagreement over our decision. It is not acceptable to not receive information. There will be an evaluation of the public process in June. Susan Stem added notices of the public meeting were posted on the school fence and flyers were dropped off at the Magnolia Community Club for them to distribute. There was no mailing of flyers announcing the meeting.
Sharon LeVine, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl, commented on the Board's revisions to the COMPLAN. When the Board takes a vote to remove a line item, the vote should be a unanimous decision. She stated the Board's role is to balance each constituency when voting on the off leash area for dogs item.
Joint Athletic Facilities Plan Update: The update will include a more comprehensive review of lighting and how to manage lighting at each site. The system that was to improve the control of lighting is not working and will be revisited.
The Board continued their discussions of revisions to the draft COMPLAN. based on the public comments received. The revised plan has been submitted to the Council and a public hearing is scheduled for May 31. At their last meeting, the Board suggested changes to Page 56 and Page 53 and recommend the following revisions:
Page 56:
SF12 Update the Joint Athletic Field Development Program. Consider improvements to selected fields (such as use of synthetic turf and floodlighting) to increase scheduling capacity. Where adverse impacts are identified in public involvement processes mitigation will be implemented as appropriate.
Page 53:
CC5Continue to maintain and modernize existing community centers throughout Seattle. In particular, provide for ADA accessibility improvements and other work to meet current recreational needs. Review existing recreational uses and guidelines relative to centers to evaluate. prioritize and plan the need for improvements to older facilities such as Alki, Rainier Beach, Queen Anne, Magnolia, Loyal Heights and others.
Margaret will prepare a statement and letter to City Council with the Board's recommendations before the public hearing on May 31.
Denise Derr, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl / Rodgers Park commented on the Draft COMPLAN relating to the validity of the sportsfield statement. She requested the entire ststemetn be removed or include all the statement, not a portion, in the COMPLAN
Bruce Bentley inquired about the Sand Point/Magnuson Park Community Center component. The Superintendent reported the Department is seeking City Council approval to hire a recreation coordinator for the center.. Bruce wondered if the center would become a part of Associated Recreation Council. Chair Ceis suggested the Board be updated on the Sand Point Magnuson Park plans.
Some members of the Park Board toured athletic fields to view lighting on May 8 with department staff members Tom Ostrom and Patti Petesch. A draft letter to the Council was reviewed by the Board asking the Council to support the proposed Lighting Text Amendment to the Land Use Code that will allow taller light standards on school athletic fields. The higher light poles placed closer to the perimeter of the playing fields would improve the quality of light on the playing surface and reduce spillover and glare for near neighbors. The Department of Construction and Land Use makes the decision for safety and glare impacts.
A motion was approved to send a letter to the City Council that recommends approval of the installation of higher poles with state of the art lighting to decrease glare and increase safety, consistent with present standards of city park athletic fields. A revised letter will be drafted for review at the next Board meeting.
Kevin Stoops distributed copies of "Seattle's Parks and Recreation Plan 2000 Revisions to March 2000 Draft" to the Board members. The changes address issues raised by the public or other city departments. Other minor changes to the plan are not noted but have been made to clarify text and correct format. Page references are to the May 2000 Revised Draft.
The Plan has been submitted to the City Council via the Law Department. A briefing of the Culture, Arts and Parks Committee is scheduled for May 24. There is a Council briefing slated for May 31. The Culture, Arts and Parks Committee will review the Plan on June 14 with full Council discussion slated for June 19. The final version will be forward to lAC by June 23. The draft is available to the public for review in local libraries, community centers and on the city's web site. It was also noted there are better maps in the new version.
The top of Page 4 states "Improve sportsfields to ensure playability. Improvements such as synthetic turf and lighting on selected fields will be considered to increase scheduling capacity where appropriate and where adverse neighborhood impacts as identified in public involvement processes can be mitigated. Such improvements will be identified in an update to the Joint Athletic Field Development Program. Kathleen Warren suggested the second sentence be changed to read: "Improvements such as synthetic turf and lighting will be considered to increase scheduling capacity. Efforts to minimize adverse neighborhood impacts would be considered."
The Board approved a motion generally accepting Seattle's Park and Recreation Plan 2000.
The Board members were asked to provide specific wording on the recommendation at the next Board meeting.
Denise Derr expressed concern with the negative impacts associated with the Queen Anne Bowl development and use. The artificial surface was installed without the surrounding community's knowledge. The Joint Athletic Field Development Program states the intention for lights at the Queen Anne Bowl. Two years ago, many people voiced their opposition to the installation of lights. The department then issued a statement saying it had embarked with various sports organizations on a strategy to increase the safety and playability of the city's fields without acquiring more land. The June 13, 1998 document also states that the project does not include lighting the field, installing bleachers or a concession facility. The Joint Athletic Field Development Program states the intention for lights at Queen Anne Bowl. In December of 1997, the City Council adopted Res. 329681 endorsing the 1997 athletics program which earmarked $219,6000 of future funds for lights. There is no evidence showing a concern of the negative impacts on the surrounding communities.
The Complan, Page 27, #7 language is obsolete with the development of new field surface technologies. The natural environment of the Bowl must be considered. Rodgers Park and the Bowl are a contiguous piece of open space. The Bowl's topography functions as an amplification system which further impacts the surrounding community. Traffic safety is a concern. The recent expansion of Bowl hours did not take community concerns into account. With the issuing of the Complan 2000, as well as the Pro Parks 2000 initiative, Ms. Derr stated the time has come to amend the Joint Athletic Fields Development Program and eliminate lighting at the Queen Anne Bowl.
Sharon LeVine, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl, expressed displeasure of the March 20
Queen Anne Bowl public meeting notes. Many people did a lot of research and the notes do not reflect their testimony. Ms. LeVine suggested the Joint Athletic Fields Development Program be listed/attached to the appendix of the Complan. She urged language be included stating specifically what is planned. A list of questions will be prepared that the Department can respond to with copies of the questions and answers distributed to the Board members. Sharon invited the Board to view the Bowl from her home. She encouraged guidelines be developed which would minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods for fields.
Kevin Stoops distributed-copies of recommended revisions. A Park Board public hearing was held on April 13. The Complan Update is due to lAC by June 23. The Law Department will review the update prior to going before the Council on May 15. There is a Council public hearing scheduled for May 31. The Culture, Arts and Parks Committ_e is scheduled to review the plan on June 14 with their recommendation coming before the full City Council on June 19.
The Plan name will be changed to Seattle's Park and Recreation Plan 2000: An Update to the 1993 Parks COMPLAN.
The mission statement is being revised to read: Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation will work with all citizens to be good stewards of our environment, and to provide safe and welcoming opportunities to play, learn, contemplate and build community.
Language will be added giving priority to investment in neighborhoods experiencing or about to undergo population growth.
The Alki, Laurelhurst and Montlake community centers have not been included in the two recent levies and the plan should include recommendations for improvement of such centers. The plan recommends planning for replacement ofLaurelhurst and Montlake but new language is recommended to address renovation needs. A copy of Jackie Ramels letter and petitions regarding the Alki Community Center was distributed to the Board. A copy was given to Kevin Stoops and copies will be forwarded to the City Council.
#17, Further Planning, Karen Daubert suggests deleting "on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis"wording as master planning would be for entire system.
#8, Skateboards, language change suggested to state... work toward the development of skateboard parks at selected park and playground sites.
Key strategies should be included in Appendix F "Pro Parks 2000 Citizens Committee Funding Proposal.
#7, Dogs Off Leash, language "desirable in each sector of the city"may be revised. Non-park property should also be considered as sites.
#11, Sportsfields - concerns about improvements and use increases have been expressed at public meetings. Kathleen Warren suggests deleting "but only" so statement will read: Improvements such as synthetic turf and lighting on selected fields will be considered to increase scheduling capacity where appropriate and where adverse neighborhood impacts as identified in public involvement processes can be minimized.
Chair Ceis suggested Board members review the recommended revisions as noted in the April 27 Kevin Stoops and Kate Kaehny memo and send their comments directly to the Kevin, given the timeframe. The Board will discuss the Plan and make a recommendation at its May 11 meeting. Kevin will prepare and distribute the final draft Plan 2000.
Sand Point - Staff briefed the Culture, Arts and Parks Committee on April 26. Board members were invited to watch Channel 21 to view the briefing.
Ballfield Lighting - City Council members, staff, aides and staff from the Department of Construction and Land Use visited sites at Ingraham, Nathan Hale/Summit and Bothell to compare the low impact ballfield lighting with higher impact/older technology. The Park Board will be touring the ballfields with School Board members on May 8, meeting at Dexter at 7:30 p.m. Karen Daubert, Margaret Ceis and Kathleen Warren are planning to attend.
Sharon LeVine, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl, attended the March 20 Queen Anne Bowl public meeting regarding the proposal to increase the annual allowable scheduled hours at the athletic field. Sharon expressed displeasure with the public meeting minutes. She suggested the meeting should have been tape recorded and accurate minutes transcribed. Many people did a lot of research and the minutes do not reflect their testimony. Sharon suggested the research should be attached to the minutes as part of the record. Sharon stated the policies and procedures are not working and need to be reviewed.
Sharon LeVine objects to the Pro Parks/Opportunity Fund section regarding athletic fields. There is no mention of the Queen Anne Bowl. Every other project listed in the Joint Athletic Fields Development Plan is listed. She recommends every project be listed in the bond issue that is going to be voted on. Sharon also recommends a section could be added that says the Queen Anne Off-Leash Area site to be purchased.
Jay Magruder attended the Queen Anne Bowl public meeting on March 20. Jay was surprised after reading the meeting minutes that a sizable portion of the people testifying were not included and the testimony that is recorded was highly abbreviated. Jay expressed concern that people who are opposed to any further development of Queen Anne Bowl were cut off while giving testimony..
Jay Magruder informed the Board on one occasion he notified department staff of irrigation flooding the end fields at Queen Anne Bowl which was damaging the newly planted grass while sitting under I" of water and it took three weeks for any action via the Athletic Field Coordinator.
Queen Anne Bowl: The Superintendent reviewed letters, e-mail, scheduling information, a comparative analysis of use patterns, staff monitoring of the Bowl as well as the meeting minutes before making a decision to increase the Queen Anne Bowl hours from 800 to 1,200. This increase in hours will allow youth soccer camps in the summer, youth soccer play in December and some additional adult soccer play.
Kathleen Warren expressed appreciation for the increased hours at Queen Anne Bowl and the difficulty of reaching that decision. The large contingent of sports field users at the Queen Anne Bowl meeting further demonstrates the need to install that type of field surface in other areas. The Superintendent reminded the Board that synthetic fields surfaces will be completed in September at Jane Addams, Nathan Hale and Sealth. The School District is proposing lighting installation. The Board has been invited on a field trip to view Bothell and Bellevue field lighting on April 19.
Kate Kaehny, Parks Planner, distributed copies of a summary of feedback and record of public comments taken from the three COMPLAN Update public meetings recently held. Copies of the draft were distributed to libraries, community centers and neighborhood services centers the week of March 6 and were posted to the Department's wen page on March 10. A flyer was mailed to approximately 600 individuals and organizations on the Department of Neighborhoods mailing list and to a number of other parks and recreation stakeholders. The meetings were also advertised in eleven weekly neighborhood newspapers and in a press release issued to others. The Planning Commission was briefed on March 30. The Park Board was briefed on March 23 and the Public Hearing is scheduled for this evening with a Board discussion and recommendation slated for April 27.
Approximately 75 people, in total, attended the meetings. Key concerns raised include requests for funding Alki, Laurelhurst and Montlake Community Center improvements, questions about how capital priorities are set, concerns abput sportsfield improvements and subsequent increases in use, the need to return an Olmsted character to Jefferson Park, the need for more off-leash dog areas, and a need for skateboard parks in the park system.
The Department is currently developing recommendations for revisions to the draft COMPLAN based on the public comments received. Once a draft is developed, the revised plan will be submitted to the Council in May. The Superintendent reminded the Park Board that the update was designed to remove projects and initiatives that have been completed and to incorporate within the COMPLAN other planning efforts such as Sand Point, South Lake Union, Joint Athletic Facilities Development Plan, and others.
The COMPLAN needs to be updated on a regular basis according to the lAC. The Department received an extension last year based on the Neighborhood Planning process. The Update is due to lAC by June 2000.
Jay Magruder, Queen Anne resident, is against lighting for the Queen Anne Bowl. He stated the Update document is unclear as to what is specifically proposed for the Queen Anne Bowl and would like to request specifics be "called out" so citizens can understand the plan. Lighting will bring impacts to the community including pollution, traffic and noise. The biggest use is on the weekends and there is no staff available to clean up the park waste. People use the bushes as bathrooms. The rest station needs to be upgraded. 85 foot poles would make the lighting eye level to Queen Anne Bowl residents to the east and west. There are traffic issues which have not been solved, including illegal parking.
Sharon LeVine, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl/Rogers Park, informed the Board that off-leash areas are not mentioned in the Update and stated it is important to have a section on the off-leash areas (seven active and three proposed). Page 71 regarding Volunteer Park should be deleted. The Joint SchoolslParks Athletic Field Development Plan is referred to in the last page as a reference and should be included as part of the COMPLAN document as it impacts the quality of life in many neighborhoods. The language in the COMPLAN such as enhance, renovate, improve is not specific and does not let citizens know what is planned. It is important for the community to know if an artificial surface is planned for their neighborhood park as it changes zoning laws and the impact on the surrounding communities. The reference to the Queen Anne Plan is not complete in the Update. The Queen Anne Plan, #19, states "do not upgrade more Queen Anne facilities to attract users from other parts of the city, rather develop those facilities in the neighborhoods where they are needed, not Queen Anne. Parking is difficult, access to the hill is clogged." The complete language from the Plan needs to be included in the Update when it is referenced. The Park & Open Space Action Plan and Recommendations states "create no new regional facilities on Queen Anne Hill Top and North Slope.. .replace aging facilities and equipment to maintain existing mix of activities and facilities for Que<1n Anne residents." Ms. Levine stated the community wants to reopen the process.
Jeannie Hale, Laurelhurst Community Club, had comments in three areas - The Process, Mission Statement and Six Year Action Plan. The Process did not involve extensive public participation as was done during the preparation of the 1993 COMPLAN The staff has stated it is an administrative update. The public workshops were not well attended and those who attended were given a plan upon arrival with no opportunity to thoroughly review prior to commenting. Because the plan will serve as a basis of funding decisions for the next several years, citizen involvement and opportunity to review the plan is important. The Community Club objects to the revisions in the mission statement. It eliminates the department's commitment to conservation, eliminates commitment to citizen involvement efforts and includes serving visitors when it has difficulty serving citizens. The Six Year Action Plan should specifically list the projects from the '93 COMPLAN that have not been funded. An example is the 1993 Plan recommends expansion of the community center and a new gym. The 2000 draft lists the center expansion but no mention ofthe new gym. The City Light substation will be abandoned which provides an opportunity to expand the park and language of ACQ6 should be modified to incorporate this project. The proposed Blakely Crescent Park should be included in the Plan and also in Appendix E. It is listed as a key strategy in the neighborhood plan. The Seahawks contribution is intended to secure additional funding to complete the project. SA2 indicates the department will work with Pro Parks to expand funding for Aquarium. The Pro Parks Committee has not recommended funding for the Aquarium and that reference should be deleted. A new shoreline streetends program is being implemented and should be included in the COMPLAN. A copy of Ms. Hale's statement was distributed to the Board.
Chris Leman, Olmsted-Fairview Park Commission, stated the proposed new mission statement is in no way preferable to the current one. The plan is wise to recognize preventive maintenance and should be given higher priority throughout the plan as too often structures, lands, and habitat are allowed to deteriorate to a point that they either cannot be restored, or restoring them costs more than would a proper program of preventive maintenance. The policy for tree management needs substantial improvement. There is no mention of the important function that trees provide as wildlife habitat. Also recognition of the other environmental benefits of trees such as reducing air pollution and global climate change, moderating outdoor temperatures, and stabilizing soil and runoff need to be added. A commitment must be made to improve maintenance. Replanting with native species and control nuisance plants should receive greater priority.
The Parks Department should recognize not just consider neighborhood plan recommendations. Standards for the adequacy of parks for urban villages should be more firmly recognized and implemented in Parks Planning and the department should ensure that they are a part of the citywide COMPLAN. The table of census tracts with less than one third acre of open space per 100 residents should be expanded to list the neighborhoods that are within the listed census tracts. The Plan does support maintaining as open shoreline the submerged parcel in front of the former Lake Union Steam Plant and the public access floating pedestrian bridge at that location. The Plan should set in motion a process for protecting it for all time. The appendix leaves out three shoreline parks in the Eastlake neighborhood: Terry Pettus Park, Lynn Street Park, and Roanoke Street Park. There has been a serious drainage problem at the Rodgers Park for years and was recognized in the 1993 Plan. The ballot measure is not the way to fund Rodgers Playfield maintenance issues. It is not proposed to receive a dollar under the $160 million proposed ballot issue, only the $200 million proposal. Revenues that the Department receives should pay for major maintenance. Seward School has more students that ever before and the playfield is in jeopardy. The Neighborhood Plan gave high priority to two major issues: solve the drainage problem at Rodgers Park and create a new park under 1-5 south of Newton between Newton and Galer. Copies of the conceptual drawings and photographs of the proposed park were circulated. The Capitol Hill dog runs would be welcomed at the new park. A copy of Mr. Leman's letter of testimony will be distributed to the Board members.
Virginia Swanson, Special Events Coordinator, informed the Board of the need to develop guidelines for non-athletic use of sportsfields. There are two major festivals that use carnival equipment as part of their events. The Central Area Community Festival uses Garfield community center and playfield and the Soul Fest uses Rainier. Damage has occurred to department property as a result of the heavy carnival equipment.
About a year and a half ago, the department spent approximately $800,000 to renovate Garfield Playfield. The compaction of the heavy equipment and carnival rides contributed to drainage damage. The Central Area Community Festival has been asked to pay a portion of the drainage repair costs. Drainage repair work cannot occur until the weather improves. There may be a challenge to grow healthy grass prior to the event and before the beginning of the athletic season. Carnival use of the Garfield Playfield for the 2000 festival is not approved. The festival at Rainier may be changed to the hard surfaced area of Rainier Beach High School this year.
The Department is very supportive of the festivals and will work with the promoters to produce these valued community events. Guideline recommendations are as follows:
The proposed guidelines have been reviewed by department staff, will be finalized and presented to the Superintendent for approval.
Sand Point Open House / Workshop – March 25, 8:30 a.m. to Noon.
Kevin Stoops, Manager, Major Projects and Planning, distributed copies ofthe 2000 Update to the Department's Complan. The Complan is a comprehensive plan for parks and recreation that addressed the city's open space, park and recreation services for a 10 to 20 year time frame when it was first prepared in 1993. It was adopted by Council Resolution as a general guide and framework for decisions and policy directions affecting the future of Seattle's park and recreation system and represents a functional plan consistent with the City of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, "toward a Substainable Seattle - Seattle's Plan for Managing Growth."
This is the first update of the 1993 plan. This update is intended to be a living document through which changing conditions as well as ongoing public involvement can be considered in decisions affecting the future of the park and recreation system. The update is modeled on the "benchmarks" portion of the original Complan and repeats the department's Vision Statement and Policy Statement and outlines a new Six Year Action Plan for 2000-2006.
The State uses the Complan when making funding decisions. The city has received two extensions and the final plan is due to the State by June 23 to remain eligible for grant funding cycles. The current time line is to submit the draft plan to the Council on April 24. Public meetings will be held at Miller, Bitter Lake and Meadowbrook in the next few weeks. The plan will be posted on the web site and copies are being distributed to the libraries, community centers and Neighborhood Service Centers.
Kevin circulated a draft copy of "Ideas Into Actions," accomplishments of the Department's Complan booklet, which is in the process of being finalized and published.
Geri Beardsley from the City Council Central Staff distributed copies of possible issues for the Council staff to review for the Council including if the Parks Complan is consistent with the City's Plan, if there any key policy changes, if gaps have been identified, if community center standard size should be increased and there are ways open space can be acquired in denser, more expensive areas.
A Park Board public hearing is scheduled for April 13.
The City's Budget Office requires the Department to prepare a Major Maintenance Plan in advance of submitting the Capital Improvement Program recommendations every two years. The city's park system contains more than 6,000 acres and more than 10% of the city's land area. The system has 485 buildings, 224 parks, 130 playfields, 38 playgrounds, 25 community centers, 151 outdoor tennis courts, eight indoor pools and two outdoor pools, four golf courses, boat ramps, moorage facilities, nature trails, conservatory, Japanese Garden, the Aquarium, 00, etc. The Major Maintenance Plan is an inventory of things in the park including systems that are old, that are aging, are obsolete and no longer compliant with current codes.
Kevin Stoops distributed copies of the Draft Proposed Major Maintenance Plan, prepared by the Planning and Programming Section of the department. The projects are listed with an estimated cost, an assigned priority and urgency number and category title. Kevin explained the urgency numbers with "0" meaning past due or due,"1" for next year where "5-6" are doing okay for now. There are 26-28 category titles, including roofing, fencing, seawalls, ADA accessibility, boilers, heating systems, etc. Kevin noted the swimming pools in the park system are deteriorating. There are at least $6 million in swimming pool costs just in structure concerns alone not to mention boiler and filtration system replacements.
At any given time the Major Maintenance Plan has 800-1,000 entries a project makes it to the first 100 or so it has a good chance of getting funded. Preliminary engineering and planning work are also tied into the maintenance plan. Next month the department will look at new projects and approximately 200 projects will be plugged into the maintenance plan. Staff meet to determine the priorities and the Superintendent is the final arbitrator.
Sand Point / Magnuson Park – Cirque du Soleil may come to Sand Point on a temporary basis.