Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're on that recording. Good to go.

Okay, we will call to order the Planning Commission on June 17th, 2026. This is a special joint meeting with our Parks Commission. So we will call to order and do a roll call, but we will, tonight we're going to do it a little differently. Usually I call each of our commissioners, but I'll just go around and let each commissioner speak their name. So I'll start on the Parks Commission side.

Yep. I'm Aileen. I'm the Youth Parks Commissioner.

Eric Thompson, Parks Commissioner.

Tim Talovich, Parks Commissioner.

Brian Duncan, Parks Commissioner.

Kyle Braun, Parks Commissioner.

Ken Mina-Rudd, Parks Commissioner. I'm Hannah Thiel with Planning Commission.

Chris Coulon, Planning Commission. James Bovers, Planning Commission.

Sam White, Planning Commission.

Hey, thank you. We move on to our approval of minutes. This is the approval of minutes for the June 3rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. The first item was from May 28th of 2026. This is Parks Commission meeting. So I think that we'll have the Parks Commission make a motion and I'll let you guys handle that.

Is there a motion to approve the Parks Commission minutes from the May 28, 2026 meeting?

Motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed? The minutes from the May 28th Parks Commission meeting have been approved.

Perfect. Thank you. And we just have another Parks Commissioner that just joined us. If you could just speak your name so we have you on the record. Perfect. Thank you. And we'll move on to the approval of minutes for June 3rd, 2026 for the Planning Commission. do we have any questions comments or we're looking for a motion all in favor aye aye and none opposed so we'll move on to the opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items um we do have one person here in person uh we will open this at 6 34. This is the opportunity to comment on anything that is not on the agenda. Thank you. And do we have anyone online? Okay, then we will close the public hearing for non agenda items at 634 and move on to our public hearing portion. The 2026 parks element. Amendments, and we will turn it over to staff to introduce.

All right, thank you. Well, thank you both commissions for being here together tonight. I think it's a great opportunity for cross-pollination and bring something forward. So what's before the Planning Commission and Parks Commission tonight is the subject of a lot of work by the Parks Commission over the last several months to review and provide feedback on edits to our parks element. So I just wanted to provide a real brief introduction to why we're doing this. the content of what it is that we're doing, and then turn it back to you for opening the public hearing. So the first is kind of why we're doing this. There's two primary components to it, original drivers for why we decided to open this. The first is we received a docket, which is a suggestion for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by the Snoqualmie Tribe. that included several comments pertinent to the parks element of the comprehensive plan so wanted to consider those the second primary reason is we are engaging with our consultant bauman on an update to our impact fees broadly so that's transportation parks and others and to do that we wanted to line up how we're collecting our park impact fees and our transportation impact fees so that we're putting the right tool in the right toolbox and taking projects out of different elements that are not directly related to the impact fee pertinent to that project. So we've taken some projects out of the parks element that are more attributable to transportation impact fees and likewise taken projects out of the Transportation Improvement Program that are more attributable to park impact fees. So those were the two reasons to open the parks element to begin with. While we've been in there, there's been several things that we have updated. And so just providing a brief review of that. The Snoqualmie Tribe dockets, those are principally policy and language related. primarily relating to considering the environment and habitat issues when we're considering planning for park and recreation resources. There was also a number of areas where we've added language more specific to the tribe's interest, describing the importance of certain historic and culturally important sites within North Bend. In addition, we wanted to consider the public input that has been provided through different processes since the time of our last update to the parks element. And our parks element was actually a part of the 2024 comp plan updates, but the parks element was the very first element that we began updating. And so it was actually from 2022 that we did a lot of these updates. So since that time, Sideview Metropolitan Park District conducted a community-wide park survey in 2024 That wasn't considered in the original parks element update. We also did our shoreline access and trail plan in 2025. And as a part of that, we did a survey and extensive public outreach, and that provided a lot of input that's pertinent to park and recreation planning. And then finally, we have engaged and started the process for a bike north bend plan. That's still in formation, but we've done the public outreach and engagement for that process. including a survey and then contacting specific stakeholders. So that engagement and that feedback is also pertinent to our parks element. So the parks commission has considered all that information with regard to our level of service standards and the projects that we have on our parks capital facilities plan. So that is the next kind of big topical update is within the amendments themselves. The, park level of service standards have been edited. So that includes principally adding a multi-use trail level of service standard, which we have not previously had. And that's, again, based on trying to update our impact fee schedule for parks, which our consultant's working on. We wanted to create a specific standard that is then implementing projects that we have funded by our bicycle and pedestrian mitigation fee. So we've created a new level of service standard for multi-use trails. These are the large trails that are for bicycles and pedestrians, not the more kind of back country or pedestrian only trails that you see within parks. We've also slightly adjusted some of our other impact fees based on the public input that we received through those various processes I described. So that includes slightly increasing our pickleball court level of service standard based on very strong demand demonstrated from that public input. Slightly lowered our baseball field level service standard, and that's also in consideration of the serious sports facility, which is private, but still providing resource to local residents. And then added a separate playground or play equipment level of service standard, taking that out of what we used to just have it grouped with neighborhood parks because it's its own kind of facility that needed a little bit more specific consideration. Our parks capital improvement plan has also been updated. We've been able to remove projects that we've completed. Within just the last two years, we've completed the Tenant Trailhead Park and the Dahlgren Family Park and some smaller minor details. So we're able to remove those so they're not attributable to the cost when we do our park impact view rate study. And then we've added other projects, a few projects out of the shoreline public access and trail plan. And then just other details within projects as we've gotten more refined cost estimates, for example, for the William H. Taylor Park from the master plan process that was done, and then also Riverfront Park. Other things is we've added some language from an urban tree canopy inventory requirement that the state has since imposed. That's really just a reference to policies and further analysis in a specific study and policies in our energy and sustainability element, which is where we feel those policies are best placed. So the reference in the parks element satisfies the RCO requirement, even though it's not specifically in the parks element. And then finally, some map updates. We've updated our maps for clarity, replacing some of the previous descriptive language that was placed on the maps with more figures that just depict where types of facilities are located within parks. And that just allows the maps to be more easily read and understood. So that is a summary of the amendments regarding public comments. In your packet was an earlier comment letter that the Snoqualmie Tribe provided during the public workshop. We had a workshop on May 28th before the Parks Commission where we went more thoroughly through all of this with a PowerPoint presentation. Had fairly good public turnout for that and answered questions. The tribe provided a comment letter for that process. And then today they also provided a comment letter more specific for this hearing. And I provided a copy of that on your places there. The comments are largely about considering impacts of future projects to be developed on the environment and on shoreline resources in particular. That is something that we would plan to do. and any of the projects that are on this capital improvement plan for our parks element would be subject to their own permitting processes and public notification so that future consideration of environmental impacts will be built into the process for considering any future park improvements. With that, I can turn it back to the chair to open the public hearing. or to first address any initial questions and then open the public hearing and then we can dive further into it and I'd be happy to answer questions.

Perfect. Thank you so much, Mr. McCartney. I think I said McCartney, McCarty. I apologize. Usually when we are just the planning commission, we do ask questions of staff. Given the big group, like we ask questions to help answer any of the public's questions as well before opening the public hearing. And then we take their comments and then we can deliberate further on their comments. But given the size of our joint group, I think it does make the most sense to just follow the agenda and open the public hearing. So we will open that at 643. Is there anyone here to address this item? Okay. And then we do not have anybody online. Is that correct, Ms. Hepworth? Okay, so we will close the public hearing at 644. And now we can talk about it. With Planning Commission, we usually just ask questions freely, and I'm comfortable doing that with the Parks Department as well. I don't know that we need to be quite as formal as the Council, because this is a big project. So thank you so much for all of the work that you've done on this, staff. I guess I will just open it up to Parks Commission and Planning Commission. So questions of staff or thoughts on this project.

And then after your comments, I just wanted to note, Commissioner Islewood, is it Islewood? Or Fitzgibbon, I think it's Fitzgibbon. He had some comments that he emailed to me, so I want to run that through with the commissions as well. I think they're good suggestions. And then there was also a suggestion from council member Jocelyn.

If you have those, then maybe we'll start with those and just we can hear what they were thinking and then we'll open it all up.

Sure. Yeah, so.

And sorry, before you start, when you are looking for a recommendation, are you looking for two separate recommendations from parks and from planning commission or one joint?

It could occur either way. We just wanted to make sure the groups were together so we didn't wind up with this, you know, disparate recommendations on different versions of the same document, so.

Okay, so we'll see how everybody's feeling. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, so just to quickly introduce Commissioner Brian Fitzgibbon's comments, he had just some comments that regarding how we're describing consultants. There was two sections in B4 and D3 where one section listed the consultant's name and the other section just referenced that we hired a consultant. And he just wanted to note the inconsistency between those two and suggested just not referencing the specific consultant's name because it wasn't specifically relevant. So I'm fine taking the consultant's name off of it so that both sections are consistent. The second one was just where we have a lot of URLs linking to other plans regarding like the serious sports complex, the Mountside golf course or businesses. And side view parks where instead of having the URL, just provide a hyperlink with the name of the the either the park or the organization. So it's a little bit more clear within the document. So that sounds fine.

And what section was that?

That is various sections, section C4, C5, C9, and C10, where there was specific URLs in the document rather than hyperlinked.

Thank you.

Finally, his comment on page 38, section H2, which is our parks 20-year capital facilities plan. He had a suggestion that they're He's just kind of randomly organized right now and suggested either organizing them by year of implementation or by alphabetized. I would suggest alphabetizing them because we don't necessarily know the year of implementation. So I thought that was otherwise a good suggestion. So that were his comments. I'm totally fine addressing each of those comments. Council Member Jocelyn also had a suggestion. We introduced this to the CED Council Committee yesterday, and he had a suggestion to rename the Sideview Subdivision Park referenced in the document as the Sideview Neighborhood Park, as it's just kind of a friendlier name. I have no problem with that. I don't believe we have a specific sign that says Sideview Subdivision Park, so it's an easy change, just changing it within the document itself here.

Great. Thank you so much. And we'll just open it up to both parks and planning at this point. So just remember to turn on your microphone if you're speaking.

I'll go ahead and go first. Do you mind if we just go through my list of stuff? And I'll put it out there. Let's see. On page... Sorry. And for the record, Sam White, Planning Commission. Page... Well, all right. This is just above B3 wildlife habitat. Sorry, I don't have the page number. Regarding North Bend's population has grown significantly over the last several decades. At the end of that paragraph is 2022 WA OFM. And it'd be great to have that acronym defined. It's not defined anywhere in the document.

I see the page number. Page 30. Uhm, he wanted for this document document page apologies.

Uhm?

Next would be page 30. The E1 parks facility needs assessment. I'm not sure anything is needed in this section below the first paragraph. I feel like when we start adding stuff below the first paragraph, then I feel like there needs to be a description for all other aspects of the demand and needs assessment stuff. I feel like the first paragraph basically provides the necessary summary for what this section is discussing. And I don't know if we need to go through passive wild parks and wildlife corridors or explain youth field. Potential limitations and, you know, the Youth Valley Soccer Association stuff, I don't know if that's needed. However, if that is potentially going to be kept in on that same page when talking about while outdoor youth field sports continue to be very popular in the North Bend community, it says demographic trends indicate a growing aging population is likely to lower this relative demand. It'd be great to have a citation for where that demographic info or that statement's coming from.

I had the same question. I'm just agreeing with you. So keep going. But I was wondering where those trends were located as well.

Yeah. Also, partially, I mean, never mind. Yeah, that was it. Okay. Page 31, table three.

Why don't we just stop real quick so I can answer that question. So that came, I believe, out of the Sideview Park survey. Is that correct, Nina, that

Yeah, that'd be great if you just reference that from that survey again. That'd be perfect. That's easy to do. Page 31, table 3. It'd be great if this could be alphabetized. in that same table. Just curious about, we have outdoor basketball courts listed. Why aren't the indoor basketball courts at the community center in a tally here?

Yeah, North Bend doesn't address indoor recreation facilities. That's more kind of programming, generally programming related, and SciView's handled those historically.

Thanks. This is a minor editorial thing, lower down that same table, pool dash indoor. Later in another table when this is referenced, it's pool space parentheses indoor, just potentially for consistency. It's very minor. Page 32, table four. It'd be great to alphabetize this as well.

Because you're giving me a lot of stuff.

Feedback from the commissions. to these before we move on, just so we can not have a whole bunch of questions at the end. So let's go back. Your suggestion to remove the paragraphs below the first paragraph on Section E1. What are the thoughts from the Commission on that? The added

text there i think the intent of that is just to provide context of why the standard was developed or why it was amended over time yeah i think where this is you know comprehensive piece i don't i'm i personally don't mind if there's more than the first paragraph just because it's it's comprehensive in nature it's not this isn't the actual so I'm okay with a little bit more fluff if you will but of course other people might have different views I had the same question about the trends of course and I do see in the first paragraph that survey is referenced and so maybe that's enough or some sort of reference to that again I'm not sure I could reread it for clarity, but I just had the same question my first time through. Other thoughts on this section for E1?

I think it should stay in there. I think it provides, as we're getting at the context of the needs assessment in itself, some of the reasoning behind why the values are the way they are, and then just anecdotal stuff on, you know, just information from Little League, the Soccer Association. I mean, those are the organizations that do use these facilities, and the trends within those organizations are ultimately the data that we use to arrive at some of these values. So I think I don't necessarily see the need to remove it.

How about adding a sentence to the first leading paragraph that says something about the paragraphs below, like the paragraphs below provide clarity and historical information for how it was developed?

Yeah, that seems reasonable because then that could also, you know, just frame the rest of it. And it also, then it references, oh, these are concepts from the survey also that would kind of work for both purposes.

OK, suggestion I'll just add the word the sentence paragraphs below a clarity pertinent to specific. Standards and then another suggestion I will add. Under that demographic trends, I'll put in parentheses gathered as a part of the side view 2024 parks survey. That sounds good.

If possible, making that a hyperlink to the results of the survey would be awesome too.

Well, maybe, you know, since everybody does have comments, maybe we do just go back to the beginning and we'll just go through page just to get everybody on the same page by page. Yeah. And, you know, some pages we probably won't have anything so we can just skip those. But that way that might be an easier way for everybody to to go through it. So I guess we'll start at the top if anybody has anything for that first page.

Yeah, I guess because we've put this together with the track changes, so I think we're going to be just hearing your guys' comments and then talking about them.

So yeah, either way, whatever.

Okay, so we'll just keep going through and then anybody jump in.

Yeah.

Okay, so we'll just, this is page 16 of the packet. We'll go to 17. And again, just stop me if you've got something for that page.

Then 18. 19.

19, there's just a typo. The instead of has, it should be have. Native Americans, including Snoqualmie Tribe, who have lived.

Um, page 20.

This one, I actually just had a question. I don't know that necessarily needs change, but I was wondering, so in the middle of before, um, the study found that the city has an existing overall tree canopy over 39% with approximately 30% suitable for additional tree planting. I was just wondering, you know, after reading some of the comments from Snoqualmie Tribe, how does that affect the native plains? You know, is that going to be something that is planted in those areas or is this, do like park strips, you know, do park strips or like in parking lot, does that canopy, is that added into that figure?

Yeah, so the plain, the prairie, the bakwab, that is not an area that we want to plant trees. So there is some nuance and analysis that's needed in that because that initial study was just looking at what land is suitable kind of based on environmental conditions. It didn't consider cultural conditions. So I think we probably have some language specific to that within our energy and sustainability element. I don't recall specifically, but That is an important point. What was your other question on that?

Oh, just, you know, does the canopy, does that include parking lots or park strips or that kind of area?

Yeah, it does.

Okay. But it does consider, you know, keeping some of the native plants, you know, because there is definitely a different feeling to park strips and native tree canopy. Okay. So it's considering both in this.

Yeah, I mean, when they do the analysis, I don't know if they use LiDAR or they use aerial imagery and they just look at the tree canopy regardless of it is based off of coverage. So street trees, I don't necessarily know. I haven't looked at it in a while, but I don't think they can delineate between tree canopy versus like native understory or understory. I think they look at just what's, greenery in areas, non-impervious basically, not lawn, but all tree canopy like next to the buildings and everything.

Thank you. And when we go through development projects, we think about those things, right?

Yeah, there are certain tree standards that have to be met with retaining existing trees and planting additional trees with our landscaping regulations and our clearing grading regulations.

Perfect, thank you.

Okay, so 21 of the packet and 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,

This one at first I stopped for a moment because I'm like, okay, why do we care about our federal lands and other regional areas? And then I stopped and I really appreciated that being put in here just because it gives a scope for our community. So thank you for adding that. I think we are such a tiny city that the whole region really does make a big difference for us.

27, 28, 29, 30.

And this one we already talked about.

May I speak to it again? Yes. Like you said, this is not municipal code or anything like that. So it's not that, it doesn't have to be that strict. So having some, you know, verbosity here isn't a problem. I guess part of my question is why only discuss the passive parks and wildlife corridors and sport fields and not say the pool or pickleball court usage? Why was it just these two topics that were elaborated upon?

Yeah, I think That was again just intended for clarification So I think with that added statement about the paragraphs below add clarity pertinent to specific standards and facilities We don't have to describe every one of them, but it just gives a little bit more context yeah, I guess I just why did why were these two picked why not talk about pickleball in the pool instead of The passive parks and outdoor rec fields That's all this is the curiosity

I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Those have historically been in there. We were just adding a little bit of edits to those existing paragraphs. Gotcha. Can't speak to the long historical trend on it. Sure. Yeah, yeah.

They're not newly added. That's a good point. Thank you.

Well, and maybe to your point, you know, maybe there is some room to say, you know, this is not all inclusive or, you know, there are other aspects of our community that are still evolving or, you know, something along that line to include some of the other locations. I don't know.

Thoughts? I mean, I think you could put a sentence in there regarding the pickleball court. I mean, we upped the service level, service standard based off of just unknown trends in the community. So that could be something noted in there as we wrote at that. We've seen an uptick in pickleball popularity, similar to the baseball fields and soccer, why we would increase that or decrease that based off of direction from the organization. We added lacrosse in at the soccer field as well because we're also seeing lacrosse pick up in popularity.

Those are really the changes, at least on the level of service standards.

I'd just like to say, Mike, you don't have to change anything in there. I think it's fine. It was just more of me not understanding why these two things seemed isolated and others were left out. That's all. So don't spend any time changing it than what it already is.

No, I do agree. It's good to add a statement that these paragraphs provide specific clarification on a few of the standards and facilities.

Okay. Other thoughts on this page?

Okay, we'll go to page 31 in the packet. And this was one of the tables we talked about alphabetizing, right?

Yeah, yeah, I can do that. I'm sorry, I have another question regarding table three. When I asked about the indoor basketball courts, so North Bend doesn't evaluate indoor facilities, but then we have the pool, which is indoor here in the table. So What's the distinction?

Well, so the indoor basketball, I would say it's restricted based off of accessibility. Outdoor basketball courts show up and you can use it unless it's the building. You can use it 24 hours or within the park hours versus an indoor gym. Like, yeah, we have basketball courts, but we also have tons of other programming in there, which limits actual use of basketball specifically. So that's kind of how I like. We have indoor pickleball courts too, but those are set at certain times within the basketball court.

Yeah, and then... It's like a park amenity almost, right? Right, and then that made me question why is the pool listed? Because that also is limited access during whatever hours the pool is open.

I think pool is kind of an outlier because you're not going to... Unless you're a gigantic community, you're probably only going to have one pool anyway. So that level of service... wouldn't necessarily change. But we could have an outdoor pool too.

We don't necessarily need to even call out indoor versus outdoor pool. It's very unlikely an outdoor pool would be developed.

Well, don't say never.

Yeah, I think that's probably an easy thing to do.

All right, go back to page 30 again. I appreciate the discussion on there. I was thinking of Mike's comment about how there's a bit of historical record in this too. So I think maybe adding a date, like a category called Passive Parks and Wildlife Corridors was added to address. Well, in 2026 was added to address. Maybe a couple other paragraphs could benefit from that too. So that kind of preserves historical record. Four years from now, we look back and go, hey, why is that here? That provides that context. and may help focus that in a bit more too.

Yeah, I can look for that date.

There could be other areas where that could benefit too. I can even notice at the top of the page, well, we held this workshop on this date in 2026. So I think dates help give a little more context and also mean that next time we revise this, we don't have to remove some of the paragraphs that are dealing with

know things that we we added but now you know right yeah that's it yeah i think that's a great idea it helps shape the intent of it and it's the comprehensive plan which is what we're going back to when we're looking at code changes right that seems appropriate i don't know okay were there other thoughts on this table three on page 31 or Anything back in E1 for 30? I will go to packet page number 32. I think we talked about alphabet alphabetizing this table as well.

And then I had another. Comment, suggestion, question. In the in the need columns, I guess I understand what it means, but should it be like total? I mean, This is just a minor. It's it's like semantics. That's just 24. You only need one playground. Actually, you need 11. You know what I mean? It's. That's added need. Yeah, so I guess that's what I was sort of getting at.

Should say added need. I can have the word added. Thanks.

Hey, give more. Yeah, I mean, keep going, so don't feel shy.

Yes, I do on this table as well. With the standard, is there some sort of information or guidance on how these were decided upon? I mean, how do you come up with we need one lacrosse field per 2,500 people?

So that's described in that introductory paragraph of Section E1. So those were historically recommended by the National Park and Recreation Association. And then North Bend, over time, adjusted those based on what we saw as our local demand.

And I guess that's what I was getting at, is how were those decisions made? I mean, is there data to support that? I mean, yes?

Yeah, so that's based on our input, our public input. The surveys over time analysis by the Parks Commission of that survey information.

Okay, thanks.

Another comment on the table for the pool. This one per 11,000 standard. I mean, is that accurate since the pool is part of the metropolitan and side view metro park district. And so it's not just North Bend who is accessing the pool. So one per 11,000, is that, I guess, is that an accurate number for how we should judge how it's being used? Yes.

That's a good question. So that's just the standard that has been in effect for many years. We could adjust that. It's probably likely. higher given the cost of developing a pool and the need to share resources?

Just maybe to add on to that for my own clarification, it sounds like the concern is it's reflecting only the numbers in demand within the city limits of North Bend, but the pool being an asset for Snoqualmie Valley Metropolitan Parks, it would be much larger than that.

Yeah, that's correct. Yeah.

I mean, I would support whatever the accurate number, if we could get it for that Cool picture, not the pool is supporting much more than just within the city limits.

I think I'm supporting what you're saying.

Nice. I did have 1 super minor comment and it is, it's kind of forcing us to go back a little bit, but I was looking at the 2044 forecast in this table. And I was looking where we got that from and it's identified in page 19. And I see there was a study that gave us the 12,000 number, but then we're changing it to an updated. The update is just in a note. And so I would assume we want to have somewhere included why that number is changing once these notes are removed, these comments, if that makes sense. So on page 19 paragraph, we establish how we identified that in 2044, population was 12,579. Table 1 immediately below it shows why we've changed that and reduced it by nearly 1,000. But I'm assuming these comments are not permanent to this day.

No, those are not. But that is for consistency with our land use element. That goes into much more detail about the population forecast.

Okay. That sounds awesome. Is it worth updating in the paragraph two above it where we write out the 12,000? I understand that was an accurate output of this OFM, it sounds like. But it sounds like we're using a different number. Is it necessary to still have the old number listed in this?

Oh, that's a good point. Yeah, I can make a correction of that to note the population forecast from the land use element of the comp plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm just also taking notes. We'll go to page 32 of the packet again.

did we is there any action for you mike on the the pool number yeah i'd like to get clarification on that from you guys if you'd recommend a specific standard that there's unlikely to be a standard that's recommended from like nrpa does not provide standards anymore so that 11 000 has been in the parks element as long as i've been here well i mean i think just taking a step back and not

I mean, realistically, we're not going to come up with any factor. That's going to say we need 2 pools, right?

We barely have 1, so with that 11,000 standard does allow us to do is to say we do need it and we therefore can contribute city of North and park impact fees to a partnership project, which is kind of how this is set up with the. Um, 0.25 need and in parentheses with others, if we put the standard up at, like, 15,000. our need is then zero and so we wouldn't have justification to then contribute north bend park impact fees so this just leaves the option on the table should the council wish to partner with sci view on a pool or or other partners on a pool project it gives the justification within our plan to do that just go ahead oh sorry again just clarifying for me as a layman

If I understood it correctly, the demand being 11,000 based on the city limit population versus potentially, we're throwing out numbers, 15,000 for the side view metro, Bolton Parks population. Why does one that's a larger number not mean there's a demand within the city for it? If I understand that correctly.

It's just demonstrating that we have a need. I guess there are other ways that we could show that because if you provided a higher standard and you could say we have a share of that need, You could kind of like what we've done in here with the 0.25 with others. We could show it that way.

You could also just make it one per whatever the population is that we're having in this table. Say that again? Just one per, I don't know what the 2020, like what is the current population for this year? So 44, maybe make it 11,495. Does that make sense?

And then it would just stay one.

Yeah, I guess I, again, math is tough for me. I'm a little confused why the demand or the need goes down with a larger population.

The need is actually one, but we're just I think it probably needs a parentheses there. The 0.25 is trying to indicate that we're trying to partner. We're not trying to build a pool entirely by North Bend funds.

Yeah.

And maybe that could just be done with an asterisk where we say we have a need and that asterisk then goes down below one of those footnotes. It would be footnote G. that would then state the pool is anticipated to be a shared project with other partners.

So are you looking for it to reflect, you know, instead of zero in 2026, have it reflect the regional population rather than just north end population? Is that what you're saying?

I think it should reflect the populations expected to use it. It's not necessarily as an asset for the parks. It's not just within the city of North Bend. And maybe the question that I'm tackling here in my mind is we're saying 0.25. Should the 0.25 be higher with a higher expected population of usage of the pool?

Well, we are not planning for residents outside of North Bend. Our obligation is only to plan for North Bend residents. So somehow we need to reflect that in here, that our demand is reflective of our population. So we're sharing the cost of a regional pool But we're only responsible to plan for our residents. Okay, that does clarify it for me. Thank you.

I mean, I don't know necessarily. Like, does it even need to be 0.25? Because if the existing pool goes away, then the needs still going to be 1. Yeah, that's where maybe we can provide that asterisk that we're sharing in a regional facility.

Okay. Does everyone feel okay with that thought?

I have a question, Mike, when you're finished writing.

Yeah, just a second. Okay, go ahead.

So what's the real world impact of setting the standard? So if we set the standard, to we need one pool for every 5,000 residents, we would currently need, you know, like one and a half pools to accommodate that need. So if we arbitrarily decide on a standard, what is the real world consequences of that?

I don't totally- Yeah, that's a really good question. So those level of service standards go into developing our park impact fee. So our park impact fee is the proportional share of each unit of new development to help pay to keep the level of service standard at what we've established. So if we establish really high level of service standards, that means our park impact fee has got to go up to support that. And we're trying to balance that because we also have relatively high impact fees, and that directly affects the cost of housing. So we have to set realistic expectations for what our level of service standard should be.

I think I missed it. And I know you asked the question, but where did we establish these limits? So we say one per 11,000 is a limit for a pool.

What was the, how did we establish the 11,000? I don't know the history on that because I joined the city of North Bend in 2009. And I remember that standard being the exact same in 2009.

Well, I was just curious, like, for instance, the pool that we do have is a smaller pool than what I think is a normally expected pool size, right? Normal is like 25 meters. I think ours is 17 or something.

Eight and a half yards.

And it's like four lanes. So like, I don't know if this 11,000 is for a normal size swimming pool versus ours, which is already much smaller.

I would guess that the standard was from a prior NRPA level of service table, which as Mike mentioned, are no longer in use and they're not being updated into today's standards because there are just so many variables. within communities and not to complicate the conversation. You could also argue that we do not have one pool for the 11,000 residents today. Even the exact things that you mentioned, the pool is small. Like one pool is not the same as one lacrosse field. You can run X number of games in a lacrosse field, but if you have a 50 meter pool or a 17 yard pool, the opportunities are just vastly different. So it is a complicated, um, um, complicated measure to quantify whether what the standard should be just thinking of city and North Bend residents, especially since the pool is not just the city or North Bend pool. And we have struggled and worked through these tables as a Parks Commission a number of times. And you point up yet very good new perspectives to add to this conversation. So I really appreciate all these questions and I hope that we can land on a figure that helps reflect the need that the community has very clearly spoken for while at the same time not setting the city up for an impossible path forward. If that makes sense in finding that magical number that reflects the population that is actually utilizing a pool.

Do we know what other cities are using at this time?

You know, in regarding a pool? Yeah, no, I don't know. I'd have to do. And I think the challenge would be that ours is a unique situation in itself, right? Cause we share it amongst a region. Um, And I don't want this to be something that would hold up these amendments per se, but I would be curious what the process is for re-looking at this specific to our circumstances. Does $11,000 for the existing pool that we have make sense as the metric that we're basing this on? I don't know what that process would look like beyond tonight. Maybe Caitlin does. She's raising her hand.

Yeah, go ahead. So what I would recommend considering if we did want to evaluate, you know, level of service standards for pools would be to probably examine how many people are currently using our pool and evaluate the size of that pool. So it's just basically a simple metric that we can use. And if we believe that the current pool is overutilized or underutilized, then we would manipulate what that level of service standard would be to reflect what we believe to appropriately meet standards based on a per person population ratio. As everyone has kind of alluded to, a lot of parks level of service standards are really just best estimates. When you're evaluating level of service standards for parks and different kinds of elements that are in parks, really it needs to be characterized almost on a city by city basis. You can look at two large cities that are comparable in population and size, and they may have wildly different standards because of the features of that community, the community's preferences, the demand on certain activities, changes over time as well. So it's something that you kind of have to constantly monitor and evaluate as you go. There's not a cross-sectional standard that can apply, you know, universally.

Yeah, just to add on to that, I think the pool, again, is unique in that no one goes into that pool without being registered. Right you go, you check in, it's not like a park where you wandering out and I, I agree the study should be done. I'm just surprised. If it hasn't been done with our 2 recent votes, those demands on number of people using it. I mean, 1 thing to throw out is, I know the pool is only open to the public. For a public swim twice a week for an hour each day. And so that alone tells me, like, there's just, there's a huge demand for programming and. We're not meeting what I would consider normal for a public time. So I think the research probably has been done. I would be curious if we could aggregate that research and have it reflected in something like this. And I don't necessarily want to hold up this amendment process here, but maybe we could tag it on as like, this is something we should probably investigate a little more.

Yeah, I would support something like that. I think a policy that we could potentially add To the parks element for the purposes of today's meeting would just be to consider evaluating the level of service standards for different types and features through the development of a parks, recreation and open space plan. Also known as a pros plan, it's a tool that's sometimes utilized by cities to really dig deep into level of service standards a little bit more and help influence policies in a, Parks element of a comprehensive plan.

I like that. And that'll probably be something I'd like to, when we do go to motion later tonight, that might be something that we put in it. So think about how that should be worded.

Yeah, I'd agree. I was actually going to just mention something along those lines. I mean, we've continually revised this document. I think, as you said, Mike, before your tenure here. So rather than continually doing save as is on the same document. I agree. I think it might be worth taking another fresh stab at the whole park recreation, open space plan. Absolutely. But for this exercise, just to move us along bandaid, what we currently have, I think we just, from what it sounds like, we need to have things in here that we all agree upon that ultimately can be support and justify potential opportunities or decisions that we might make between now and when we do update a new plan so making sure that we if an opportunity to support a new pool comes along the lines we can come back to this and say well we have identified a need to do that and we it doesn't necessarily have to be super detailed it just needs to be we all agree that we need a pool how we arrived at the number one or Or what that is, it still supports a decision to move forward with a joint effort with various organizations. And I would say that for any of these. An opportunity comes up to build up another pickleball court. We can come back to this and it is shown in here that there is a need for it and we can allocate public funds to. Such a project well said.

Very well said. I agree with all that. I was just researching a bit here. Interesting context. So I think, Mike, as you mentioned, in the 80s or so, there was specific numbers, like per x amount of residents, you should have exactly this amount of parks. And according to the internet here, and I think you mentioned this as well, that's changed now. They're not standards or metrics anymore. And they suggest, as you mentioned, more of a community-based approach like we're doing here where we kind of tailor it for our community. I think what could be really interesting when we do come back to this in future years, it looks like there are – the way they treat it now is as a – kind of a perspective tool. So in other words, they give you averages of what other communities have. So let's say across the country, these are kind of the amounts of courts or pools or playgrounds per capita per person in other communities. So that, not that we want to add it here, But I think in the future when we did that, that could be a useful column. So across the country, this is kind of the average. Here's how North Bend has tailored that for our community and why. So just a little bit more context. I know we talked about this quite a bit, so it's good to know more history on it and think about how we could evolve it in future sessions. Just wanted to add that for the record. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I do think, you know, the regional aspect is a huge component to this, because of course, it's just for our city. But I think if we look at just the level of service of who's checking in, I don't think that it is a full picture. I think that there's so much more because there's families that the pool doesn't meet their needs. And so they're not going to check in there because it doesn't meet what they need. Even the high school can't swim there because it's not a big enough pool. So there's just there's a lot of a lot of moving pieces that would need to be addressed in looking at the level of service. So I guess that can, you know, as we move forward, we can think about with our recommendation, some sort of caveat to go back to that. But we're not at the point to recommend yet. So be thinking about that and circle back on this. Unless there's, I'm not trying to cut anybody off. So if anybody wants something else to say on this now, then feel free, but we'll circle back when we're gonna recommend. Okay, so page 33 of our packet.

Yes, in E3 wildlife habitat needs assessment, the last sentence of the first paragraph, the shoreline restoration plan for the city, it's dated October, 2011. Is that, Is that the most recent shoreline plan?

That is not the shoreline access or plan, which was developed last year. That's the restoration plan. So that is the current.

Thank you.

Hey, we'll go to 34.

Yes, for F goals and policies. Are these ordered in any sort of way? Like, are they? By priority? Is it just random? By topic. By topic. Not prioritized. Okay, thanks. Is it worthwhile adding a sentence underneath that that says ordered by topic, not by priority, to give some context of why?

We haven't done that with any of other elements of our comp plan. Sounds good.

Hey, I was just curious, just work to acquire key open space properties. Is there a budget line that we would go back to, to, you know, to purchase any of these properties or is it just more maintenance based or if something comes along and it's the right fit kind of thing?

It's all of the above. There's a lot of consideration. So we have to have budget. That budget comes through implementing our park impact fees and the levels of service standards. It's a, A challenge, though, because it's often the case where properties become available that you have to take quick action on. And so you draw from other funds. You look for partnerships with other organizations. It's a whole range of factors that you need to consider.

Perfect. Thank you. I just wanted to see how loose that was. Okay.

Page 35. 36. 37, 38, 39.

This one, I just had a question about Torgason. So does this mean just under Torgason phase two improvements, does this mean that we're going to know where field five is? Because right now it goes one through four and then six.

We actually just, we revised it to field five this year.

Okay, I didn't know.

Yeah, but it drove me crazy too. So there's no field six any longer.

All right. Well, good to know.

The coast field where the pump track was used to be.

Got it. That makes sense because all the time I'm like, where is five? I thought maybe it was the grassy area, but thank you. That's neither here nor there, but curious. Okay, page 44. Oh, this one, I was just wondering why we took out the Meadowbrook Farm to Tollgate and the Interpretive Center. Was there a reason that was crossed off?

Yeah, both of those, a lot of the Meadowbrook Farm projects, we really want to engage and update to the Meadowbrook Farm Master Plan to consider broader overall goals for the property, some changed objectives regarding how we're maintaining it and kind of what its purposes are. Really starting to focus more on broader habitat needs than purely recreational needs. So before we put specific projects on our parks capital facilities plan, we wanted to engage that process.

Perfect. Thank you.

Page 41.

Yes. The South Forks and the Qualmy River pedestrian bridge and shoreline access improvements at Shamrock Park. This is just a Leftover from the edit of the location will be either at Shamrock Park off Orchard Drive. And then the or part was crossed out. So I guess eliminate the either in that sentence.

Thank you.

And then I just had a general question regarding, you know, cost estimates for, I guess, any parks project. Are these just the initial costs or does it include projected maintenance costs over the life of the bridge, for example?

No, that is purely development costs, and we can only consider development costs with park impact fees. So maintenance costs are a totally different budget consideration. Okay, thanks.

I was just wondering, with the Riverfront Park and South Fork Snoqualmie, as well as the South Fork Snoqualmie Left Bank Levee Trail, how does this fit in with the tribal concerns with the access to access and the existing i guess i was looking at their concerns i was curious and how you know how some of the bridge additions that we're proposing how what is the concern with the river in those situations you know is it is it during construction that that's a concern is it concerned because you know there's more storm runoff you know because there's more um you know the bridge is not permeable, you know, for all of the rainwater. And I was just wondering, does this fit within what their concerns are? And then how do we address some of those concerns?

Yeah. So those are all like project specific environmental concerns. And so with any of these projects, they'll have their own individual review processes. So that'll be public notification about the project that's coming. It'll include review against our floodplain regulations, our critical area regulations, our stormwater regulations, and our shoreline regulations to ensure compliance with those regulations. And those include specific standards about vegetation, protecting critical areas and their buffers, et cetera. So through that process, we'd get more into the weeds about what are the impacts and what are mitigation measures to address those impacts.

And I'll just add to that too. I mean, what you're getting at Mike is the regulatory process for those projects in the cities based off best available science, which is also referenced in the memo back here. So any development to keep that in consideration would follow best available science, which is in the regulations.

Thank you. Yeah. you know, I think that I understand some of the concerns and where, you know, how much is too much and, you know, making sure that our river doesn't become like, you know, the river in Chicago, but like, that's, they're very, we're in a very different place too. So I want to be thoughtful about those concerns, but also realistic. Yeah.

And we do have several policies as well that call our attention to that as we're planning these resources to consider the environmental impacts in terms of how we're proposing the use of the site. So considering habitat restoration, just as much as we provide for shoreline access and like physical improvements.

Perfect. Thank you. Quick question on Mike. Sorry, here on the South Fork Snoqualmie Left Bank Levee Trail. No, I'm sorry. The next one down. Snoqualmie River pedestrian bridge at Shamrock Park. And then the last sentence in that paragraph says location will be either at Shamrock Park off Orchard Drive. And it used to say or at Syview. So should that whole reference to the location in the text there be deleted?

Just the either. So we are just proposing it at Shamrock Park. Okay, good. The 10th Street. Requires a lot more analysis and it doesn't provide as much service to the community, right? So we eliminated that one from here. We did provide that in a new section further down. Future ideas not currently planned.

OK, so the word either then would be deleted.

Great.

Hey, if there's nothing else on page 41, we will go to 42.

Yeah, actually, just what, Mike, you talked about with this Left Bank South Forks and O'Connell River Levee Trail and bridge at Southeast 10th Street. So if the bridge was built at Shamrock Park, why would there be a bridge built off of 10th Street?

Yeah, the idea is continuous trail. So that would enable us to provide a trail that links all the way through the river system. If you just have it at one point, it provides a one point of access across, but providing it at both points allow you to bypass the private property at Old Sideview and then continue along the system. Ah, okay.

You got to hop across the river to get all the way up the river on the trail.

And having two bridges would be very expensive and long-term plan. That's why that one is in the future ideas, not currently planned. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you.

And I guess I'll call attention to Commissioner Fitzgibbon's comments in this H section about alphabetizing the parks.

Yeah, I'm happy to do that.

Thank you.

So go on to page 43. Let's see.

So this next, it is 44, but we're on to a table. Oh, yeah, it is. The number is listed also. I was just wondering, this is more curiosity, how are these decided in Table 5, the six-year major multi-use trail capital improvement plans? How are we deciding which one goes first?

It's a number of factors, just viability. I guess somewhat prioritization, what's important. What works together. with other project considerations, but there's not a hard and fast rule to it.

Okay. So if council said, you know, I'm really passionate about one that we're not doing, then you could move it up.

You could, as long as it's on that six year list.

Got it. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So we're on to page 45.

I had a quick question for you, Mike. Do you, I don't know. So, like, the wayfinding signage planning, was that on there? I can't remember. Was that a project that we identified? Yes.

Yeah, it is. We added that under... Are you talking about there's the kind of broader wayfinding signage?

Yeah, they're both on there. Is that for, like, the planning of it or the implementation? Implementation. Okay. I guess my question then is... We've identified that the Meadowbrook Farm master planning effort is going to be a cost associated with parks. So I'm just wondering where that is identified in this plan.

Yeah, that's not a capital improvement. So I don't know that we'd use park impact fees for that. Okay.

Is that something that would be like just budgeted for in the city's budget, you know, like a planning category? Yeah, yeah, most likely. Okay. All right, thanks.

One very minor that missed earlier for Table 5, the title of it, improvement needs an R. Thank you.

Got it.

And I guess while we're on typos, it looks like on page 45, it's Table 6, but then we had also changed we have two table sixes so there's one on page 44 and one on 45. thank you okay if there's nothing else on page 44 45 then we'll look at the map here on 46 and 47 i mean the maps are just really useful i don't know If anyone has comments on the maps, just speak up. But it looks like we made it through. Are there other thoughts that anybody wants to go back to?

Public facilities with private ownership. What does that mean? Which map are you on? Public map 7.1.

Oh, that is very specific to the cemetery. I think that's the only one that. It's considered public, but privately owned.

I mean, should we just eliminate that?

We could, yeah.

It doesn't. We're not actively planning anything for it. It just bothers me.

That's fine. Yeah, we could eliminate that.

It does seem like those purples are very close in color.

Yes. Yeah, the color of the word is

Not really legible on the trail. Nearby park facilities with public or assumed park. Is your comment just about the color or what?

Color, yeah.

Okay. That's supposed to have color key and urban growth area.

Which, I mean.

Yeah. Yeah, I can ask our GIS consultant to make those colors a little bit more different.

And then it's kind of along the same lines. The park's open space with private ownership. Is there something else we could call that? Like what map are you on? The 7.1. 7.1. Because I know, I mean, like the Wood River tract, I mean, that's caused all kinds of issues, calling it anything public. I mean, it's private open space. Maybe we should call it private open space. Because we, I mean, that's not, doesn't serve the community, the greater community. It's just for that neighborhood. And the same could be said for these other ones.

Do you rename the other one then to public open space? What was your naming suggestion? Private open space?

Just private parks and open space.

You could potentially rename the first one in that.

Yeah, you could do the top one.

It could be public open space. Well, the distinction with the first one and the third one is whether or not it's city-owned.

Yeah, but I also think there's an accessible issue there. It's not really public park space if it's not accessible to the public.

Yeah, I think looking at some of these, just to add on to it, these are like HOA neighborhood parks. Same with Tannerwood Park. I assume that's an HOA park as well that's labeled on here.

No, that's public.

Really?

Yeah.

I want you to tell them Kyle I want to understand your suggestion so I recommend on 7.1 we change the title for the green with no hatch so the first one in the legend we call that public open space and parks or public city open space and parks okay And then on the next one, we say private parks and open space. That's fine.

Okay.

And the third one?

The third one. Nearby? I don't even know what that is. It's just way.

It's non-city. It's nearby public open space. That also could benefit from a different color on the key.

Yeah, maybe like a brown. That'll make the legend. I mean, honestly, I don't necessarily even need that one.

It's not it's also that I think the other version of the map we saw is. That's very impressive. It's like the whole. Mount Sai trail network, like, there's a lot of that color, I believe, in the map where that color is visible. So, I think it is, it's impressive because it shows the show up on the computer.

It's on 7.3 where you can see it very well. But yeah, in our printed copies, the legend is really hard to remove. It didn't print the light yellows and whatnot.

Yeah, okay. I actually don't know where the...

I think the color looks nice on the screen, but it should be reflective of how it would print also so that people can see it.

Copiers run a little low on these puppies.

There's a lot of comments on Shamrock Park, probably worth the label on that one, just if we're doing stuff in the future there.

So which map are you on?

The top one, naming the parks. We've got Syview Community Center, and then I see Shamrock across. It might be nice to label it, since it looks like we might be spending more city efforts there. I'm not sure. Yeah, we could do that.

I'm not sure where Shamrock Park came from. This is like part of cyber, but it's technically never heard of it until this meeting. Yeah, quite a bit. Yeah, it's outside city limits or may won't be. I don't know. I shouldn't. Is it outside city limits and that the city is building a bridge in it?

Oh, we wouldn't until we annexed it. I'm going to mute myself.

Um. One other point on the color coding, just a suggestion for the GIS and then take your expertise. Since the three maps are viewed together, it could be helpful to keep the color consistent for maps that have consistent across the three maps. So for example, that On 7.1, that third item down nearby parks an open space with public or assumed ownership. You can't see the color on the printout. And I was commenting how it's that whole expansive area where the downside trail is. Yes, on 7.3, it's that same area. But on 7.3, it's a dark green color. And on 7.1, it's light. So it could be consistent to have.

They are different categories, though.

Yeah. So maybe then you need. colors for each category or textures. I mean, all three maps are viewed together, so it could be confusing to people. So just a comment for what it's worth, and then I'll defer to the mapping expertise experts. Thank you.

For the 7.1 map, do you think we could enlarge the thing on the bottom that shows what the parks have? Because it's really teeny tiny.

Yeah, good suggestion.

Yeah, we could do that.

And the and the font on the on the table 5.

We briefly go back to table 1 on page 19.

I just want to make sure that Sam's original comment on defining family dot com.

Yes, I will spell that out. Thanks.

Are there more comments or questions on this document?

Some point to. In terms of location or.

OK. My GIS persons are going to kill me over these edits, but.

OK.

I'm going to not want to touch that one just because it could get so time consuming for her to OK, because this is just indicative of. OK.

But it's a worthwhile comment that these maps are an incredible improvement from any prior maps that we have been.

Yeah, and every time that we. Yeah.

Right, they really do look nice. It's just, you know, and the colors are nice. It's just we need to be able to print it and see it and have it clear.

Chris, you look like you're trying to say OK.

Okay. And maybe I can check with you and see if we have similar notes. Some of the things that I wrote down that we need to look at are typos. I think that you've already recorded all of those. I won't go through those, you know, each one. Maps, need, color, labels, you know, just as we just discussed. The table three and table four need to be alphabetized. Table three, if we want to have any recommendation about a level of service, you know, to be reviewed after this document or something with the pool, that could be something that we add on to our motion, you know, approved subject to future level of service review. We have E1 with a clarifying sentence with the date and historical reference and additional services. We have the Table 1 historic number forecast and the land use element forecast. And these are notes, so understand that I'm sure that staff has much better language than just my notes. I think those were the big things. Everything else was like little typos. Are there other thoughts that either Commission remembers that I didn't just mention or that, Mike, that you have that I didn't mention?

There was a policy consideration that Caitlin had suggested that you guys wanted to come back to about, I think that was just about more broadly considering the appropriateness of level of service standards as we update the parks element.

Yeah, I think that was part of what I was on. And maybe there's a bit of a point of order because I suspect we're going into a motion to approve with amendments here. And that one specifically, I'm not entirely sure what the best mechanism is or what authority we as commissions have to try and recommend that there'd be effort put in sooner rather than later into revisiting and assessing those estimates.

Could we just make a recommendation with the caveat that we recommend this is the last time we update this existing document and then the next time of update required by, I don't know, the state or whoever, we actually produce a parks, recreation, open space plan.

That could be a part of your recommendation to the council ultimately.

When is the next time?

It would be our next major comprehensive plan update 2033. I believe that would be.

I personally would love to see this done sooner. I mean, I think most of the labor has been completed by the parties that we're advocating both for against this pool votes recently. I think a lot of numbers will change in the next five years and like we could have a pretty good baseline even today with probably minimal effort just digging up what was already done. But again, I don't know the authority we have as commissions to try and push for this being something prioritized, just to look in and make sure we have the right baseline here that we're looking at.

I think it's our recommendation. So if we want to table this and say, you know, we are not ready to recommend yet, we can wait with that information. We can recommend today, you know, subject to that within whatever reasonable amount of time to revisit it, or we can recommend and say at the next, you know, comprehensive Plan update that we review that I think we have a couple options. But this is this is our recommendation. We're not passing anything. It's the council that will pass it. So.

Well, the pros plan, if you were to do that, would it. Would you try to do it before the next update so that you could just adopt the pros plan as your call plan update for the result in time for adoption?

2033, but it would likely start a year or 2 before that.

Okay. But you'd need to have budget. I mean, you, yeah. Consultant for that. Yeah.

And that would ultimately be a council decision.

She said, yes, he said, or he, she said, no, I worked on the pros plan for Stanwood, Washington and black diamond Washington. So I need a consultant necessarily other than budget for probably some public engagement.

However, a consultant being needed just with staff time being saturated with so many other things, we wouldn't have the time to dive into it to the level that we'd probably need to.

Maybe just a point of clarification for me, even if we do a recommendation to approve with amendments tonight and say we try to get a little more fidelity on these numbers for a baseline, does that have any impact on anything beyond this prior to 2033?

So the levels of service standards that you're adopting go into our park impact fee rate study. So that is an important factor. If you feel like those are inappropriate standards, we should amend those before those get adopted.

That's kind of how I'm feeling as well. I'm wondering if we're basing some of this recommendation off of outdated data.

However, that level of service standard, we are just reflecting a 0.25 need for the pool. And that was... Because we don't have a full need for a pool with being a one per 11,000 population. But we are therefore showing that we do feel like there is need that we want to partner with other organizations for.

And that's the current, based on the current assessment of one pool per 11,000. And so I think what I would challenge, at least in my mind, is, is that an accurate assessment? The one small pool, is that sufficient to support 11,000, a population of 11,000 within North Bend? plus this ancillary group of people within side view.

The level of service standard does not have to be specific, though, to use park impact fees, as long as you are showing need. So developing that an alternative standard wouldn't necessarily do anything in terms of being able to contribute to a broader purpose should council want to do that.

Which may be worthwhile. Yeah, for.

I do agree with you. I feel like pushing it out a number of years that doesn't necessarily serve our community as our community is aging. It would be nice to implement that sooner than later.

I don't know if you guys have looked at the You Should Review Our Pros plan because there's a lot of data on the pool in there. I don't know how much you've been following them. I think The need for the pool is clear. I don't think anyone's arguing that. I think – I just don't think changing the number is ultimately going to affect what we're assessing for impact fees. It's not like we're going to come up with different data that's going to say we need two pools. I mean, one pool – I mean, we couldn't afford two pools, and even in 20 years, I don't think we could. I mean, I – I'm just again, going back to my initial comment, this is a. A very high level tool that they need for justification on. On just making some other decisions, so getting hung up on the, the, the numbers in the level of service, I don't think especially for the pool. Like, it's that's a. That's 1 pool, whether it's serving 10,000 people or 40,000 people, which is our service area. It's still going to be 1 pool.

I think my concern is, as you mentioned, there's a clear demand and need for more than what we currently have. Looking at this document, if this document is being used to help guide decision-making for funding or decisions at the council level, per this document, we... the pool that we have is good enough to support 11,000 people, which we will not reach until 2044. So if this document's purpose is to help guide and inform for decision-making, and I'm strictly using this document, it tells me we're good pool-wise. We don't need another pool until we hit 11,000 people. As you've mentioned, I think we're all feeling that that's not a reality.

Well, the council's not going to make their decision based solely on the level of service standards. So they're going to be considering other factors about the they're hearing from the public what any kind of bond measure might reflect um partnership with other organizations so they'll they'll consider a whole bunch of factors in whether or not to contribute city of north bend park impact fees to a a broader process yeah i i that makes a lot of sense to me i'm sure that that would happen but the what's the intent of

or purpose of this document, if not also to contribute to that decision-making process? If right now we feel that the data being provided by this document is not maybe accurate, is it worth updating?

Well, and I wonder too, even if we recommended this, we could say we recommend this subject to that threshold that one in 11,000 be re-reviewed. I mean, this is a recommendation that we're giving to council and then they can decide at that point oh, do we want to look at this number that we're concerned about, you know, and then, you know, and then possibly go forward with a different level of service plan. But that does put it on the books also. So I think we have a few options with our recommendation.

And these level of service standards are really about developing entirely new facilities that are not there. The pool in this case is a replacement facility. So That's not considered in level of service standards, but it is something that council will consider. So, it's really just about when you need to add an entirely new facility, a new ball field, a new, et cetera, a new pool.

Let me ask a question regarding – help me better understand how changing the level of service would cascade down to the impact fees. extreme situation, we said level of service for an indoor pool is one per one resident. What would be the projected change on the impact fees from something like that?

Yeah, the pool is really such an outlier because it's such a specific singular facility. It's more when you're in like basketball courts and things like that, that there's a more attributable specific cost to developing that in terms of facility and amount of land needed for that facility. So everything else is Pretty well set up to develop the impact fees based on those levels of service standards. But the pool is really an outlier that needs a lot more planning because of the singular nature and variable size and facilities and so forth that you might include with the pool.

Okay, thanks. Um, so let's. Not focus on the pool, just so I can get a better understanding of the level of service and its impact on impact fees. So what if we said we needed one basketball court for every two people?

Yeah.

I mean, then what happens to the impact fees? I mean, is that something that is because we have this level of service set that then it has to be budgeted to create?

No, it's ultimately up to council to budget how much they want to make that impact fee rate set at. they have the authority to go all the way up to the top of what the levels of service standards say, but they're not likely to do that. They're likely to say, well, we gotta also consider affordability and so therefore we're gonna set it at 75% of that level or whatever they choose. But the analysis that goes into determining what those impact fees could be are based on those levels of service standards.

Thank you. Thought on the pool, it says current supply one. We've talked about how it's not large enough for the community. It has a number of issues. Maybe our current supply is 0.5 or 0.75. And then our future need is one. Or it could be zero. Just thinking outside of the box. The median numbers in this document are very interesting. So for communities of under 20,000 citizens, the average, was it for swimming pools, is 8,637 people per one pool. The numbers are actually, we're pretty close in a lot of categories, and some were, we have more, which I think is reflective of our community. We have more pickleball courts, we have more playgrounds, but it's an interesting, I don't know if it's worth adding a column even that's like, the reference from this document, like the current reference.

I wouldn't suggest adding comparison, because that's going to change so much over time. And we just need to think about what our residents desire and where we...

It's worth looking at, though, for people interested. There's the whole document from NRPA. But I just contribute my comment about maybe adjusting the current supply of the pool is 0 or 0.5 or negative 1.

I think the pool is, frankly, a whole different animal. I mean, realistically, the city is, even if they're not going to be able to fund it through capital planning, it's going to need multiple partners. So I think we, and I would say we just, again, keep it a vague justification for them to adopt this. And then we revisit the whole thing with an updated gross plan. The pool, I mean, that's going to be a whole other process.

You could also just say one per community rather than one per 11,000. Because I do see your point. If somebody reads this and goes, well, we only have seven.

Right.

And, you know, Mike, to your point, if we put by, you know, by doing this and having the 0.25, it gives the opportunity for parking. In fact, he's. to help contribute to that kind of shared project in the future.

And I can add some kind of note as well that existing pool is structurally and functionally deficient.

Yeah. Under the, you know, the current supply one, the little asterisk, the things you just mentioned, you can even cite the survey or the...

Built in 1939, Forest City, with 922 residents.

So you could cite those kind of metrics, and I think that would help alleviate some of Chris's concerns.

With how many people? Each commission provided a recommendation.

Yeah.

Your recommendation is that we do separate? Is that what you said? I'm sorry. Okay.

I think we should follow staff. Yeah, I think that's great.

The council. I'll second that.

Let me just restate that for the record just to make sure your motion is what you wish. So recommendation of approval by the Parks Commission subject to the amendments provided tonight. and with a recommendation that the next time that we update the parks element, we do a comprehensive PROS plan and not just purely amendments to the existing. Okay.

Future updates will be reflected in a formal PROS plan. Simplifying statement. I think that's the answer.

Say that again.

That future park elements update updates include a parks and recreation and open plan section.

Okay.

It doesn't put them in a timeline.

No, but I mean, it sounds like there's a level of efficiency.

Yes.

A couple years before. Yeah. And then all they had to do for the call plan update was adopt.

I have a point of order. And I don't know if I can make that because this is only for the Parks Commission that have motioned it. Can I do that?

Yeah, let's let them vote on it and then we can. Great. I think we should let you make, you know, you made a motion.

If your point of order is to assist them with their motion, I think that's fair game.

I mean, it may. I have a question for the same motion that I'm sure is coming on our end. One is just to confirm what we have laid out in here currently, like Well, we talked about the pool. So he's a pool as an example, that 11,000 for one pool. What do we know what that's based on? Like, could we say what that was originally coming from?

I don't know, but I'm guessing that was an NRPA recommendation from way back when. Okay.

So again, and stop me if this is not the appropriate time for it, but it seems like it's worthwhile having a comment prior to that table, if not even breaking out the, The pool from the table itself, since it seems like everyone's agreed, it's a very separate entity and to be treated as such, but maybe a comment leading into it saying. Like, these values are outdated.

If we feel that way.

So does that change your emotion?

Well, I mean, I don't know if you guys. On do they have? Yeah, do they have?

Making a recommendation.

So now we'll turn it over to Planning Commission. Do you want to discuss any further before making a motion? And also, I gave a list to Mike of things that we had talked about amending. I did not mention, we talked about it earlier, but Commissioner Fitzgibbon mentioned fixing the consultant language, but that can be in the typo.

I've got that as a part of the edits to make.

Perfect. And the C-section URL. Yeah.

Yeah.

Perfect.

Yeah, I guess I'm now completely hung up on this level of service table. And it seems as though the data being used in it is completely outdated.

I would not say that it's outdated. The Parks Commission and ultimately the council over time has considered amendments to that. several times and adjusted according to community demand demonstrated through the survey information and other public engagement that the Commission has considered.

But the pool, the level of service for the pool we've agreed is outdated, but the other values are not?