Loading...
2003, 06-17 Study Session MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session June 17, 2003 Attendance: Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Richard Munson, Councilmember Staff Present: David Mercier, City Manager Stan McNutt, Interim Deputy City Manager Dick Warren, Interim Public Works Director Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Bill Hutsinpiller, Interim Parks & Recreation Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Bob Ely, Building Official Dick Thiel, City Engineer Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed all in attendance. Councilmember Flanigan then read a proclamation granting Honorary Citizenship in the City of Spokane Valley, to Karsten John Stucke. 1. Employee Introductions: Interim Parks & Recreation Director Bill Hutsinpiller introduced Shelley Gross, Recreation Coordinator; Building Official Bob Ely introduced Dawn Dompier Permit Instructor, Barry Husfloen Building Inspector, Kevin Myre Building Inspector, and Rulon Taylor Plans Examiner; and Long Range Planning Manager Greg McCormick introduced Administrative Assistant Debi Alley. 2. Report on Light Rail Proposals Affecting Couplet: Dick Thiel and Greg McCormick gave an overview of the Spokane Regional Light Rail Project, explaining that the light rail popularity is growing; they explained the plans for future rapid transit needs and added that they are hopeful of receiving federal funding of at least 50% of the project cost. The original plan is for 15 miles and fourteen stations and would use existing railroad right -of -ways. Thiel and McCormick explained some of the original costs including cost comparisons per mile. They stated that the presumed long -range vision is for a full - length rail to Liberty Lake from downtown Spokane. They also expect approval of the Board to allow up to eight Spokane Valley people to visit Portland's project, which has been deemed very successful. A short animated video was then shown demonstrating the project design. Councilmember Munson mentioned that cities with light rails generally have population in the millions. McCormick responded that by the year 2025, we should have another City the size of Spokane, but also that in time, the project does become more expensive due to community development and rising costs in general. Questions arose about ridership of the buses and Thiel mentioned they are examining ways to increase ridership. Councilmember Schimmels asked about the three -day trip to Portland and deferred to Molly Myers, Manager of the Project. Myers said she would like to have council in position to ask direct questions and said previous trips have been very successful. A letter will be forthcoming explaining the details of the Portland trip. Study Session Minutes 6 -17 -03 Page 1 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 06 -24 -03 3. Appleway /Sprague Triangle Property: Thiel reported that they have been involved with a triangle parcel of property which would perhaps work well as a landscaped monument area; that this was part of the County's right -of -way inventory and they should have more information by the end of the month; and if the cost is reasonable they will submit a request for proposals for landscape proposals. Council agreed staff should continue to pursue this issue. 4. Small Works Contract for Steen Road and 4 Avenue Paving: Dick Warren explained the proposal to pave Steen Road and 4th Avenue as per his memo, stating that the proposed cost will be accomplished using a contractor from our small works roster rather than using the LID process. Council agreed this item will be placed on the next council consent agenda. 5. Sewer Extensions and Operation (STEP) with Spokane County: Dick Warren explained that Bruce Rawls of the County Utility Division is in attendance, and that we are now ready to proceed with next year's programs, and added that a regular road condition report will be coming henceforth. Discussion turned to sections 1.8 and 1.9 and an apparent inconsistency; Warren explained that the County would still own the utility but that we would participate in the rate setting. Rawls distributed copies of a suggested revision to these sections. It was determined that this will be reviewed and brought back at the July 1 council study session. 6. Update of Parks & Recreation Transfer Title and Maintenance Agreement: Bill Hutsinpiller mentioned that one of the issues in title transfer is no indemnification language regarding "Buttercup" park. City Manager Dave Mercier added that there may be problems in accepting that property title. Munson recommended staff continue to discuss this until Buttercup is finalized. Mercier added that there are a few other points that need to be addressed, including the need to identify the liability and control of the ownership of Buttercup, that the County desires the park to remain a park in perpetuity and that we are suggesting five years as there may be a better use of the park in the future, and Mercier said he is reluctant to hold future council's to this stipulation; and that there is a protocol issue with dictating to the City what must be done with the property in the future. Mercier added that if the county helps other jurisdictions, we would like similar assistance and we would like not to limit the County Commissioners' ability to provide such assistance. It was agreed staff will continue to pursue negotiations in this issue. 7. Plantes Ferry Park Sports Complex Project: Bill Hutsinpiller explained that if we were to acquire this facility, we would be asked to allow county residents to use the facility at no additional costs; but as we don't know our full park issues, Hutsinpiller said he is not anxious to proceed on this now. Council decided since the Sports Complex is outside the City limits, that it would be best to wait on this issue and perhaps re -visit it at a later date. 8. Planning Commission Guidelines and Rules Resolution: Greg McCormick advised that after discussion with Stan McNutt, they have forwarded this issue to WCIA for input; but that McCormick recommends we proceed and bring a final draft back for council consideration. It was decided this item will be brought back on the next council's consent agenda. 9. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Cooperative Agreement: Greg McCormick explained the options for the CDBG Program and indicated that to participate with the county program, the cooperative agreement should be executed. McCormick then discussed the issues contained in the draft agreement and explained in his June 12 memo. McCormick said staff recommends council authorize the Mayor's signature on the agreement, direct staff to compose a letter to the County Commissioners proposing changes to their Plan to allow Spokane Valley representation on the HCDAC, and to apply for funding for appropriate elements of the Comprehensive Plan including housing, capital facilities and economic development when the 2004 application cycle begins fall 2003. Mercier added that the committee makes the recommendation on which projects to fund, and the County makes the award. In reference to the number of seats on the committee, Mercier recommended drafting a letter Study Session Minutes 6 -17 -03 Page 2 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 06 -24 -03 requesting the maximum number of seats to get the best proportional representation. It was agreed this item should be placed on the next council agenda. 10. Affordable Housing: McCormick explained the background of this new program as per his June 12, 2003 memo to Dave Mercier; and then proceeded to explain the steps taken thus far, including the purpose of Interim Spokane Trust for Affordable Housing (ISTAH). It was determined staff should move forward with the intended agreement to present to council when ready. Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 7:30 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 11. Existing Franchise Ordinances: Cary Driskell gave a brief overview of the status of franchises and added that the Department of Transportation delivered two large boxes of franchises, so there are now over 100 franchises to explore. He added that Water District #3 has seven franchises; and there are other franchise negotiations in progress including Columbia Fiber and Spokane Water. 12. Regulatory Ordinance Discussion: Cary Driskell explained the process for regulatory ordinances as outlined in his June 13, 2003 memo. 13. Discussion Junk Vehicle Ordinance: Driskell reported that staff members, Planning Commission member Bill Gothmann, a SCOPE volunteer, and four car enthusiasts met to discuss the proposed junk vehicle ordinance. There was consensus that up to three vehicles should be allowed in backyards provided they are completely and continuously screened by fence or landscaping; there was also consensus that the definitions did not need to be changed if up to three vehicles (or parts thereof) were allowed; and that all understood the issue of allowing up to 60 days of good faith effort of repair anywhere on the property. Additionally, the Community Development Director will have authority to grant a one time, 60 -day extension on a showing of good cause. Driskell explained the tentative adoption process, and said the ordinance should be ready for council consideration at the September 9, 2003 council meeting. [NOTE: Councilmember Flanigan left the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m.] 15. City Manager Authority Ordinance: To facilitate matters, City Manager Mercier suggested discussing this matter prior to item #14 on the agenda. Mercier explained that in the beginning of the incorporation of the City, the City Manager was delegated purchasing and contracting authority not to exceed $5,000; but this ordinance, which would supercede the previous ordinance, would grant the City Manager the authority as stated in sections 1 through 5. 14. Form Contracts (3) resolution /ordinances regarding purchasing, contract limits, etc.: Mercier explained that in order to establish a policy to purchase, there is for council consideration, (1) an ordinance establishing a comprehensive policy for purchase and disposition of goods, (2) a resolution approving the form of agreements for professional services, general services and construction services; and (3) an agreement for construction services, an agreement for contractor services, and an agreement for professional services. Discussion ensued regarding issues contained in item #14 and 15 above. Councilmember Munson stated his objection to the ordinance repealing ordinance #12, saying that this might better be addressed later. McNutt added that this would establish policy, but council would still approve the budget, and that the major projects would always be approved by council. Councilmember Wilhite stated perhaps section 5 of the ordinance replacing ordinance 12, might be too high. After further discussion, it was decided that the Resolution Approving Form of Agreements for Professional Services, General Services, and Construction Services, along with the agreement forms for those services, would be placed on the next agenda; and that item #15 above would be brought back at a future date. Study Session Minutes 6 -17 -03 Page 3 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 06 -24 -03 16. Columbia Fiber Franchise Negotiation Report: Interim Deputy City Manager Stan McNutt indicated he discussed this franchise agreement with John Everett, and then introduced John Everett, General Manager of Columbia Fiber Solutions (CFS). Everett said that his company (formerly Avista) operates a franchise with the County of Spokane, and that they serve a number of businesses here including schools; that fiber optics are expensive, and that if we have free access to fiber, his company will lose money every monthly; that his company is concerned that if we allow fiber to be provided to other customers and prospects, that would also result in lost revenues to CFS. Everett then explained his proposal as outlined in his June 17, 2003 letter to Stan McNutt. McNutt asked council for guidance as he has not had an opportunity to study the letter just received, and asks council if staff should continue negotiations or pursue alternate proposals. Mercier said staff is trying to develop general approaches in dealing with franchises and in the process of negotiating, staff proposes a "me too" clause, which means we determine what the franchise operator does for other entities, and we ask that those terms be extended to us also; and that he hopes council direction may apply to all franchises. Councilmember Munson said that we want to be business friendly but that we intend to provide value for the service. Councilmember Denenny said he would like staff to pursue this and look at all underlying arrangements. Councilmember Taylor added that he would like staff to develop general policy for dealing with all franchises and that it would be good to start formulating such policy. It was decided this matter will be brought back at a future date for further review. 17. Proposal for Joint Meetings with School Districts: City Manager Mercier explained that this might be a good time to begin to formulate relationships with the school districts, or select one district at a time to extend an invitation to meet jointly and exchange ideas. Mayor DeVleming suggested contacting Central Valley after July 4 and perhaps others before school starts in the fall. It was determined City Manager Mercier will choose some dates when most people are available. 18. Council Workplan Priorities: City Manager Mercier explained that he and McNutt suggest council determine five top concerns and give staff further direction to pursue. After discussion of many topics, including mention of a need for a mission and vision statement, strategic planning, and the comprehensive plan, the following is the result of the topics and the number of votes for each: Sewer issues: 6 Mirabeau Point 5 Overall Communication 4 Comprehensive Plan 4 (includes couplet) Strategic Planning 2 Raw Inventory 2 Park Evaluations 2 Financing 1 State Legislation 1 Bridging the Valley 1 Webpage 1 Hearing Examiner 1 Contracts 1 Prior to finalization of the top issues, and because of the late time (8:55 p.m.), it was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to proceed in time with the meeting. Vote by acclamation: Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mercier said with almost a complete turnover in key staff about to occur, and being in the midst of vacation season, he recommends moving forward on these issues in the fall. Council concurred. Study Session Minutes 6 -17 -03 Page 4 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 06 -24 -03 19. City Manager Comments: Dave Mercier mentioned upcoming meetings of concern as noted on the agenda; and added that he would like to purpose extending several Prothman positions to provide for an orderly transition. Council concurred to extend the Prothman agreement until the end of July and to place that item on the next council agenda. There being no further business, Mayor DeVleming closed the study session at 9:35 p.m. APPROVED: hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Michael DeVleming ayor Study Session Minutes 6 -17 -03 Page 5 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 06 -24 -03 June 17, 2003 Stan McNutt interim Deputy Manager City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Re: JJiberL,ink LLC dba Columbia Fiber Solutions Franchise Agreement Dear Stan: 1C905 E. Montyomery Dr., Suite 1 Spokane, WA 99206 -6606 P: 509.688.0100 TF: 877-333-1353 F: 509.688.4099 COLUMBIA FIBER SOLUTIONS WWW,COLUM 13 IAF 18ER.COM Thank you for your time discussing Columbia Fiber Solutions' ( "CFS ") franchise with the City of Spokane Valley. We are very proud of the high -speed fiber optic bandwidth services we provide to a multitude of schools, government agencies and businesses within your comrnunity and look forward to a long -term relationship with the City of Spokane Valley. CFS and its predecessors, WWP Fiber, Avista Fiber & Avista Communications have invested millions of dollars in fiber optic infrastructure within the borders of the City of Spokane Valley. Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley have received and will continue to receive significant property and sales taxes directly from this investment. Based on the discussions we have had with our customers and prospects, we know our fiber optic network has made a significant impact on the City of Spokane Valley's ability to attract and retain enterprises that require high bandwidth connections between their various locations and service providers. Our customers operating within your borders include the Central Valley - School District, West/Dakotah Direct, Avista Corp, Columbia Paint, fNHS/Vtlley Hospital & Med Center, Spokane Teachers Credit Union and many other companies that generate a significant portion of your tax base, provide jobs and serve your taxpayers. Page 3 CPS is very interested in forming a Tong -term relationship with the City of Spokane Valley. We believe we are in the hest position of any provider to provision the City with fiber optic connections between its various locations and vendors (we are currently working on an estimate between City Hall and the Police Station). CFS understands it will receive significant benefits from a long -term business arrangement with the City and therefore proposes a significant discount from its wholesale fiber lease rates. CFS' fiber lease pricing is distance sensitive. We propose a flat monthly recurring charge (MRC) of $75 per fiber pair, per route mile with a 5375 minimum MRC (installation will be provided at our estimated cost for completing the requested circuit). As part of the arrangement, the City would agree to restrict its use of this heavily discounted fiber to its own needs and not utilize this arrangement for fiber connections that are not specifically for City of Spokane Valley direct business relationships. In exchange for the discounted fiber, CFS requests that the City of Spokane Valley provide a 15 year franchise term, make available all GIS information in iLs possession to assist CFS with developing the most accurate database possible of its fiber plant and that the City of Spokane Valley Franchise ordinance adopt wording similar to the existing Spokane County franchise in regard to designating which party is responsible for the cost of relocating fiber plant when requested by a developer. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 688-4519. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Suggested Revision ,::, vections 1 -8 & 1 -9 7 /5,4(b ( &4)/S June 17, 2003 1 -8. The County, through its Board of County Commissioners, consistent with RCW 35.67.020 and RCW 36.94.140, will establish, set, and adopt all monthly sewer service fees, rates, and charges for the dept service, construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of the sanitary sewer system and wastewater treatment plant. To the maximum extent possible, fees, rates, and charges will be based on revenue requirements and cost of service rate principles. Prior to setting fees, rates, and charges, the COUNTY will present its proposal to the CITY for review and comment. The COUNTY shall endeavor to maintain the cost of sewer construction and treatment plant capacity, including presently owned capacity and future capacity required to serve the CITY and COUNTY customers, at the lowest practicable cost. 1 -9. The fees, rates and charges for customers inside the CITY will be equal to those for customers outside the CITY, provided that the cost of service is equal. However, if the cost of service varies substantially for a class of customers inside the CITY compared to outside, or if new subsidy revenues are provided to the sewer program by either the CITY or COUNTY, differential fees, rates or charges may be adopted. The COUNTY will meet with the CITY before adopting differential fees, rates, or charges to discuss the subsidy revenues and /or cost of service differences that result in differential fees, rates, or charges. In the event that the parties do not agree on a proposed differential in fees, rates, or charges, they agree to submit the issues to mediation. A city or town may provide assistance to aid low - income persons in connection with services provided under this chapter. Page 1 of 2 RCM.' 35.67.020 Authority to construct system and fix rates and charges -- Classification of services and facilities -- Assistance for low- income persons. Every city and town may construct, condemn and purchase, acquire, add to, maintain, conduct, and operate systems of sewerage and systems and plants for refuse collection and disposal together with additions, extensions, and betterments thereto, within and without its limits, with full jurisdiction and authority to manage, regulate, and control them and to fix, alter, regulate, and control the rates and charges for their use. The rates charged must be uniform for the same class of customers or service and facilities furnished. In classifying customers served or service and facilities furnished by such system ofsewerace, the city or town legislative body may in its discretion consider any or all of the following factors: (1) The difference in cost of service and facilities to the various customers; (2) the location of the various customers within and without the city or town; (3) the difference in cost of maintenance, operation, repair, and replacement of the various parts of the system; (4) the different character of the service and facilities furnished various customers; (5) the quantity and quality of the sewage delivered and the time of its delivery; (6) the achievement of water conservation goals and the discouragement of wasteful water use practices; (7) capital contributions made to the system, including but not limited to, assessments; (8) the nonprofit public benefit status, as defined in RCW 24.03.49Q, of the land user; and (9) any other matters which present a reasonable difference as a ground for distinction. Rates or charges for on -site inspection and maintenance services may not be imposed under this chapter on the development, construction, or reconstruction of property. Under this chapter, after July 1, 1998, any requirements for pumping the septic tank of an on -site sewage system should be based, among other things, on actual measurement of accumulation of sludge and scum by a trained inspector, trained owner's agent, or trained owner. Training must occur in a program approved by the state board of health or by a local health officer. Before adopting on -site inspection and maintenance utility services, or incorporating residences into an on -site inspection and maintenance or sewer utility under this chapter, notification must be provided, prior to the applicable public hearing, to all residences within the proposed service area that have on -site systems permitted by the local health officer. The notice must clearly state that the residence is within the proposed service area and must provide information on estimated rates or charges that may be imposed for the service. A city or town shall not provide on -site sewage system inspection, pumping services, or other maintenance or repair services under this section using city or town employees unless the on -site system is connected by a publicly owned collection system to the city or town's sewerage system, and the on -site system represents the first step in the sewage disposal process. Nothing in this section shall affect the authority of state or local health officers to carry out their responsibilities under any other applicable law. [ 1997 c 447 § R; 1995 c 124 § 3; 1991 c 347 § 17; 1965 c 7 § 35.67.020. Prior: 1959 c 90 § I; 1955 c 266 § 3; prior: 1941 c 193- § 1, part; Rem. Stipp. 1941 § 9354 -4, part.] NOTES: http: / /search.le...NiewHtml.asp? Action =Html& Item =0 &X= 61715351 l &p=1 &X= 61715352 6/17/2003 Finding -- Purpose -- 1997 c 447: See note following RCW 7.05.074. Purposes -- 1991 c 347: See note following RC\V 90.42.005. Severability -- 1991 c 347: See .RCW 90.42.900. Page 2 rf 2 http: / /search.Ie... /View[- Itml.asp ?Action =Htni1 &Item =0 &X= 617153511 &p =1 &X= 61715352 6/17/2003 Page 1 of 2 RCW 36.94.140 Authority of county to operate system -- Rates and charges, fixing of -- Factors to be considered -- Assistance for low- income persons. Every county, in the operation of a system of sewerage and /or water, shall have full jurisdiction and authority to manage, regulate, and control it and to fix, alter, regulate, and control the rates and charges for the service and facilities to those to whom such service and facilities are available, and to levy charges for connection to the system. The rates for availability of service and facilities, and connection charges so charged must be uniform for the same class of customers or service and facility. In classifying customers served, service furnished or made available by such system of sewerage and /or water, or the connection charges, the county legislative authority may consider any or all of the following factors: (1) The difference in cost of service to the various customers within or without the area; (2) The difference in cost of maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of the various parts of the systems; (3) The different character of the service and facilities furnished various customers; (4) The quantity and quality of the sewage and /or water delivered and the time of its delivery; (5) Capital contributions made to the system or systems, including, but not limited to, assessments; (6) The cost of acquiring the system or portions of the system in making system improvements necessary for the public health and safety; (7) The nonprofit public benefit status, as defined in RCW 24.03.490, of the land user; and (8) Any other matters which present a reasonable difference as a ground for distinction. A county may provide assistance to aid low - income persons in connection with services provided under this chapter. The service charges and rates shall produce revenues sufficient to take care of the costs of maintenance and operation, revenue bond and warrant interest and principal amortization requirements, and all other charges necessary for the efficient and proper operation of the system. [ 1997 c 447 § 12; 1995 c 124 § 2; 1990 c 133 § 2; 1975 1st cx.s. c 188 § 2; 1967 c 72 § 14.1 NOTES: Finding -- Purpose -- 1997 c 447: See note following RCW 70.05.074. Findings -- 1990 c 133: "The legislature finds the best interests of the citizens of the state are served http: / /search.le...NiewHtml. asp ?Action =Html& Item =4&.X= 617153547 &p =1 &X= 61715355 6/17/2003 - Page 24;12.. (1) Customers served by public water systems are assured of an adequate quantity and quality of water supply at reasonable rates; (2) There is improved coordination between state agencies engaged in water system planning and public health regulation and local governments responsible for land use regulation and public health and safety; (3) Public water systems in violation of health and safety standards adopted under RCW 4 3.,20.050 remain in operation and continue providing water service providing that public health is not compromised, assuming a suitable replacement purveyor is found and deficiencies are corrected in an expeditious manner consistent with public health and safety; and (4) The state address[es], in a systematic and comprehensive fashion, new operating requirements which will be imposed on public water systems under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act." [1990 c 13351.] Severability -- 1990 c 133: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1990 c 133 § 12.] Severability 1975 1st cx.s. c 188: See RCW 36.94.92.1. http : / /search.le.../ViewFitml.asp ?Action =Marl &Item =4 &X =6 17153547 &p =1 &X= 61715355 6/17/2003 Shoreline Park,' Op Space and Recreation _ rvices Plan - 1998 EXISTING RESOURCES AND SERVICES The purpose of this section of the Plan is to describe the park land, facility resources, and, recreational program services that are currently available to residents of Shoreline. These existing conditions provide the foundation on which any new resources or programs must necessarily build. For this reason, this section will attempt to describe the ground. on which we stand today as we look toward the future. This discussion is broken into two parts, i.e., parkland and facilities resources (fixed assets), and recreation services. • EXISTING PARK LAND AND FACILITIES INVENTORY • The City of Shoreline owns a complex system of properties throughout the community Approximately 330 acres of this land have been identified as park land resources for the purposes of this plan. Each parcel has its own unique characteristics and place within this plan and the community. However, only when these individual pieces are considered in groups, each of which serves a specific need within the community, is it possible to examine the distribution of those . resources in the community and -to identify any deficiencies between existing conditions and recommended levels of service. It is the identification of these gaps in resources that forms the recommendations made in Section IV. Park Land Classifications The ideal park system for a community is one made up of several different types or classifications of park land, each of which.provides a distinct recreational opportunity. Shorelines parks can be divided into the'following groups: Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks area combination playground and park designed primarily for non - supervised, non - organized recreation activities. They are generally small (about 3- 7•acres). and serve an area of approximately one -half -mile radius. Since these parks are located within walking and bicycling distance of most users, the activities they offer become a daily pastime for neighborhood residents. Typically, facilities found in aneighborhood.park include a children's playground, picnic areas, trails, open.grass areas for passive use; outdoor basketball courts and multi-use sport fields for soccer, Little•League baseball, etc. Shoreline has six parks, with a total of 31.04 acres of land, that fit into this classification. Community.Parks: A community park_is planned primarily•to provide active, structured recreation opportunities for young people and adults.. In general, community park facilities are designed for organized activities.and sports,. although individual and family activities are also encouraged.. • Community parks serve a much larger area and offer more facilities than the traditional • neighborhood -park. As a result, they require more support facilities such as parking, rest rooms, covered play areas, etc. Their service area is roughly a 1 -2 mile radius. Shoreline has three parks, with a total of 36.8.acres of land, that fit into this classification. . 25 Existing Park and Recreation Services, . Page 111 -1 Shoreline Park, Open Space and Recreation Services Plan - 1998 Large Urban Parks: Large urban parks are designed to provide a mixture of active and passive recreation opportunities and serve a diversity of interests. Generally, they provide a wide variety of specialized facilities such as sports fields, large picnic areas, etc. Because of their size and the facilities offered, they require more support facilities such as parking, rest rooms, play areas, etc. They usually exceed 50.acres and are designed to accommodate large numbers of people. Shoreline has 2 parks, with a total of 120.52 acres of land, that fit into this classification. . Regional Parks: Regional parks are recreation areas that serve the City and beyond. They are usually large and often include a specific use or feature.that makes them unique. Typically, use focuses on a mixture of active and passive activities. Those located within. urban areas sometimes offer a wider range of facilities and activities. Shoreline has one park (40 acres), that fits into this classification. Linear Parks /Pathways: Linear parks are open -space areas, landscaped areas and other lands that are linear in design.. They may follow stream'corridors, abandoned railroad rights -of -way,. powerlines and /or other elongated features. Development can range from natural open space to highly landscaped areas. They usually 'contain trails and offer viewpoints and other passive features. This land classification should be distinguished from contained within parks. Trails are an amenity or feature contained within a larger park. Linear Parks /Pathways, in contrast, are single purpose assets. Shoreline does not have any land that has been placed in this classification. Special Use Areas: Special use.areas are miscellaneous public recreationareas or land occupied by a specialized facility. This classification includes special purpose areas, waterfront parks, community single purpose sites used for field sports sites occupied .by buildings. Shoreline has three park areas, totaling 15.1 acres of land, that fit into this classification. Natural Open Areas /Greenways: Natural open space is defined as undeveloped land primarily left in its natural environment with r uses as a secondary objective.. It is usually.owned or . managed by a government agency and may or.may not have public acces This type of land often includes wetlands, steep hillsides or other spaces. In some cases, environmentally sensitive areas are considered open space and can include wildlife habitats, stream and creek corridors, or unique and/or endangered plant species. Shoreline has six sites,.totaling 86.82 acres, that fit into this classification. Beautification Areas: .Beautification areas are landscaped areas that are along street rights -of -way and intersections, entry features and plazas. These types of facilities usually consist of landscaping, fountains and entrance signage. Shoreline hasone site, 0.1 acre in size, that fits into this classification. ' Undeveloped Lands: This is land that is undeveloped and has not been designated for a specific park use at this time. Shoreline has one site, 0.8 acre in size, that fits into this classification. 2s Existing Park and Recreation Services' Page 111 -2 JUR-16 -2003 16F ( SPDXAN!E .r` 9 l DAVID EVANS AND ASSCici INC. • ^F « SCALE: PRELIMINARY —NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ,d JUNE 16, 2003 ; f i • • z • yy 2, 4a y • ..‘"); . 9 - .NN� % tip \,:: .; • \ / : : % ,.:1 %, \ a �a ti 4 .1 ,i , i' t• �e'\t, c 1 \\ \\‘\ 1 ,11 . N' 1 , 2 ::: \\ \ \ \ ,. . t .:!_ i ' 1/4 , 4„. ..%.. , , ` � ^ ,�k ��� { 1 4 4 5 e � � t. , , '0 ` 1 .AS:' \'.4 a 't`� \ - ▪ 1 A .�r 1tr a . .. ♦ '1 ♦ . ,. °, LL. 1 .. 'S♦` -41.. 1 , ti '-� .,may .. .r.� .q...,,,� • �� �� "'� \".. `� e PROPOSED RESTROON \ \ 't 't ': e- �'= \ 1 �` z \, E \ I. *:� \ \ ' '4 ; \ \t .� " ' '1 # ti' �, ° ; ' 1 r, `J � 4 ' ` 4 ,a `,' I \ r r LAWN SEAT C ♦ � r te' "♦. N\. r j �1 509' )?345 P.02/02 itte as s 0 LAWN SEATING —...,, PROPOSED 40'x40 ELEVATED STAGE or le I Z S '' ' ASPHALT APRON } 9 AROUND STAGE 12:1 RAMP, WITH 5'x5' • LANDING AT TOP • . . �, ' t o TRUCK PARKING ".; TOTAL P.02