Public Workshop 3 March 31, 2005 7…

            Public Workshop 3
            March 31, 2005
            7:00 ­ 9:00 PM York Elementary School Gym 9301 NE 152nd Ave Vancouver


Summary


Attending:
Vancouver-Clark Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission member: Debbie Abraham
Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation staff: Jim Sandlin, Steve Duh, Nancy Hubbard, Dan George, Karen
Everett, and Carol Schindler
Murase staff: Dan Jenkins, Melinda Graham, Andrew Sheie


Welcome and Introductions:
Jim Sandlin, VCPRD, opened the meeting and introduced staff and the design team. He also described where
the project is in terms of the overall design process and that the master plan will ultimately be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Clark County Commissioners accompanied by a recommendation from the Parks &
Recreation Advisory Commission.


Review of Park Program and Previous Design Concepts:
Melinda Graham, Murase, reviewed the meeting format and the goals of the community park project. The
location of wetlands was reviewed, as were the implications of wetland location to the design of the site. It was
explained that the Army Corps of Engineers will have jurisdiction for the review of this aspect of the project, and
one of their primary criteria will be that upland (dry) areas are fully utilized before impacting wetlands. The
previous design concepts from the second public meeting were reviewed, along with the comments and
concerns expressed about those concepts.

Additionally, Rick Brown, Evergreen Little League, discussed their need for sport fields in the community and
mentioned the pending loss of their existing ball fields. Debbie Abraham, Parks & Recreation Commissioner,
reiterated that community parks serve a large geographic area and provide for a greater range of park uses,
including playgrounds, picnicking, walking, court sports, and environmental interpretation.


Composite Master Plan Presentation:
Dan Jenkins, Murase, presented the composite design concept. He discussed the design process and how the
public input from previous meetings was incorporated into the current design. Each of the park's program
elements were reviewed in general and a more detailed description was provided illustrating how the proposed
design concept responds to and mitigates several of the specific concerns raised to date, including lighting,
access and security, wetlands, use of ball fields, and phasing of construction. The composite design will be
located at www.vanclarkparks-rec.org.


Summary of Public Testimony:
    Park Program
    Why can't the ball fields be dispersed amongst other parks? What other properties does parks own that
    could be used for ball fields? Of the 35 new parks, how many sport fields will be sited on the other 34?
    Why are the ball fields for Evergreen & Highland Little Leagues? What about the several other leagues,
    associations and kids in the area? Why does parks & Rec. only address Little League?
    21 ball fields and 3 basketball courts? How about giving kids an activity that doesn't require 18 players, a
    carload of equipment, referees, and weeks of planning. Like basketball courts! Give us recreation that we
    can all use! It looks like baseball/softball fields use 75% to 85% of the dryer land. I wouldn't call that mixed
    use.

                                                                                                      Page 1 of 3
Softball is an important adult recreational activity which allows families and friends to play together; we need
more fields in this community for adult recreation.
AAU Baseball leaves Vancouver/Clark County every weekend to play tournaments because they do not
have fields here. The 22 teams spend on average about $2,000 each per weekend on food, lodging,
merchandise, etc... That is money that could be spent in the Vancouver\Clark County communities if they
had tournament facilities here.
How many parking spaces will the park have?
What is the caretaker facility? Why do we need that?
We thought we were getting a day-use-only park, prefer a day-use-only park.
An equestrian statement was made in the flier that indicated No Horses. But Melinda said tonight that they
were included?

Design
Parking should be adjacent to existing roads; it doesn't make sense to bring roads into the site with more
parking. Park improvements should all be next to adjacent roads- leave the rest of the park property open.
Existing roads are not sufficiently improved to handle the traffic for the park.
A lot of the areas shown as wetlands are not wetlands. You cannot farm on wetlands; fir trees do not grow in
wetlands.
Need to review fish and wildlife issues on site, Washington Fish & Game. Need to review environmental
issues with the ditch and setbacks. Need to review water rights issues.
What about visitors to the park during large sports events? Will it be too crowded, too hard to get where we
want to go?
What is the distance of the perimeter trail?

Safety
Hours of park operation is a concern. Security; not enough police to patrol park.
Parks needs to review traffic and fatalities @ 119th and 172nd; high speed roads, kids on bikes.
How has safety has been planned for ball fields?
Little league is a supervised activity ­ there are adults who are volunteering their time at every game,
including off-duty police and sheriff's deputies. Little league will not present a security problem for
neighbors.
Will there be fencing to separate the park from the neighbors? What will this fencing be, how high, what
material?

Other
There needs to be enough time for Q&A. Have another meeting that is only Q&A. Meetings 2 & 3 both ran
out of time.
Meeting moved too slow. We need sports fields. We need to invest in parks. Definitely need adult softball
fields. Great family activity. I live within 3 mile radius of the park and understand the perimeter
homeowner's concerns, but overall the community is growing and needs to look at the larger communities
needs!
Why are tax dollars going to fund fields for Little League and not others like AAU?
If lights are allowed in south 40 after ten years, will there be another round of public comments? (Yes.)
Have you asked the homeowners about blocking their view with additional trees?
                                                                                                   Page 2 of 3
    We all moved out here for the same reason, to get the rural quality. But it's going to keep on developing,
    farther out than this, and our kids need places to play ball.


Summary of Presentation by the Neighbors:
A period of time was set aside to allow for a presentation by the homeowners association located adjacent to
the park site. This group offered their opinions about the quality and number of wetlands on site. They also
presented a graphic that illustrated very limited development to the park property; it included two small ball fields
in north part of site, a partial loop trail, a community pool, a few sports courts, and parking along the north and
east edges of the site.


Additional Information:
Responses to community comments will be posted on the website. If additional questions/comments exist about
this project, please email them to the project manager so responses can be shared.

Vancouver-Clark Parks & Recreation website: www.vanclarkparks-rec.org
Jim Sandlin, Project Manager
360-619-1118
Jim.Sandlin@ci.vancouver.wa.us




                                                                                                       Page 3 of 3