A RESOLUTION relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation, endorsing the 2002 Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program (JAFDP) identifying priority athletic field improvements on City and School District property.

WHEREAS, by Resolution 28763, the City Council approved the Department of Parks and Recreation 1993 Functional Plan (COMPLAN) which established distribution guidelines and proposed improvements throughout the park system including projects to improve athletic fields at City and Seattle School District-owned sites for the purposes of enhancing the city's athletic field system; and

WHEREAS, by Resolution 30181, the City Council adopted the Seattle's Park and Recreation Plan 2000: An Update of the 1993 Parks COMPLAN, that affirmed the policy direction for increasing the inventory of safe, quality athletic fields; reviewed distribution guidelines; and updated proposed athletic field improvement projects at selected sites; and

WHEREAS, by Resolution 29681, the City Council endorsed the 1997 Joint Schools/Parks Athletic Facilities Development Program identifying priority athletic field and gymnasium improvements on City and School District property consistent with previously adopted plans and public process; and

WHEREAS, the 38 neighborhoods throughout the city involved their community members in developing plans to guide investment in public facilities and several of these plans make recommendations for improving athletic fields; and

WHEREAS, the demand from field users for increased access to scheduled field time has increased from 62,237 scheduled hours in 1975 to 125,371 scheduled hours in 2001; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Use Agreement between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Seattle School District, which gives first priority to each agency for use of the other's buildings and grounds after its own scheduling requirements are met, was renewed in 2001 for another 5 years; and

WHEREAS, the primary opportunity to expand the number of sports fields available to the public is by improving the existing publicly owned fields that are currently underdeveloped; and

WHEREAS, there is increasing interest in communities as to how athletic fields are developed, maintained, and scheduled; and

WHEREAS, in Resolution 30063, the City Council adopted the Sand Point/Magnuson Park Conceptual Design Plan based on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee; and

WHEREAS, the citizens of Seattle have approved the 1998 Buildings, Technology, Athletics (BTA) school levy, the Building Excellence II school levy, and the Neighborhood Parks, Green Spaces, Trails and Zoo levy, all of which included funding for improvements to athletic fields; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation conducted a public process that included a citizen working group, extensive written public input, three public meetings in September 2001, and a hearing before the Board of Parks Commissioners on January 24, 2002, in order to solicit public comments on the plan update;

WHEREAS, a public process consistent with Seattle Parks and Recreation Public Involvement Policies and SEPA will occur for each city-owned site cited in the 2002 program attachments and the Department will utilize the Project Advisory Team (PAT) structure to gain public input on projects where the capacity of a field is proposed to be significantly increased by installing synthetic turf or field lights;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THE MAYOR CONCURRING, THAT:

Section 1. The 2002 Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program outlined in Exhibit 1 will guide the City's investment in improving the quality and scheduling capacity of the athletic field system.

Section 2. In adopting this program, the City does not commit to providing funding, beyond that previously approved by the City Council, for any or all of the projects proposed therein.

Section 3. The Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation is authorized to continue to identify options for funding the projects proposed in the 2002 JAFDP including possible future City and School District voter approved measures, grants, Cumulative Reserve Subfund (CRF), and other possible funding sources.

Adopted by the City Council the _____ day of _______________, 2002, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this _____ day of _______________, 2002.

________________________________________

President of the City Council

THE MAYOR CONCURRING:

________________________________________

Mayor

Filed by me this _____ day of _______________, 2002.

________________________________________

City Clerk

(Seal)

Exhibit 1: 2002 Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program

Alix Ogden

JAFDPres

June 10, 2002

V #1

Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor

Kenneth R. Bounds, Superintendent

2002

JOINT ATHLETIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:

A Program of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Schools

Prepared by the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation

June 14, 2002

Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program

2002 Update

SECTION I: Purpose of the 2001-2002 Update_______________________________

The 1997 Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program (JAFDP) identified priority athletic facility projects that would increase the amount of capacity and improve the quality of play on city fields for youth and adults. The goal of the 2002 update is to increase the scheduling capacity of the city's athletic fields and examine the field system as a whole in order to make improvements for both field users and neighbors throughout the city. Seattle Parks and the School District are partners in this effort jointly providing facilities and programming to meet the growing demand for more field time and more facilities.

The 2002 update of the 1997 JAFDP is a result of a series of events. First, the 1998 "Building, Technology, Athletics" (BTA) school levy brought significant resources to the development and improvement of school athletic facilities. This funding coupled with efforts by Seattle Parks, field users, and communities to secure grants and other funding for athletic field improvements resulted in significant successes in achieving the 1997 program. Second, the development of more intensively used athletic field projects raised concerns with some community members and the public process in the development of these projects resulted in modifications to the original project scopes. Generally, there is now a greater public awareness about athletic facility development. Third, advances in technology have raised new possibilities regarding field surfacing and lighting that will be considered in planning and design of future field projects and these advancements potentially can address some of the issues raised by residents adjacent to fields.

The 2002 JAFDP update incorporates (1) an overview of the policy and planning that guides field development; (2) an assessment of trends seen among field users; (3) an overview of emerging considerations in field development including innovations in technology and identification of good neighbor issues; and, (4) a list of proposed projects and a scope of work for each site. The proposed projects are divided into three categories: Attachment A contains field improvement projects that are fully or partially funded (funding for these projects comes from a variety of sources including grants, voter approved measures, major maintenance, and private donations); Attachment B lists unfunded projects that would increase the field system capacity throughout the city; and, Attachment C lists unfunded projects that would enhance the quality of play and/or reduce impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Besides a desire to complete funded improvements, the JAFDP does not set priorities among these categories or projects.

SECTION II: Seattle Parks and the Seattle School District A Partnership_______

Sports have always been an integral part of the mission of Seattle Parks. Increasing attention to physical fitness and a focus on youth activities have resulted in a large and vibrant community of sports users and organizations. From kindergarten age to senior adults, Seattle citizens are seeking opportunities to get involved in recreational and organized sports.

The partnership between Seattle Parks and the School District is a natural one. There is significant evidence that participation in sports provides a positive experience for our youth and a strong foundation to develop important physical and life skills goals of both Seattle Parks and the School District. Participating on a team builds cooperation, a respect for others and encourages healthy habits. Athletes for a Better World (ABW) is a national organization that supports coaches and young athletes to connect their performance on the field as an individual and team with making a positive difference as a member of society. One aspect of their curriculum is a "Code for Living" that coaches use to reinforce this connection with athletes. This Code is used in the Seattle Parks coach training and coaches are encouraged to incorporate this code as part of their team strategy. In 2001, Seattle Parks expanded this program to include parents as partners in reinforcing the code with their children, to strengthen further the connection between athletic participation and success in society. The result has been a marked decline in game ejections from 10-15 a few years ago to three in each of the past two years. Seattle Parks will continue to expand this training.

By the early 1990's, the Department of Parks and Recreation had seen a tremendous increase in use of athletic fields, from 62,237 scheduled hours in 1975 to 125,371 hours in 2001. In 1994, the Department created the Sportsfield Review Committee (SRC) to work with the Seattle Sports Advisory Council and School District staff. SRC's initial role was to look at the policy statements and field development recommendations in the 1993 Parks COMPLAN, and to improve field maintenance, scheduling, and coordination among user groups. As a result of their analysis, SRC developed the 1997 JAFDP and conducted a public process that included six neighborhood meetings and one Board of Park Commissioner hearing. In Resolution 29681, the City Council approved the 1997 Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program. This program identified priority athletic field and gymnasium improvements on City and School District property. The recommended improvements were consistent with previous planning efforts and were accompanied by planning level cost estimates.

Several years ago, the School District convened the School Athletic Facilities and Education (SAFE) group that included a variety of representatives of organizations interested in the development of school athletic facilities. This group advised the District on athletic facility programming and on the development of the BTA levy. This levy, approved by voters in 1998, provided important funding to athletic facility development in the city. The work that went into developing the 1997 JAFDP assisted SAFE and the School District in focusing potential levy resources into the innovative recommendation of sports complexes at Denny/Sealth, Addams/Hale, Rainier Beach, Ingraham, and Wilson-Pacific school facilities. These complexes are a major achievement of the 1997 JAFDP and increase the quality of play for school sports as well as for community field users. Voter approval of the 1998 BTA school levy resulted in millions of dollars for sports complexes at these schools. The program also enabled the Seattle Parks and the School District to inform users and neighbors and to seek funding for other projects. Seattle Parks and the School District, in partnership with community and user groups, were successful in securing funding for major elements of the 1997 program. Funding came from a variety of sources, including voter approved measures, grants, the City's General Fund, private sources, and Cumulative Reserve Funds.

Another critical element to coordination of athletic facilities development and scheduling is the Joint Use Agreement between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Seattle School District. The School/Park Joint Use Agreement was renewed last year for another 5 years. Under this agreement each agency will make its buildings and grounds available for use by the other agency on a first priority basis after the scheduling requirements for its own programs have been met. Each user will maintain its joint use spaces and equipment and will cooperate in expediting repair of damage. Where possible, Seattle Parks and the School District will pursue opportunities to develop and improve joint use facilities and equipment to support programming by both agencies.

SECTION III: The Policy Basis for Athletic Facility Development_______________

The 2001-2002 JAFDP reflects the Department approach to athletic field development based on the policies and principles which are part of the 1993 Parks COMPLAN, the 1997 JAFDP, and the 2000 Seattle Park and Recreation (the recent update of the Parks COMPLAN). The 1993 Parks COMPLAN and subsequent 2000 Plan outlines the policy basis for decision-making and set priorities among all the functions of the Department. The JAFDP specifically addresses the Department's goal of providing safe, quality athletic facilities.

Athletic fields have always been an important part of the parks and recreation system. The 1993 Parks COMPLAN provided policy direction and lists of desirable projects throughout the parks system, including athletic fields. The 2000 Park and Recreation Plan, an update of the 1993 COMPLAN, affirms the desirability of cost-effective athletic fields that improve and expand the playing experience while balancing the needs of surrounding communities. The 2000 Park and Recreation plan addresses athletic facility development in a number of ways:

* Included among our Fundamental Responsibilities is our role in joint planning and shared use with other public agencies; improving the health and well being of Seattle citizens by providing open spaces, recreational facilities, and programs to fit their needs; and, helping to achieve park and recreation goals in manner consistent with the City's growth management goals and policies as outlined in the City Comprehensive Plan.

* As a Partner for Recreation in the Development of Park and Recreation Facilities, our Policies include:

Consider the following in siting park and recreation facilities: the need for the facilities in a particular area or location based on demonstrated or anticipated demand and distribution guidelines, the potential impacts of the facilities on the local area, and specific site conditions relating to cost of development and operations.

Improve sportsfields to improve 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.

Assist the Seattle School District in the improvement of selected school fields for community sports use, as requested by the District.

Consider function, sustainability, durability, security, and barrier-free access in design of all facilities.

* As a Partner for Recreation in the Management and Maintenance of Park Facilities, our Policies include:

Operating hours will be flexible and dependent on local conditions and needs but sensitive to potential impacts on facility neighbors.

Turf sports fields will be managed to encourage single use with sufficient recovery time, maintenance resources, or reduced scheduling to protect the field. Selected fields will be evaluated for conversion to synthetic to maximize playing capacity.

Scheduling practices, and to a certain extent redevelopment, of existing facilities will be adjusted based on changing population characteristics that affect demand for such facilities.

* As a Partner for Recreation in Recreation Programs, our Policies include a variety of references to creating partnerships in providing programming, giving priority in scheduling to organizations that serve diverse populations, and balancing instruction and tournaments with access for general use.

There is also significant reference and guidance on athletic facilities development outlined in the primary and secondary Roles and Responsibilities throughout the 2000 Plan including providing an equitable geographic distribution of facilities (details regarding soccer, football, softball/youth baseball, senior baseball, etc. are also included in the Plan), creating partnerships to increase programming opportunities, participation in regional planning for sports complexes, maintaining facilities for safety, balancing program, league/organization, and drop-in use.

Finally, the 2000 Park and Recreation Plan has recommendations for distribution of a number of athletic facilities. For example, the distribution guideline for soccer fields is "...desirable within one to two miles of all Seattle households." The 2000 Plan makes reference to a number of selected fields maintained as all-weather (a term that includes sand based and synthetic turf) fields but does not provide distribution guidelines for these types of higher capacity facilities. Softball and youth baseball guidelines are the same as for soccer. Adult baseball guidelines are as follows "a limited number...are desirable citywide with sufficient quantity to meet scheduling needs."

Citizens involved in neighborhood planning efforts throughout the city also indicated support for improved athletic facilities in some areas. Several projects, supported in neighborhood plans and subsequently adopted by the City Council, are included in the JAFDP. Improvements to sites mentioned in neighborhood plans include: Georgetown Playfield, Magnolia (Elementary) School and Judkins Playfield.

SECTION IV: Planning Considerations that Guide Athletic Facility Development

Seattle Parks has provided opportunities for recreational sports activities throughout its history. Specific considerations and policies developed over the years generally guide planning for athletic fields in Seattle (in alphabetical order):

* CALENDAR: Natural grass fields do not hold up under year round use and are traditionally closed from November through March for restoration. As such, it is desirable to limit use of such fields to a single sport. All weather or synthetic fields can be used heavily throughout the year.

CLIMATE: Seattle's rainy climate and early darkness from fall through spring have a significant impact on field use and make synthetic turf fields with lighting very desirable. Lighted synthetic fields provide for year round and evening play. Even without lights, synthetic turf provides for year round play for soccer and other field sports because of good drainage and durability. As a result, it provides a safer and improved playing surface in addition to increasing the scheduling capacity at a given site.

COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE: The city's existing field system does not provide facilities that provide optimal development opportunities for a player's abilities. Seattle's youth often compete against suburban youth who often have far better fields on which to play and practice.

CONVERSION: Many of Seattle's existing fields are antiquated. It is far less expensive to redevelop existing fields with higher scheduling capacity than to purchase and develop new sites. Conversions are a priority where it is possible to develop safe and quality fields in existing parks. Converting all existing fields is not possible because of topography, size, neighborhood impacts, and other park uses.

COSTS: Development costs for the synthetic field surfaces are higher than for natural grass surfaces. The maintenance costs for synthetic field surfaces are low since they do not require the daily attention needed for all weather or grass surfaces. Generally, it does not make sense to install either all weather or synthetic surface without field lights to achieve extended use. Conversely, it does not make sense to light natural grass surfaces, other than selected baseball or softball fields, because of the limited scheduling capacity on natural grass.

DEMAND: Beginning in the late 1970s, demand was significantly altered by increases in adult sports and participation by women and girls. This trend continues today. In addition, demand is being significantly increased by participation in some sports such as soccer, ultimate frisbee, rugby, and lacrosse. Finally, there is increasing interest in participation on a year round basis rather than a single season. The partial reintroduction of middle school sports has also had an impact on demand.

FIELD SIZE: Most of Seattle's park athletic fields were developed in the 1950's and 1960's for youth sports. Youth play has changed over the years. There is a greater demand for larger fields for youth because the playing experience on regulation size fields enhances youth player development. Larger fields are also more suitable for adult play.

FUNDING: Funding for athletic fields comes from a variety of sources. Improvements to or replacement of existing facilities can be funded through the Department's major maintenance program. Improvements to athletic facilities compete with the needs of other park facilities. Typically, priorities are set through condition assessments. Voter approved measures, private donations, and grants often make up the bulk of funding for projects that would increase field capacity. Major maintenance funding may be part of a larger improvement project if an element of a project was appropriate for that funding source.

JOINT USE: Seattle Public Schools use most available scheduling time during the respective sports seasons from after school (3 p.m.) to early evening (5-6 p.m.), in accordance with the School-Park Joint Use Agreement. Non-school youth organizations and adults are generally accommodated in the evening hours.

LAND AVAILABILITY: With the exception of surplussed military property, the amount of undeveloped land available within the city for new fields is almost non-existent. Therefore, joint planning and use of school and park fields is the only practical approach to attempt to meet a majority of the increasing demand.

LOCATION OF PLAY: Due to the nature of use and amount of demand for athletic fields, field scheduling is accomplished on a citywide not a neighborhood basis. Some effort is made to accommodate youth sports and local adult leagues on local area fields but this is not always possible.

NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES: There is increased attention to the development and use of athletic facilities by surrounding communities. Spill and glare from lights, increased traffic and parking from increased field use, noise, and occasional issues with player behavior are some of the concerns expressed by neighborhoods. Synthetic and all weather field with lights generate significantly more hours of use than other types of fields and have been the focus of concern for some communities.

PRIORITY USE: The Department policy gives priority to youth in most programming and scheduling. For example, in 1999, youth were scheduled for a total of 89,159 hours of field use and adults for 22,142 hours of use.

SCHEDULING: Youth sports organizations schedule time in the early evening, following public school use. On week nights, adult use is accommodated after the youth in the mid-evening hours until about 10 or 11 p.m. Historically, weekend use was lighter but as demand has increased in recent years, weekend scheduling has become relatively heavy.

SURFACES: Natural grass fields are probably the most popular field surface for all sports but the new synthetic turf field is quickly gaining popularity. Sand and other all-weather surfaces, are generally not as popular with users.

SECTION V: The 1997 Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program_______________

The 1997 Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program represented the first coordinated effort to look at the need for athletic facilities and opportunities to develop new or improved facilities throughout the city. Several projects from the original 1997 program are complete or have funding to accomplish a significant phase of the project as envisioned in the original program. Through public involvement processes, changes in scope or mitigation of impacts in response to community input are an important part of the process. Several projects recommended in the original JAFDP are under construction or undergoing a public involvement process to determine specific site improvements such as lighting. The outcomes of the discussions with user groups and neighborhoods may result in changes to project scopes, particularly about lighting of fields, which could affect the overall capacity of the system.

The passage of the 1998 BTA school levy represents an important step in providing improved facilities to youth and adult athletic facility users throughout the city. The update of the School/Parks Joint Use agreement includes commitments to allow community use of these facilities. However, the extent to which these projects mitigate an overburdened field system is not yet fully known. While these fields will provide improved field use year round, final decisions about lighting the fields and expanded School District use make it difficult to estimate additional scheduling capacity for other user groups. For example, the Seattle Parks estimates that the completed improvements at Chief Sealth/Denny Middle School should increase the time available for scheduling at that facility to approximately 7200 hours per year assuming that the field is lighted. Approximately 3500 of those additional hours will be made possible by the addition of lights at that site.

SECTION V: Trends in Athletic Field Usage___________________________

The 2002 update of the 1997 JAFDP seeks to respond to emerging trends. New issues and considerations are seen in several areas including types of sports and demand for year round play, trends in scheduling patterns, and trends in facility demand. The following section seeks to capture these trends and how they impact the proposed improvements in the athletic facility system.

Trends in Interest

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in girls' sports most notably in soccer and fast pitch softball. Several other field sports have experienced growing popularity, including soccer (all ages), ultimate frisbee, and rugby. There are also consistent levels of involvement in other sports such as baseball, track and field, etc. There has been some decrease in the demand for softball. We are seeing the introduction of new sports such as lacrosse through school programs. The city does not have sufficient capacity with the existing field inventory to accommodate the increases in soccer and other field sports. There are limited facilities in the city where new sports activities can find time to play. The Department is also now faced with a demand for year round access to fields for youth and adult soccer without sufficient facilities to meet this demand. These trends impact the athletic facility system by putting pressure on existing natural grass surfaces that need a seasonal respite from play, and increasing demand for all weather or synthetic fields.

A few additional considerations that have an effect on Seattle Park's ability to respond to trends in use include the following items. Middle school sports are being reintroduced in Seattle schools. While this increased access to organized sports for youth is welcome and meets a need among middle school youth, it has resulted in decreased availability of field time for youth organizations not affiliated with a school and for adult play. The City also provides some limited facilities for certain sports such as Samoan cricket. While City facilities are critical to these field users, the 1997 JAFDP and 2002 update do not recommend expansion of these facilities.

The JAFDP proposed improvements would provide additional capacity for baseball, softball, soccer, and other field sports through the improvements to selected fields by installing synthetic turf with lights. The program also proposes improvements to enhance quality of play and decrease impacts to nearby neighbors. The attached proposed improvements increase the overall inventory of fields available for these sports and the hours/months that specific fields can be scheduled for use. At Sand Point Magnuson Park a rugby field is specifically proposed.

Trends in Scheduling

The significant increase in demand for fields can be observed in the total scheduled hours of these athletic facilities. Scheduling patterns indicate that the system has reached capacity during high demand times between 3 PM and 11PM on weeknights and before 6 PM on weekends in peak seasons. Seattle Parks schedules fields in a manner consistent with the Department's Use and Scheduling Policy. This policy was most recently updated in 2002 after an extensive public regarding this program and related athletic field issues.

There is an impact on scheduling from the changing trends in different sports. For example, girls' fastpitch softball tends to have longer game times and track and field events cannot be scheduled at the same time as soccer in a multi-use facility because of safety concerns. These considerations affect the approach taken to scheduling athletic fields and impact the overall capacity of the field system.

There is also greater pressure on regulation size fields. In addition to adult groups, many youth organizations are eager to practice and play games on regulation size fields because of the improved playing experience and because regulation size fields provide a better challenge to player development.

Finally, it has been the experience of Seattle Parks and Recreation that most adult play is better accommodated on all weather or synthetic turf fields because the intensity of use by adult players is not appropriate for grass surface. The need to make scheduling decisions based on limited available surfaces has an impact on system capacity. The 2002 JAFDP update recommends a significant future investment in synthetic turf at selected sites.

SECTION VII: Meeting a "Reasonable" Level of Demand___________________________

In preparation for the 2002 JAFDP update, the Department mailed a survey to our user groups in an effort to assess unmet demand for fields. We received a 23% return on our written surveys, demonstrating a great interest in the topic. There is clearly significant demand for additional field time, particularly for practices. Leagues and other organizations often indicated that it is their desire to schedule multiple weekly practice times throughout a season.

Although Seattle Parks does not believe that it can or should meet the high level of demand expressed in these surveys, the JAFDP proposes field improvements that would reduce the gap between existing capacity and a reasonable accommodation of field user demand.

In the development of this program, the Department sought to develop a working definition of reasonable accommodation. Table 1 below represents this working definition as it relates to the information we received from the field user surveys. This table should be seen as an illustration of the goal of reasonable accommodation as there are many factors that could influence the City's ability to meet this goal including growth of existing sports organizations and accommodation of emerging sports.

TABLE 1: ILLUSTRATION OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Practices and games are for the regular season by sport

Practices

Games

Totals

SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Approximate No. of Teams Represented in Survey

Number per week

Hour

Weeks

TOTAL Annual Hours Practice Time

Number

Hour

Weeks

TOTAL GAME HOURS 1

ANNUAL SCHEDULED HOURS TO MEET REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION GOAL

ADULTS

By Sport

Each Team

Soccer

700

Call in basis

N/A

N/A

3500

1

1.5

39

15

9,350

Baseball

6

Call in basis

N/A

N/A

1500

1

3

20

30

1,680

Softball

33

Call in basis

N/A

N/A

1500

1

1.5

15

11

1,871

SUBTOTAL

12,901

YOUTH

Each Team

Soccer

364

1

1.5

12

18

1

2

12

12

10,920

Baseball

109

2

1.5

11

33

2

2.5

11

28

6,595

Softball

52

2

1.5

11

33

2

2

11

22

2,860

SUBTOTAL

20,375

TOTAL

33,276

1 Assumptions: Each game is one team from the league playing against another. Appoximately 50% of adult soccer games and 100% of adult baseball games are played within city limits. Analysis does not include pre-season or play-offs.

TABLE 2: YEAR 2000 USE SURVEY GROUP DATA

ADULTS

Year 2000 Scheduled Hours for Survey Respondents

Soccer

7,544

Baseball

23

Softball

650

YOUTH

Soccer

2,839

Baseball

4,927

Softball

1,576

TOTAL

17,559

A comparison between the last column in Table 1 and Table 2 illustrates the significant difference in actual hours scheduled and the number of hours of scheduling capacity necessary to meet this reasonable accommodation goal in this illustration.

If the projects as proposed in Attachments A, B, and C are implemented as described, the 2002 JAFDP update will provide additional facilities to increase the ability for youth to practice and for adults to play more games in the city with limited hours for practice. Please see Attachment D for more details about increased capacity at proposed funded sites. The Department estimates if every project were built exactly as proposed in the program, the overall increase to the athletic field system would more than double, allowing approximately 100,000 hours for soccer/field sports, 73,000 hours for baseball/softball, and 3,500 hours for track and field. Given the constraints of funding and the public involvement process, it is unlikely that all of the projects proposed in this program be funded and developed in the manner proposed.

SECTION VII: Emerging Considerations In Athletic Facility Development______

Field Lighting Existing Conditions

Seattle Parks and Recreation has only made very limited improvements to field lighting in 25 years. As a result, the Department only has 18 fully or partially lighted athletic field sites that can be scheduled for evening and night use.

In order to assess the current state of field lighting and to develop lighting standards, Seattle Parks commissioned a lighting study in 2001 with the engineering firm of MacGowan Broz (Attachment E). The results of this study show that all the existing field lighting throughout the system, with few exceptions, requires replacement. The factors that lead to this conclusion are as follows:

* The great majority of field lights are located on wooden poles that have twisted over time, resulting in poorly aimed lights that affect field users as well as increasing spill and glare problems for surrounding communities.

* Current electrical systems that support field lights cannot handle the increased load necessary to improve the uniformity lighting on most fields.

* Spill and glare that affect neighborhoods can only be mitigated with additional equipment on the tops of the poles. However, the existing poles cannot safely handle the additional wind load created by this equipment.

As a result, the City's existing lighted fields generally do not meet the desired requirements for users and often have negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood (MacGowan Broz, 2001 Ballfield Lighting Study).

There are high costs associated with installation of new lighting systems. In response to the information gleaned from the Lighting Study, the 2002 JAFDP includes replacement of all but one of our existing lighting systems. Generally, we expect to address the replacement of field lights through the major maintenance program. However, if the JAFDP proposes field enhancements at a currently lighted site that will improve quality of play, increase scheduling capacity, and/or mitigate neighborhood impacts, the 2002 JAFDP includes replacement of field lights as an additional item in the proposed scope. The Department will also seek to use lighting systems that allow for independent operation and local on/off control of lights for each field at a site so that field lighting is limited to only the field(s) actually in use.

Seattle Parks receives its major maintenance funding through the City's budget process and most lighting replacement projects are likely to be funded through this source over many years. Funding for large improvement field projects (some of which propose new lighting systems), comes through a variety of sources including grants, voter approved measures, private donations, and can include major maintenance funds as well if the project has a replacement/improvement of an existing facility component. Therefore, the replacement of existing lighting and installation of new field lights are not likely to compete for the same funding and the JAFDP does not attempt to make one a higher priority than the other.

Field Lighting Proposed New Lighting

Seattle's climate and early sunsets in the fall, winter, and early spring, mean that any successful effort to address the growing demand for more athletic field use will include strategic use of lights at additional locations to increase scheduling capacity. New lighting technology offers options for improved playability and decreased community impacts by significantly decreasing the glare from field lights and improved controls over the lighting system. New technologies will be part of the solution in developing new, lighted fields as well as the replacement of lights at existing sites. New lighting technology often requires poles of a significant height. In some cases, these poles will be higher than the ones currently in use. The advantage of higher poles is the ability to direct light onto the field in a more precise manner, thereby reducing spill and glare onto surrounding residences.

The MacGowan Broz report includes a recommendation for future lighting standards. In developing their recommendation, the consultant examined available standards in other cities, the standards considered desirable from organizations such as the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), the Dark Sky Society, and the International Little League organization. Generally the consultant recommends field lighting levels based on the IESNA guidelines for Sports and Recreational Area Lighting and Lighting for Exterior Environments. In addition to this recommended standard, new lighting will informed by the best technology available and public involvement efforts on a site specific basis. All lighting decisions will be subject to City codes. The Department will install any new or replace existing lighting in a manner consistent with the adopted Lighting Design Guidelines, developed in 2002.

Seattle Parks also asked the consultant to develop criteria for the siting of new lighting of athletic facilities. The following criteria are recommended for consideration when selecting sites for ballfield illumination projects in the City of Seattle:

* Where possible, take advantage of year-round scheduling.

The City's capital investment can be maximized by selecting sites that have multi-use facilities that can be used year round by a variety of sports or fields designated for field sports that can be used year round.

* Whenever possible, the site should feature all-weather or synthetic surfaces.

All-weather or synthetic surfaces allow play to continue even during most episodes of inclement weather. Compared to grass fields, these surfaces significantly increase the durability and capacity of the field. Inclement weather is typical in the Pacific Northwest, particularly during the fall and winter months when lights are needed. The City will maximize capacity and realize maximum return on investment through lighting all-weather or synthetic surface fields.

* Site selection should consider geographic distribution and the development of lighted fields in areas of the city where demand is greatest.

Ballfield lighting systems are a significant capital investment. Because ballfield lighting systems increase a location's capacity for play, the City should attempt to provide lighted ballfields in locations where unmet demand for additional capacity exists or is likely to exist. The City should also consider new facilities into areas that currently lack lighted ballfields. These considerations will help balance both the benefits and impacts of such facilities.

* In selecting field sports fields to light, preference generally should be given to larger sites that closely approximate regulation play. The most cost-effective approach for increasing athletic field capacity is to convert existing natural turf sites to synthetic field with lights. Given the City's field inventory, it will not be possible for all lighted fields to be of regulation size. However, in employing this strategy, the City can maximize its investment and provide the best player development opportunities by considering the size of the existing (or proposed redeveloped) field and whether it can provide play close to that of a regulation size site.

* Sites should be selected where impacts to surrounding neighbors can be

minimized and mitigation measures can be maximized.

Modern, properly engineered ballfield lighting systems control obtrusive light to levels below that of typical neighborhood street lighting through the use of hoods and glare mitigating louvers. Neighborhood impacts are one of the considerations in selected athletic fields for new lights. Sites should be selected where impacts can be addressed through technology, topography, buffers, consideration of existing ambient light levels, etc.

* Preference should be given to sites where on-site and/or off-site parking exists.

Sportsfields attract field users who typically arrive in private automobiles or buses. The influx of vehicles into a neighborhood can result in impacts to residents who may use on-street parking. The installation of lights may increase the duration of these impacts into the evening and through a greater part of the year. Proposed sites for new lighting should be carefully assessed for parking and traffic impacts.

* Sites should be selected that allow for appropriate maintenance activities to minimize damage and disruption to the field playing surfaces.

In developing field lighting, consideration should be given to the amount of space for maintenance equipment such as bucket trucks to operate in a manner that does not damage the field.

* Geotechnical conditions should be considered when selecting sites for ballfield illumination projects.

Ballfields, whether illuminated or not, require stable soil conditions to prevent settling of the playing surface which can adversely affect play and/or increase maintenance costs as depressions require repair. Poor geotechnical conditions may require costly and time consuming pre-loading of a site to stabilize soils, increased maintenance to repair settling, and usually require costly foundations for lighting system poles.

While some of the above criteria provide some immediate guidance on lighting fields at a program level, such as criteria relating to yearround scheduling and all-weather/synthetic surfaces, most of the above criteria are issues to explore during the planning phase of a project.

Field Surfaces

New technology has increased the options for field surfaces as well. These options present trade-offs in terms of capital investment, routine maintenance costs, safety, durability, and player satisfaction. Most all weather surfaces have the advantage of providing year round play, but they require daily maintenance to drag and line the field and often as much water as grass turf to reduce dust in the air. Grass turf is less expensive to maintain than all weather and provides a higher level of satisfaction, but these fields should be dedicated to a single sport as they need a recovery period from regular use, typically from the end of October to March.

Synthetic turf provides year round play without requiring water or pesticides. It has the added benefit because it does not attract geese as turf surfaces do, resulting in a more enjoyable playing experience. Synthetic turf requires a significantly higher initial capital investment, but annual maintenance costs are much less and these surfaces provide a playing experience equal to natural turf. As reflected in the proposed sites improvements in Attachments A, B, and C, all-weather and synthetic surfaces are recommended at many sites because they provide the most opportunity for increasing system capacity.

Community Involvement

As Seattle's field system is developed and use has expanded, surrounding communities and neighbors of sports fields have become more interested in the field system. It is difficult to address in a general manner the concerns raised by some field neighbors because each site poses different issues depending on the size of the site, topography, uses, etc. Communities have voiced concerns that include light spill and glare (either existing or anticipated), lack of sufficient parking, increased traffic, problems with player behavior, and community access to unprogrammed open space (scheduled drop-in use). Impacts from field use could be reduced if scheduling is limited on heavily used fields. There is a cost to limiting scheduling, particularly during peak seasonal play as that demand needs to be accommodated elsewhere.

As funding is secured for each project proposed in the JAFDP, Seattle Parks or the Seattle School District will conduct a public involvement process to determine the final scope and any mitigation measures. Seattle Parks public involvement process will occur for any project on Parks-owned property whether a major maintenance (replacement of existing lighting and/or conversion to synthetic turf) or new development projects such as new lighting on a previously unlighted field. The public involvement process will guide the Department's response to the issues outlined below as necessary. In addition, new development projects such as the addition of lights require a State Environment Protection Act (SEPA) checklist. The SEPA checklist provides another tool in assessing the impacts of a field development project on the environment, nearby habitat and the surrounding community. The determination on a SEPA checklist may also lead to mitigation measures.

* Lighting Spill and Glare: As stated in the above sections on lighting, it is one of the Department's goals to replace out of date existing lighting systems in order to reduce the spill and glare from athletic field lights. New technology should also benefit the neighborhoods on sites with proposed new lighting. Through a public involvement process and/or SEPA review at each site (depending on the type of project), Seattle Parks will assess neighborhood concerns and issues about field lights and work to accommodate these issues. For example, some communities have expressed an interest in structuring lighting systems to provide some level of illumination on adjacent streets because of a bus stop or parking area used by both field users and other residents after dark. The Department's Lighting Design Guidelines will guide field lighting installation on Seattle Parks' properties.

* Parking: The use of many parks, whether for athletic field use, playgrounds, or gardens often rely on street or other off-site parking to accommodate its users. The 2002 JAFDP focuses on gaining capacity and improving the quality of play on existing fields. Because of the cost of land acquisition in Seattle, field development is generally limited to current inventory and the opportunities for new or additional parking may be constrained by topography, existing site conditions or uses. Often there off-site parking is available such as the parking lot at an adjacent school.

The 2002 JAFDP address concerns about parking in two ways. The local parking situation will be carefully reviewed on a case by case basis. The Department will work with sports organizations, field users, and community organizations to provide parking information on a sitespecific basis. We will explore alternatives such as the need for a parking management plan including periodic use of a parking monitor to direct cars to the desired parking area at times of heavy field use.

* Traffic: Increased scheduling of an athletic facility may cause periodic traffic congestion. One of the strategies for addressing the problem of increased localized traffic impacts for neighbors is to work with sports organizations, field users, and community organizations to provide site-specific information as to preferred traffic routes to parking areas. In addition, the public involvement process and/or SEPA analysis will allow for an assessment of traffic impacts and guide work on solutions if necessary.

* Player Behavior: Seattle Parks requires certain standards of behavior on our fields. Failure to comply with these standards can mean revocation of field use privileges. Over the years, the Department has received comments from field neighbors that there are occasional problems with the behavior of a few players. Problems range from incidents of profanity, not using available bathroom facilities, poor sportsmanship, garbage on field, etc. The Department is working with coaches to affirm positive player behavior through the "Athletes for a Better World" program. In addition, the Department will continue to support the leagues in their efforts to ensure appropriate player behavior. The Department's expectations of player behavior are outlined in the Sports Participation Policy, revised in 2002. We will also work with player organizations to identify sites where bathroom facilities are not already available (mostly our smaller fields) and determine the best strategy for addressing this problem.

* Community Access to Unprogrammed Park Space: Often playfields include a play area or other types of space and activities besides the athletic field, but some do not have these additional spaces and activities. In a few communities, the nearby playfield provides most or all of the available park space. Many playfields are available until 3 PM on weekdays for unstructured play. Depending on the season and type of facility, there may also be evening and weekend times available. As part of our public involvement process, the Department may consider providing scheduled community use of the field. In making this decision, Seattle Parks will consider a number of issues including the availability of nearby park space and the impacts that the loss of scheduled sports use time will have on the capacity of the field system.

* Improving Communication: Seattle Parks and Friends of Athletic Fields are interested in working with communities to create site maps with parking and traffic instructions for field users. This tool can also be used to encourage carpooling and reinforcing expected standards for player behavior. The Seattle Parks website is another tool to communicate similar field use information. Additional options include signage that reminds players of expected standards of behavior. Community members have expressed an interest in better understanding for how to register complaints or grievances to the Department as well as the repercussions for field users if problem behavior is not corrected.

SECTION VIII: Goals and Guiding Principles for the 2001-2002 JAFDP_________

The 1997 JAFDP had a basis in earlier planning efforts such as the 1993 Parks COMPLAN. However, the 1997 program did not state specific goals that the program hoped to achieve. The following goals and guiding principles guide the 2001 JAFDP update (not in order of priority).

Goal: Quality Facilities

Provide safe, fun, quality athletic facilities throughout the city.

Guiding Principle 1: Consider the best use of limited funds to achieve maximum benefits with the intent of increasing capacity, increasing quality of playing experience, and decreasing impacts to surrounding communities.

Guiding Principle 2: Design and redesign of athletic facilities should ensure an improved playing experience in terms of safety and player development, and should result in a facility that can be maintained at a reasonable cost for an ongoing positive play.

Guiding Principle 3: Ensure that athletic facilities are developed with reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities.

Guiding Principle 4: Incorporate public safety design principles into the design of new or improved athletic facilities.

Guiding Principle 5: Maintain existing and new fields to the highest standards possible within the Department's budget.

Goal: Increased Capacity

Increase scheduling capacity by making changes to field surface and/or lighting where feasible and pursue opportunities for new facilities.

Guiding Principle 1: Focus efforts on increasing field system capacity primarily through the improvements such as installation of all weather or synthetic turf and lights on existing athletic fields rather than conversion of unprogrammed open space to athletic field use.

Guiding Principle 2: Seek to light fields that currently have all weather or synthetic surfaces.

Guiding Principle 3: Seek to install all weather or, preferably, synthetic field surfaces on sites that already have lights.

Guiding Principle 4: Seek to develop new facilities that include both synthetic or all weather surfaces and lights for soccer, football and other compatible sports, and turf or synthetic surfaces and lights for baseball and softball.

Goal: Be A Good Neighbor

Manage development and use to be good neighbors by being sensitive to the needs of field users and neighbors.

Guiding Principle 1: Follow the Department's Public Involvement Policies in developing or redeveloping athletic facilities. Use the Project Advisory Team (PAT) structure to involve interested stakeholders in advising the Department on projects where the use of the field would increase because the proposal involves converting an existing seasonal surface to all-weather/synthetic or where new lights will be installed.

Guiding Principle 2: Minimize the potential impacts of field use on surrounding neighborhoods to the extent possible given site considerations, resources, etc.

Guiding Principle 3: Consider the specific characteristics of the field and community in planning for mitigation of potential impacts. Consider the current uses of the site and how, if at all, the proposed improvements would impact these uses. Issues to explore in the public involvement process and/or SEPA review at each proposed site may include parking, traffic, scheduling intensity, lights, noise, impacts to habitat, etc.

Guiding Principle 4: Department's Lighting Design Guidelines based on the 2001 Ballfield Lighting Study should inform replacement and new lighting of fields.

Guiding Principle 5: Consider location of field and proximity to residences. Seek to develop lighted fields where there is a buffer between the neighborhood and field, where a buffer can be created and/or lighting impacts can be mitigated through available technology.

Guiding Principle 6: Work with leagues and other organizations to communicate clear expectations to field users, coaches, and spectators.

Goal: Durable Fields

Develop facilities that are durable over time and use.

Guiding Principle 1: The development of new or improved athletic facilities should take into account the relative capital investment of improvements and the costs of ongoing maintenance costs of these projects.

Guiding Principle 2: Field scheduling practices should reflect the durability of the field surface: in particular, natural turf, single use fields should be given sufficient opportunity to recover from seasonal use. Additional scheduling capacity should be developed within the athletic facility system that allows for this recovery time in order to protect these resources.

Guiding Principle 3: The development and major maintenance project budgets should include appropriate levels of funding for quality field infrastructure including good drainage, etc.

Guiding Principle 4: Replace aging lighting systems as possible either through incorporating existing lighting replacement into a major capital development project or through the Department's major maintenance plan.

Goal: A System that Works For Everyone

Give priority in development and use to youth sports while trying to achieve a system that serves both youth and adult sports well.

Guiding Principle 1: Continue to base scheduling on the Department's Use and Scheduling Policy and Procedures and Joint Use Agreement between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Seattle School District.

Guiding Principle 2: Recognize the demand for increased scheduled hours for youth from school and community athletic groups.

Guiding Principle 3: Seek to balance and accommodate the growing demand from both youth and adult sports organizations, while recognizing that the athletic field system within the city cannot provide sufficient facilities to meet the entire demand of users.

Goal: Respond to Trends in Demand

While monitoring trends and demand, manage facility development, redevelopment, and use to achieve a balance of opportunities for a full range of sports activities.

Guiding Principle 1: Use available information to anticipate demands from emerging sports such as lacrosse.

Guiding Principle 2: Seek to accommodate growing demands in particular sports, including girls' fastpitch softball, soccer, ultimate frisbee, track and field, etc.

Guiding Principle 3: Seek opportunities to develop multi-use sports complexes and fields that can accommodate a range of sports uses.

Guiding Principle 4: Give priority to sites accommodating full size track and field events and second priority to sites that provide opportunities for practice rather than competition.

Goal: Benefit from New Technology

Use new technology to improve playability of fields and reduce impacts on surrounding communities.

Guiding Principle 1: Use pilot sites to test new technology in developing and redeveloping athletic facilities.

Guiding Principle 2: Expand the use of new technology based on proven successes in the climate of the Pacific Northwest.

Guiding Principle 3: Seek to convert selected fields to synthetic surfaces throughout the city to achieve goals of increased capacity, improved durability, and enhanced safety.

Goal: Player Development

Provide fields that challenge and enhance player development.

Guiding Principle 1: Recognize the importance of quality playfields to the experience of school age youth in developing pride in their teams, schools, and city as well as the benefit that a quality playing experience fosters teamwork and sportsmanship.

Guiding Principle 2: Seek more opportunities to provide youth with athletic facilities that promote their development as players through such means as providing regulation size fields for practice and games as often as possible.

Guiding Principle 3: Seek opportunities to provide a playing experience that is comparable to other nearby jurisdictions.

Goal: Joint Use

Facilitate joint use and cooperation with the School District and other jurisdictions.

Guiding Principle 1: Continue partnership with the School District in looking at the entire system of athletic facilities and developing a strategic approach to developing joint use facilities.

Guiding Principle 2: Seek opportunities with other partners, such as the community college system, to increase facility capacity available to Seattle's youth and adults.

Guiding Principle 3: Work with organizations, including private schools, sports organizations, etc., to seek funding for field improvements throughout the city.

Guiding Principle 4: Planning for improvements on Seattle School District property will be managed by the District with involvement from the individual school and will take into account the needs of school programs as well as the needs of all field users for additional scheduled athletic facilities.

Goal: Equitable Distribution of Facilities

Balance the need to achieve geographic distribution of athletic facilities with the reality that the most cost-effective means of providing an increased inventory of quality athletic facilities is to convert existing fields to higher capacity uses rather than purchasing new property.

Guiding Principle 1: Seek opportunities to develop facilities in areas of the city considered deficient per the 2000 Seattle Park and Recreation Plan (COMPLAN update).

Guiding Principle 2: Take advantage of existing facilities for upgrades to improve the facility and meet other JAFDP goals as appropriate.

Guiding Principle 3: Try to balance the distribution of heavily scheduled and lighted synthetic turf facilities throughout the city.

ATTACHMENT A:

Fully or Partial Funded Field Improvement Projects

The following projects have funding for all or part of the listed improvements. Several of the projects listed below propose lighting to increase the capacity of the athletic field system. The ability to install appropriate field lighting at these sites will affect the overall impact to the capacity of the city's athletic field system.

The actual scope of work at each Seattle Parks owned site has been or will be determined through a public involvement process that involves field users, surrounding community, interested stakeholders, and, potentially, the Park Board of Commissioners and/or City Council. Decisions on improvements to Seattle School District owned sites have been or will be made with the individual school site council, District staff, and the School Board after a public process.

Brighton Playfield: Design of field improvements scheduled for 2002. Proposed JAFDP improvements include surface replacement to synthetic, baseball, softball / little league and soccer / multi-usefield sport field development, replace existing field lights, misc. site furnishings.

Chief Sealth High School: Improvements funded by the Seattle School District's 1998 Building, Technology, and Athletics Levy. Development of sports complex to accommodate use by the school and public for soccer, football, softball, baseball, track and field on synthetic turf. Construction is complete. Seattle Public Schools also has funding to light the complex and will pursue the permitting process for lighting of this facility.

Garfield High School: Funding for some improvements may be provided by the Building Excellence II Levy. Proposed JAFDP improvements include practice synthetic football/soccer / multi-usefield sports, and field and track facility.

Georgetown Playfield: The Pro Parks Levy provides funding to improve landscaping and field surface. Proposed JAFDP improvements include replace existing surface with synthetic, replace field lights, fencing, landscaping and site improvements, etc.

Genesee Playfield: The Pro Parks Levy, a grant from King County, and the City's CRF have funded lighting for both fields, conversion of field #2 from natural grass to synthetic turf, and improvements to the parking lot and pedestrian pathways. Construction of all elements other than lighting is scheduled for summer 2001. Design of the lighting system will begin in summer 2001. Conversion of the Field #1 sand surface to synthetic turf is a long term goal, that is currently unfunded.

High Point: Replace existing field lights.

Ingraham High School: Improvements funded by the Seattle School District's 1998 Building, Technology, and Athletics Levy. Development of sports complex to accommodate use by the school and public for soccer, football, softball, baseball, track and field on synthetic turf is complete. Seattle Public Schools also has funding to light the complex and will pursue the permitting process for lighting of this facility.

Jane Addams / Nathan Hale: Improvements funded by the Seattle School District's 1998 Building, Technology, and Athletics Levy. Development of sports complex to accommodate use by the school and public for soccer, football, softball, Little League baseball, track and field on synthetic turf is complete. Seattle Public Schools also has funding to light the complex and will pursue the permitting process for lighting of this facility.

Judkins Park and Playfield: The Pro Parks Levy provides funding for elements of the Judkins Park site plan. Proposed JAFDP improvements include lighting for upper field, drainage, irrigation, turf renovation, youth soccer field, site paving / ADA access, pedestrian site lighting, landscape improvements / restoration, site furnishings, signage, reconfigured parking lot, etc. Conversion of existing field surface to synthetic is a long term goal.

Lower Woodland Park Field #1: Funding for improvements provided by Major League Baseball include amenities, bleachers, windscreens, pitching mound, etc. for baseball cloverleaf. Field #1 improvements include new field configuration, covered dugouts, synthetic turf, drainage, irrigation, paving, batting cages and bullpens, entryway improvements. Proposed JAFDP improvements include new field lights funded through the Cumulative Reserve Fund.

Loyal Heights Playfield: The Pro Parks Levy provides funding to upgrade and improve play surfaces and field amenities. Proposed JAFDP improvements include convert field surface to synthetic, softball / little league and soccer / football / multi-usefield sport fields, replace field lights, backstops and goals.

Madison Middle School: Funding for some improvements may be provided by the Building Excellence II Levy. Proposed JAFDP improvements include football / soccer / multi-usefield sport field, fencing, portable backstops, softball and t-ball field development, comfort station. Project may include synthetic turf if funding is available.

Magnolia (Elementary) School: The Pro Parks Levy provides funding for consideration of a playfield, gathering area, etc. Proposed JAFDP improvements include synthetic turf youth field, mod soccer and t-ball facilities, landscaped areas, irrigation, focal point, parking, fencing, basketball court, jogging / bicycle path.

Meadowbrook Playfield: The Pro Parks Levy includes funding for improvements to the softball and baseball fields and consideration of improvements to drainage, irrigation, lighting, etc. Proposed JAFDP improvements include turf renovation, backstops/wing fences, resurface tennis courts, play area, maintenance equipment and storage facility, fencing, (not field lighting) etc.

Miller Playfield: Replace existing field lights.

Rainier Beach High School: Improvements funded by the Seattle School District's 1998 Building, Technology, and Athletics Levy. Development of sports complex to accommodate use by the school and public for soccer, football, softball, baseball, track and field on synthetic turf is complete. Seattle Public Schools also has funding to light the complex and will pursue the permitting process for lighting of this facility.

Roosevelt High School: Funding for some improvements may be provided by the Building Excellence II Levy. Proposed JAFDP improvements include multi-purpose soccer/football, track facilities, misc. site utility improvements, etc. Ability to include additional field capacity will depend on ability of School District to acquire additional property.

Sand Point / Magnuson Park: The Pro Parks Levy provides funding for the development of several athletic fields (number and type to be determined) as well as a number of other improvements to the overall park. Proposed improvements include 11 new lighted synthetic turf fields for baseball, soccer, softball, and rugby as well as the renovation of 4 existing natural grass fields.

West Seattle Stadium: The Pro Parks Levy includes funding to improve the facility for a variety of active uses including track and fieldfor a variety of track and field uses. Proposed JAFDP improvements include renovation of existing grandstands, restroom/concession facility, maintenance facility, new lighting, rubberized track, high jump areas, long/triple jump, pole vault, shot put, javelin throw, steeple chase, hammer throw, discus area, etc. The Department will pursue an option that will allow for a full compliment of track and field events as well as retain the Stadium for football use.

Wilson Pacific Middle School: Funding for some improvements provided by the Building Technology, and Athletics Levy. Proposed JAFDP improvements include drainage, irrigation, turf renovation, and field development for soccer, baseball, and softball.

Other field improvement initiatives:

There are several field improvement projects recently completed or under construction that will improve park or school grounds so that youth will have additional areas for practice and/or games. These improvements are made possible by a number of funding sources including the Grey to Green Program, the Neighborhood Matching Fund Program, the Pro Parks levy and are often result of significant community initiative and contributions.

Projects in this category include:

Crown Hill School: The Pro Parks Levy will provide funding to improve the existing playfield by renovating the turf, improving irrigation and drainage, and other site improvements.

McGilvra Elementary: Site improvements include installation of a new synthetic turf playfield.

Pathfinder Elementary: Site improvements included development of an improved grass playfield.

Sanislo Elementary: Site improvements included conversion of an asphalt playground to a grass playfield.

Loyal Heights Elementary: Site improvements included conversion of an asphalt playground to a grass playfield.

Graham Hill Elementary: Site improvements included conversion of an asphalt playground to a grass playfield.

Pinehurst AS #1 Elementary: Site improvements included conversion of an asphalt playground to a grass playfield.

TT Minor Elementary (completed): Site improvements included development of an improved grass playfield.

ATTACHMENT B:

Unfunded Priority Projects that Increase Field System Capacity

Projects in this category increase system-wide capacity for athletic field use and enhance the playing experience of field users by increasing safety, playability, etc. and can decrease negative impacts on surrounding communities. The projects below are do not have funding and are not listed in order of priority.

The actual scope of work at each Seattle Parks owned site will be determined through a public involvement process that involves field users, surrounding community, interested stakeholders, and, potentially, the Park Board of Commissioners and/or City Council when funding for the project is secured. Decisions on improvements to Seattle School District owned sites will be made with the individual school site council, District staff, and the School Board after a public process.

Bitter Lake Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing surface with synthetic turf, replace lights, and other field and site improvements.

Bobby Morris Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing field surface with synthetic turf, baseball, softball / little league, and soccer / multi-usefield sport field development.

Boren School: Proposed improvements include irrigation, drainage, turf renovation, ADA improvements, parking lot renovation, lighting, baseball and soccer fields. Convert existing field surface to synthetic (long term goal).

Cleveland Playfield: Proposed improvements include synthetic turf football / soccer, track replacement, track facility renovation, lighting, comfort station, maintenance / storage facility, fencing, street improvements for parking, tennis courts resurfacing. The field is owned by Seattle Parks and the tennis court area by Seattle Public Schools. Some funds may be available from the BEX II levy.

Decatur Elementary: Proposed improvements include irrigation, drainage, turf renovation, soccer fields, softball fields, fence, and comfort station.

Eckstein Middle School: Proposed improvements include asphalt demolition, irrigation, drainage, turf renovation, softball / little league field development, youth soccer practice fields, jogging track, etc.

Franklin High School: Proposed consideration for future scoping includes renovation of existing field surface to synthetic, field lights and other amenities.

Hiawatha Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing surface with synthetic, replace field lights, other site and field improvements.

Interbay Playfield: Proposed improvements include field surfacing conversion including baseball, softball, soccer / multi-usefield sports, lighting, backstops and site furnishings.

Interbay Stadium: Replace existing field surface with synthetic.

Jefferson Park: Proposed improvements include conversion of Jefferson Field to synthetic turf, add field lights and other site furnishings. Other field improvements in the park mayoccur with the abandonment and lidding of existing reservoirs. The potential development of these fields would be consistent with the current and future public planning process in Jefferson Park.

John Rogers Elementary: Proposed improvements include asphalt demolition, irrigation, drainage, turf renovation, baseball and soccer fields, parking, comfort station.

Maplewood Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing surface with synthetic, add field lights, other site and field improvements.

Montlake Playfield: Proposed improvements include moving field to the west and rebuilding with irrigation, drainage, turf renovation, track improvements, soccer / multi-usefield sport field replacement, baseball/softball improvements, tennis court resurfacing.

North Seattle Community College: College has a parcel of land large enough for developing one (1) field. To date they have not determined the type of field.

Queen Anne Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing surface with synthetic turf, replace lights, and other field and site improvements.

Rainier Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing surface with synthetic turf, replace lights, and other field and site improvements.

Soundview Playfield: Proposed improvements replace existing surface with synthetic, add field lights, replace backstops, fencing, etc.

South Park Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing surface with synthetic turf, add field lights, and other field and site improvements.

Van Asselt Elementary: Proposed improvements include irrigation, drainage, turf renovation, soccer field development, play area relocation.

West Magnolia Playfield: Proposed improvements include drainage, irrigation repair, turf renovation to north field, replace field lighting on south field, replace backstops and goals on north field. Convert existing field surface of south field to synthetic (long term goal).

Whitman Middle School: Proposed consideration for future scoping includes renovation of existing field surface to synthetic, field lights and other amenities.

Potential Acquisition

Smith Cove, a property owned by the United States Navy, is a property that the Department and Magnolia community have wanted to acquire for park purposes. Some members of the community have expressed support for the development of an active youth field. Others support the development of passive park space. The future use of this site will be subject to a public process.

ATTACHMENT C:

Priority Projects to Enhance Quality of Play on Seattle's Athletic Fields And/Or Reduce Impacts on Neighborhoods

The following projects will improve the quality of play on selected athletic fields. One of the primary reasons for inclusion in this category is to recognize that fields undergo an evolution as the Department is able to utilize new and better technology to improve the playability of our fields and reduce the neighborhood impacts through better lighting. Several projects noted below are currently fields with a sand/silt surface. This program proposes to convert those sites to synthetic to improve the quality of play and reduce maintenance costs. These projects are not funded and not listed in order of priority.

Several other projects proposed below will replace the existing field lighting with new field light technology. Improved field lights will increase safety for players and reduce spill and glare for neighborhoods. Many of these replacements are likely to occur through an ongoing major maintenance program.

This attachment is intended to guide major investment in improving athletic fields and does not preclude major maintenance activities on other athletic fields owned by the School District or Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Ballard Playfield: Replace existing field lights. Reconfigure existing multi-purpose baseball/football field to a new multi-purpose configuration to be determined as funds become available.

Dahl Playfield: Replace existing field lights.

Delridge Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing field surface with synthetic, replace lights, other field/site enhancements.

Garfield Playfield: Replace existing field lights.

Lower Woodland #2 and #7: Proposed improvements include replace existing field surface with synthetic, replace lights, other field/site enhancements. Replace existing field lights on fields #3, #4, #5, #6.

Miller Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing field surface with synthetic and other field/site enhancements.

Queen Anne Bowl: Proposed improvements include renovation of existing cinder track, ADA access, comfort station renovation.

Riverview Playfield: The south half of the site is under construction. Improvements to the north half of the site are not funded but are proposed to include drainage, Irrigation, turf restoration, softball / little league fields, soccer / multi-usefield sport field, backstops, goals, fencing, turf maintenance equipment.

Thurgood Marshall Elementary: Proposed improvements include turf renovation, youth soccer and t-ball field development.

Washington Park Playfield: Proposed improvements include replace existing field surface with synthetic, replace lights, other field/site enhancements.

ATTACHMENT D:

CAPACITY ANALYSIS BY SPORT FOR FULLY OR PARTIALLY FUNDED PROJECTS

PLAYFIELD/SCHOOL NAME

SPORT(S)

MAXIMUM ESTIMATED HOURS OF USE

BY SPORT

Hours of use assume full funding and development of listed projects as proposed; capacity may be lower for partially funded projects

BRIGHTON

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 964

Youth and Adult soccer/field sports

2200

Baseball/softball

1100

GENESEE

Partially funded project

Year 2000 total hours of use: 1,069

Youth and Adult soccer/ field sports

4800

GEORGETOWN

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 1,619

Youth and Adult soccer/ field sports

No Increase Due To Improvements

JUDKINS

Partially funded project

Year 2000 total hours of use: 1,656

Upper Field

Youth Soccer/ field sports

400

Baseball

1462

Middle Field

Youth Soccer/ field sports

No Increase

LOWER WOODLAND (#1)

Funded project

Year 2000 total hours of use: 500

Baseball

2100

LOYAL HEIGHTS

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 1510

Soccer/ field sports

1800

Baseball/Softball

3000

MAGNOLIA (ELEMENTARY) PLAYFIELD

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 0

Youth Soccer/ field sports

1500

MEADOWBROOK

Scope for available funding pending public process

Current total hours of use: 1982

Baseball/Softball

No Increase Due To Improvements

MILLER PLAYFIELD

Funded project

Year 2000 Hours of Use:

Soccer/ field sports

No Increase Due To Improvements

Baseball/Softball

No Increase Due To Improvements

SANDPOINT/ MAGNUSON

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 3712

Baseball/Softball

11200

Soccer/Field Sports

10400

Track and Field

600

PLAYFIELD/SCHOOL NAME

SPORT(S)

MAXIMUM ESTIMATED HOURS OF USE

Hours of use assume full funding and development of listed projects as proposed; capacity may be lower for partially funded projects

WEST SEATTLE STADIUM

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 664

Football

70

Track and Field

CHIEF SEALTH HIGH SCHOOL

Fully funded; Field lighting issue pending

Year 2000 total hours of use: 235

Youth and Adult soccer/Field sports

2300

Baseball/Softball

4000

Track and Field

400

RAINIER BEACH HIGH SCHOOL

Fully funded; Field lighting issue pending

Year 2000 total hours of use: 323

Youth and Adult soccer/Field sports

4000

Baseball/Softball

4100

Track and Field

450

INGRAHAM HIGH SCHOOL

Fully funded; Field lighting issue pending

Year 2000 total hours of use: 1341

Youth and Adult soccer/Field sports

9300

Baseball/Softball

1000

Track and Field

200

JANE ADDAMS / NATHAN HALE

Fully funded; Field lighting issue pending

Year 2000 total hours of use: 1926

Youth and Adult soccer/Field sports

10000

Baseball/Softball

1200

Track and Field

450

GARFIELD HIGH SCHOOL

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 0

Football/Soccer

1,300

Track and Field

300

ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 136

Soccer/ field sports

1,000

Baseball/Softball

860

WILSON PACIFIC MIDDLE SCHOOL

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: N/A

To Be Determined

To Be Determined

MADISON MIDDLE SCHOOL

Scope for available funding pending public process

Year 2000 total hours of use: 123

Youth Football/Soccer

1,500

ATTACHMENT E: 2001 Ballfield Lighting Study Executive Summary

The design team of McGowan Broz Engineers/DMD & Associates was commissioned by the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, under the Ballfield Lighting Study WC 050, to:

Conduct a technical assessment of existing ballfield lighting systems for 19 facilities.

Recommend sports lighting performance standards.

Review available sports lighting systems and products for system improvements and upgrades.

The above tasks have been completed, including a telephone interview of parks and recreation agencies on the West Coast. This report assesses existing sportsfield lighting in Seattle, and is the first step of a multi-phase, system-wide planning effort intended to ensure that:

The City provides high quality ballfield programs for a growing population of sports enthusiasts demanding more playing time.

The level of play on existing fields is enhanced through improved lighting levels with less light trespass.

To this end, sports lighting performance standards have been developed that will bring consistent designs to future projects. The daytime and nighttime condition assessments of the Parks and Recreation fields confirmed what was already suspected about the age and condition of the fields included in the study.

The major conclusions of this report are as follows:

But for one exception, equipment in the City's sports fields has served its useful life. With the exception of High Point Soccer Field and Interbay Stadium, lighting systems do not meet recommended light level performance standards.

Increased competition in the marketplace and stringent environmental performance requirements by informed citizens has resulted in development of new and improved optical systems and more innovative products.

Adherence to lighting performance standards, such as those standards identified at the end of Section Two in this report, are a must to ensure that consistent designs are developed for all fields.

Retrofit of existing sports lighting systems is not practical or cost effective as compared to installing completely new lighting systems. Retrofits can only provide approximately 10 years of additional service life.

Additional luminaires and new glare mitigating equipment are required to meet higher lighting levels for level of play.

Galvanized steel or concrete poles are the most cost effective type of pole for modern sports lighting applications. Wood poles are no longer acceptable for sports lighting applications due to rot, twisting and bending.

Light trespass and glare are all-encompassing problems that must be more fully addressed and integrated into design. Glare is typically the major concern amongst local residents. Guidelines have been produced to deal with spill light, but there is no consensus among industry experts as to how to deal with glare.

Five vendors provide "purpose-built," latest technology, sports lighting systems equipped to meet the City's needs.

Inasmuch as sportsfield lights have specific needs, specialized control optics/accessories are needed for reduction of light trespass and overall efficiency.

Key recommendations suggested for the next phase of the planning should include the following:

Parks and Recreation should move quickly to embrace these new standards, and proceed with upgrades of sportsfields beginning with those in most demand and worst repair such as Lower Woodland Field No. 2 and Brighton Field.

Standardize on use of high quality integrated sports lighting systems, including galvanized steel or concrete poles, lamp configuration, and engineered foundations. This will serve to expedite upgrading, minimize maintenance, create consistent designs, and optimize performance.

In addition to 1000-watt systems, the City should seriously consider using 1500-watt metal-halide lamps with fewer poles and fixtures.

Advance planning is needed to look at features such as PA systems, scoreboards, convenience receptacles, security systems, pathway lighting and spare conduits. Results of this planning should be integrated into the sports lighting system design, where applicable.

In upgrading existing fields, consideration should be given to adequate pole placement with regard to bucket truck maintenance access.

Other environmental concerns in residential areas that need to be evaluated include parking, increased vehicular traffic, and noise.

Retain a qualified electrical engineering firm with extensive background in sports lighting to undertake a sports lighting project. The Engineer shall perform nighttime performance verification testing.

Seattle's sportsfield lighting systems are necessary long-term investments for the City, and future enhancements must consider initial capital cost, energy costs, operating and maintenance costs, quality, and performance. Improved lighting quality will increase overall energy consumption, but state-of-the-art systems engineered specifically for sports lighting will optimize the benefits from energy expended.

______________________________________________________________________ _______________________

Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program 2002 Update

Page 1

______________________________________________________________________ ________________________

Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program 2001-2002 Update

Page 32