Commentary: Let’s take another look at parking for redesigned Civic Field

A lot has changed since 2016 when the Edmonds Civic Park Master plan was approved. This is why we have a city council to represent the people and make needed adjustments to best serve the people and our community. More than 48 private residential Edmonds property owners around Civic Field, together with most businesses in the downtown core, are requesting to add a designated parking lot and/or a “Flex” space lot to the Civic Park Master Plan.

Various local groups have requested that the city prioritize this issue of looking to add additional parking to the downtown area. (The Edmonds Downtown Businesses Alliance asked last fall in person). Seventeen businesses are happy to contribute their time and money to this request. I feel it’s appropriate for the city council to support revisiting the Civic Field Master Plan and open it back up for public input, as consensus is coming to a head.

My architect worked up a simple parking schematic below, using current Edmonds city codes, on a simple square piece of land of a half-acre flat plot (around 5 percent of Civic Field property). That’s essentially the size of the northwest corner of Civic Field, where the planned single seasonal tennis court and small flat grass space is to be located, while not impacting the future expansion footprint of the Boys & Girls Club of around 12,000 square feet located to the south.

The schematic shows that 58 additional parking spaces could easily be created. To put this in perspective, from the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Main Street all the way up to the intersection of 6th and Main Street, there are currently 57 public parking spaces combined. Imagine this, just two short blocks to the north you could add 58 parking spots to the downtown parking capacity bandwidth. I have included many other ideas the “Flex” lot could also support below, that could be great for our community.

It would be ideal to consider shifting the seasonal Petanque Club courts to the northwest corner where the single seasonal tennis court and drain field are currently planned. The petanque courts planned area is taking the most desired southern location in proximity to Main Street and Bell Street (the Summer Farmer’s Market entrance). Most of the petanque courts are part of the two acres that has the deed exemption with some just outside the exemption zone.

The two acres along most of 6th Avenue would in fact allow the parking lot within the confines of grant and deed restrictions that accompany the property. This would be ideal to support the park itself and downtown businesses. If the community is concerned about losing the single seasonal tennis court, you could keep it and shift two of the petanque courts to the northwest corner, freeing up space for an ideal multi-use “Flex” space location.

Justification to revisit Civic Master Plan and allow more public debate

  • More than 80 percent of Edmonds residents live outside the “Bowl” and their taxes help pay for the park upgrade and ongoing maintenance. As they don’t have the luxury to walk and enjoy the new park, they deserve to have the option to hop in their cars and drive themselves and/or others there. Families will at least have a chance to find some parking to enjoy the park and downtown.
  • Back in 2016 when the open houses and online input took place to help determine the Civic Park design, the recent Westgate development was not considered as a factor (2.2 miles away from park), nor was the Highway 99 and 234th planned five-story 193-unit complex taken into consideration (3.2 miles from the park). The Westgate development of 91 units logically will have 100 cars calling this complex their home by late 2019. The 234th Street 193-unit apartment complex will logically have at least another 200 cars calling this complex their home. The Civic Park master plan did not take into account the likely redevelopment of the Highway 99 corridor and high-density mixed-use zone plans, now the top priority in 2019 by the city. I can also mention many other various smaller townhome developments. For example, the 212th “Brackett’s Corner” of 14 townhomes on two parcels of land and such (1.8 miles away from park) and more of these future desired planning and in-process residential developments, are very impactful on parking demands around our city of Edmonds, especially downtown. The fact remains that these new residents of Edmonds will want to visit downtown and enjoy the new amazing multi-faceted park — that is not hard to foresee and anticipate. Although new commercial expansion is rare in our downtown, the “Main Street Commons” offerings will also contribute to more cars visiting the downtown area, with six new restaurant/retail offerings planned, drawing both locals and visitors to our downtown.
  • With no other place to go, premium downtown business public street parking spaces will now be occupied by users of the newly updated Civic Park and its amenities, due to the park’s proximity to the downtown business corridor (page 15 of master plan — see above). This will have a very large negative impact that will grow stronger as population demands continue over the coming years. Our many downtown local businesses that sacrifice a lot to participate in our unique downtown deserve better.
  • The opportunity to establish additional parking located at Civic Field is not only the most cost-effective dollar option the City of Edmonds may ever have, considering it’s a flat piece of land in the heart of our town, but the fact that construction is already starting to break ground, makes addressing this opportunity even more urgent. The recent comments by Sound Transit leadership quoted this year in a My Edmonds News article, “that structured parking was very expensive and that $40 million allocated for Edmonds & Mukilteo sites wouldn’t go very far in providing that” — regarding constructing a parking garage down at our train station — should reverberate concern among our leadership. Someday our community will have to spend millions of dollars to meet population growth and build additional parking facilities. Adding parking at Civic Field is not formally planned, as only redesigning already public street parking to angle parking (adding parking to the peripheral which then may take away a lane of traffic access or parking across the street), increasing parking permit costs, and installing community bikes are all current possible options. But those will not even come close to solving the massive parking challenge already occurring. The cost of a creating a simple ground level paved parking lot “Flex” space at the Civic Field site dwarfs what our community will pay in the future, and those future finite public funds saved by making smart decisions today, could be better allocated for more serious concerns in the future, such as the Edmonds Marsh restoration, to name just one.
  • A pervious paving system reduces stormwater runoff and is a very attractive alternative to a traditional paved parking lot, great for assimilating into a park environment.

There are multiple uses for our community by considering this change

A  half acre is 21,780 square feet. If it is a square, the sides would be approximately 104 feet long. Think of as a Flex-Use of 5 percent of the park, which could include:

  • A small community seasonal ice-skating rink could be used at 50 feet by 100 feet, as shown below.
  • Hosting some amazing community events.

Multiple businesses could help pay for a few weeks a year to set something like this. Local Windermere Agent Adam Cobb and I have already offered to sponsor the cost of the first year rental within a reasonable expense. Imagine the excitement from our community if we used the park for a holiday-type village for a few weeks in the winter for locals and visitors to support our town. Expanding on Economic Director Patrick Doherty’s idea of a Saturday Winter Market.

What other seaside town has an 8-acre park in the middle of it to draw visitors and locals alike, but the ones who visit need to be able to reasonably expect to find parking nearby or they will not stay or participate in any activities or events held there. There also needs to be ADA access to the park as well, especially if the new ADA playground is added, which this parking lot would easily and safely accommodate.

Employee parking use during off peak season and hours supporting the Neighborhood, Community & Business District

One concern is nobody wants to see an empty parking lot during the off-peak hours and low-usage times of the year.

Well, with the Civic Park’s close proximity within walking distance of a five-minute walk down to 2nd Avenue (see the Civic Master plan above), makes it a perfect space to allow local businesses a place for their employees to park. Using just a portion of the 58 parking spaces as an example, with a permit required for certain times of the year for a small fee, say Monday-Thursday 6 a.m.-4 p.m., would help alleviate some of the local neighborhood frustration of having many employees parking their cars for long durations of times and clogging up their neighborhoods and, as previously mentioned, freeing up premium business/retail parking spaces in our downtown core for people who want to spend their time in our town.

Food Truck Event Space

As Councilperson Neil Tibbott mentioned, using the parking lot as a food truck event space from time to time, is a fantastic idea.

I could imagine 8-10 or maybe even more food trucks utilizing this space for such events as our 4th of July celebration, or perhaps complimenting future music concerts at Civic Field, among other fun community-inspired events. Proceeds could all benefit Edmonds Parks and Recreation or perhaps such great causes like the Edmond Marsh revitalization fund or the ECA. Neil made a great point about wiring the parking lot for 120 volts stations to host local food trucks. These are the opportunities we have when an eight-acre park is getting a total makeover. Due to impervious area restrictions I have been informed this park will not allow food trucks to park directly on the park? If this is true, a big opportunity will be missed as already residents and visitors have been drawn to the park every year with the Taste Edmonds event, a large community and money-making event for our chamber. What a shame if we lose this opportunity.

Farmer’s Market current support and future expansion/when parking lots have no more community value

The parking lot could also be used to host more parking for our visitors to our summer Farmer’s Market and eventually use the planned promenade (permanent shed system for year-round farmer’s market is in the future, I hear?) allowing for an expansion of the Summer Market to continue from Bell Street up to Civic Field ending at the multi-use parking lot. Last summer, my family visited the Freeland Farmer’s Market on Whidbey Island, and they have about a 60-car capacity parking lot directly across the street. If they did not have that available, I would not have stopped and spent money and supported local small farmers and small businesses in that community.

If 10-15 years from now, parking lots are a thing of the past, like many in the leadership believe, we can convert this space to a year-round Farmers Market and event space shed system, as other cities have created.

The neighborhood group surrounding Civic Field has organized and expanded, and has created a petition for locals and businesses to sign, asking council to revisit the schematic plans of Civic Field up for review in April.

Let’s allow more public debate and thought to include designated parking of some sort.

Attend the Friends, Businesses &  Neighbors open house meeting this Friday, March 29 at 6 p.m. at the Edmonds Senior Center, Library room, 220 Railroad Ave., to discuss parking concerns. Petitions are available to sign, provided by the neighborhood.

Please voice your support for council to revisit Civic plans at council@edmondswa.gov 

— By Michael McMurray

 

 

 

80 Replies to “Commentary: Let’s take another look at parking for redesigned Civic Field”

  1. Great idea…..It is about time parking in Downtown Edmonds is finally going to be possible. I have lived in Edmonds for 50 years, and rarely can find a parking place when I want to shop the local merchants. Frankly, I do not know how our shoes survive! Between all the restaurants and the theater, all parking places for blocks are taken. There is virtually no place to park so we go elsewhere, but prefer to shop the local merchants. Please provide downtown parking ASAP! It is way past time to just “talk about the parking problem” but to provide parking for all of us!

    Ignored

  2. Certainly seems like a good plan for much needed additional parking for all the various business and activities in downtown Edmonds. Thank You Michael for your thoughtfulness to the community.

    Ignored

  3. This is great, I love proposals based on common sense and supporting data! Our town needs lots more of this thoughtful, data-driven planning and foresight.

    Ignored

  4. Parking is getting worse in Edmonds, there’ll be no reprieve in the future. Aside from that, we’ll have a park that only immediate residents are able to use unless people bus or Uber to downtown Edmonds. Yes, they are planning a parking study in the future, but that will be shutting the barn door after the cows are out. We have a perfect opportunity right here and now, lets use it.

    Ignored

  5. With the upcoming changes to Civic Field, will the Edmonds Arts Festival artists be impacted? They have been parking there and being shuttled up to the Frances Anderson Center. Will artist parking move to the parking lot at EWHS?

    Ignored

  6. I agree that the added parking should indeed be provided. This is a great and logical idea …except for the 25 by 50 foot skating rink. That seems too small to accommodate more than a handful of people at a time and might end up feeling like a “tourist trap” to people who arrive with their kids to find it too crowded or too small to use. The rendering shows a rink that is much larger. I’d suggest dropping the rendering of a large rink to illustrate the tiny rink idea.

    The Bellevue seasonal rink is 58 feet wide by 156 feet long and is covered…if Edmonds allowed an adequately large holiday rink more able to accommodate a crowd, where would everybody park?

    The outdoor rink in Winthrop is a good example of a popular, well designed and well managed seasonal outdoor rink. It is very popular for weekend tournaments, bringing tourists to town all winter. However, Winthrop has a different climate than Edmonds and they spent big bucks constructing a permanent facility. If Parks wanted to consider (in some future decade) a covered outdoor full sized rink, many users would enjoy it but it would be expensive to operate. Leavenworth was considering a smaller rink about 5-10 years ago but seems to have dropped the idea.

    Also FYI, here is a write up of competing holiday ice rinks in the area:
    http://redtri.com/seattle/seattle-area-ice-skating/slide/1

    Ignored

    1. That author asked that I correct the ice rink dimensions to 50 x 100 as that is what he intended to say.

      Ignored

    2. The author asked that I correct the ice rink dimensions to 50 x 100 as that is what he intended to say.

      Ignored

  7. I strongly disagree with Mr. McMurray and do not want see the aesthetics of the Civic Field redesign ruined by a parking lot.

    The Civic Master Planning Committee, the Planning Board and the City Council spent MONTHS planning the new Civic Field. All seriously considered parking at this site and, after several design iterations, opted to adopt a plan using the existing street and public parking lots that surround the Civic Field. In addition, all of the grants for funding are predicated on the existing master plan. Furthermore, the City is aware of the parking issue downtown and is commissioning a parking study this year, and The Parks Department and the Public Works Department are exploring angle parking on some of the wider streets in and around Civic Field.

    Here is my opinion regarding a few statements in the Commentary:

    “A lot has changed since 2016 when the Edmonds Civic Park Master plan was approved. This is why we have a city council to represent the people and make needed adjustments to best serve the people and our community”. Not much, in my opinion, has changed about downtown parking in the last three years, except for the addition of the nine unit building at Third and Edmonds Streets. The Westgate, Highway 99 and Brackett’s Corner projects do not impact downtown parking and the assertion to the contrary is disingenuous. For example, If I recall correctly, the Main Street Commons proposal removes current parking spaces.

    “More than 48 private residential Edmonds property owners around Civic Field, together with most businesses in the downtown core, are requesting to add a designated parking lot and/or a “Flex” space lot to the Civic Park Master Plan.” I am skeptical and would like to see documented sources to support this statement, especially the “48 private residential property owners”. (Full disclosure, I am a property owner overlooking the Civic Field).

    I, too, realize that there is insufficient parking in downtown Edmonds and would like to find a solution, but I find much of the “Commentary: Let’s take another look at parking for redesigned Civic Field” to be self serving with specious arguments for a redesign of the Civic Field Master Plan.

    Ignored

    1. You suggest the commentary is self-serving, but you only offer opinion and acknowledge that you are “a property owner overlooking the Civic Field” which is as self-serving a reason as any. Whether the facts of the matter come from Mike or someone else, this is an informed commentary on a problem and opportunity.

      Ignored

  8. I think it’s totally appropriate for Mike to bring this up and if we are going to live with this newly designed public space we better get it right. Also competely valid to state that a lot has changed since 2016.
    We all have our “special interests’ and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The lense I approached the Civic Playfield project through was as a multi-sport athletic complex which it is now; albeit in rough shape. The sports constituency is possibly the largest user base that pays for use of the facilities, drives activity rain or shine, days and evenings, and provides continued vibrancy to the downtown core. This included players and spectators that drive business to our retail, provide ongoing maintenance funding for upkeep, and create a positive buzz in our downtown. It also builds community among young and old playing soccer, basketball, petanque, baseball, tennis, running, skateboarding, etc together and alongside one another. I believe this constituency and use wasn’t given its due consideration in the current plan. What is Civic Playfield now will be Civic Center which is not as “active” of a use as what was voted on by participants in the workshops. An attempt was made to satisfy all “special interests” regardless of their size, frequency of use, impact on the economy, or ability to pay for use. My opinion.

    So, this should be a topic that comes up during our City Council elections. What can we do at this point if enough people think it should be revisited. A couple areas to consider.
    1. Parking – should we try to add it? The pervious parking grids shown in Mike’s picture above are used all over the world as a great alternative to impervious asphalt and look much better.

    2. The grant that the City received to help with purchasing the property placed a limit on square feet of impervious space. That grant amount is a relatively low number in comparison to the project cost of the overall project and of the value to the community of this shared asset. We could pay the grant back and do what we want…not advocating a concrete jungle, just more flexibility. The grant terms could possibly be amended.

    3. Synthetic turf fields were not considered because of the crumb rubber controversy and they are considered impervious. In the meantime, you have all of the crumb rubber fields in Shoreline testing cork infill as a reasonable solution and pervious/impervious doesn’t matter if you pay back the State grant.

    4. The Boys and Girls Club is undergoing a challenging phase with their loss of the contract with the public school district. Do they still need the space they have “reserved” and is that still the best use?

    5. Are there now any donors in our midst that would consider donating capital or could a private public partnership be created to plan, build and maintain the space long term to everyone’s benefit.

    I’m not blind to the impact to the neighborhood. I lived on 6th and Bell for 7 years and loved the access to this amazing open space that we now have a wonderful opportunity to revitalize.

    Ignored

  9. Greetings,
    I am supporting asking the City Council to consider adding parking to the Civic Field, However, I have read Barry Ehrlich’s comments and understand what he is saying. I feel part to blame for being in this position because I did not take the time to participate in the first Civic Field planning. I think the problem was that it was residents like Barry Ehrlich and not like me that took part in the decision making. It is easy to understand why Barry Ehrlich who is sitting overlooking the park and not affected by the parking would not want parking, however for the vast majority of residents neighboring the park will not overlook the park and yet will be affected on a daily basis by the parking. I am between 6th & 7th on Maple and already overcome with down town parking and it is getting worse fast.

    As an example of what we can expect in the future is what is happening in just one block downtown, between 5th and 6th on Main.
    1) Kelnero restaurant just opened putting 15 to 20 cars on the street each night.
    2) Across the street the Commons will be a new variable.
    3) The Market Fishmonger & Eatery just added 34 outside seats to its restaurant.
    4) The space next to the Loft has just remolded and waiting for a tenant. What would you bet it will be a restaurant?
    Pretty soon every day and night will be like Saturday Market, the Arts Festival and the Taste.
    The City is planning a parking study, but from what I have heard the only viable solution is a parking garage and I have been told there is no money for such a major expense.
    All we are asking is for a reconsideration. I believe that most of the neighbors are in the same position as myself. I did not see any need to get involved in the City building a beautiful new park but did not realize the Civic Park would not be providing parking as the City park does. Yes, we are self-serving as is Barry Ehrlich.
    Let’s see how many sign this petition and that will give the City Council some idea on whether on proceed. I do not know who the 48 private residential property owners are, but I do know that I have 22 signatures of residents mostly from one block on Maple and I would be happy to make them available for review.
    I hope that anyone that is interested will come to the meeting Friday. You can also email me a petition, or I can email you a copy which you could sign and email back or I would be happy to come by to pick it up. Email: simpson.scot@gmail.com)
    It’s an Edmonds Kind of Issue
    Scot

    Ignored

  10. Lack of parking in the downtown core has been the number one issue of concern for local businesses for the six years that I have had my store at fourth and Main. I am encouraged by this addition of parking to civic Field. I think this is a wonderful idea!

    Ignored

  11. Hum. The Boys and Girls club just held their grand opening of their newest club in mukilteo. Around a 25,000 sq ft facility like the rest of their new buildings across the county. The faulty Edmonds plan leases them a 12,0000 sq ft pad on which a7000sq ft gym (with corresponding high ceilings to facilitate typical usage) will highlight the project. In a zone with 25 ft height limit. New building will have to be inferior to standard B&GC plans. And now a question to eliminate them from the plan? Someone needs to ask the question of how the city finally got off the dime and even considered buying the land from the school district in the first place. And are the city fathers (and mothers) giving the kids of Edmonds a fair shake.

    Ignored

  12. Parking DT is an increasingly difficult issue. So many competing uses: business customers, business employees, DT residents, and ferry, train, bus users. Some live DT, some live in Edmonds and others are visitors. While all sorts of statements can be made about favoring one class over another here is what we do today. One can park free for 3 hours without a handicap permit, longer with a permit. Employees can park near DT for $50/year and Residents can park DT for $25/year. Residents can also buy a $10/year permit allowing their guests to park for with out the fear of 3 hour enforcement. We have about 500 permits issued for employee parking and about 500 permits issued for resident parking. Lots near the ferry go for around $10 plus/day and train parking is paid by Sound Transit for around $7 plus per day.

    Building a garage cost about $40,000/stall to construct and for the new underground parking at the Westgate development it was said to cost $49,000/stall for the 39 stalls placed underground. A 100 stall garage would cost $3m and the revenue requirement to pay for the garage over 20 years would be about $10/day/stall. Employee permits are about $.25/day and residential permits are about $.07/day.

    Most other busy areas use a pricing model to allocate space and to provide for needed revenue to pay for the overall cost of parking. It is hard to see that our current pricing for space is enough to generate the funds needed to build even a 100 stall garage. Are Edmonds households willing to pay $150 each to build a garage? Generally we want the “other guy” to pay for it.

    When we look at our venues for events that require parking the list would include: Performing Arts Center, Civic Park, DT, Ferry, Train and Bus, and the Waterfront. Based on these requirements we may need two parking facilities, Waterfront area and near DT but on the near north side to serve PAC and Civic Park. The Port has space across from Arnies and the only city owned facilities near DT is City Hall and the Police/City Council facilities. The Economic Development Commission recommended to Council to review the use of City owned properties to see what if anything could be done to move and consolidate in other locations. The Council was not willing to even give that recommendation a second thought.

    Bottom line is unless we are willing to find a way to add to our parking inventory we will let this issue get bigger and bigger. Maybe the city parking study will give us some added insights on other solutions.

    Ignored

  13. Thanks Mike for your time and efforts on the parking issue. I’m sure the parking study will find that we need additional parking for Downtown Edmonds. Like others have mentioned with the increasing number of new thriving businesses and new businesses that will be coming
    …the time is now. Let’s not miss this opportunity that is in front of us to add parking to Civic Field.

    Ignored

  14. http://www.edmondswa.gov/summer/1497-amended-parking-regulations-in-downtown-edmonds.html

    “In May, the City Council adopted two ordinances that update the City Code with revisions that work to free-up more parking spaces and clarify the use of residential parking permits.

    If you intend to park in the three-hour zone, Ordinance No. 3884 advises that you can park your car for three hours only within any 12-hour period within the same block, on either side of the street. Or in other words, if you’re going to move your car after three hours, you must park it in a different block. It is now a parking violation if you re-park your car in the same block, even if it’s on the other side of the street.

    Ordinance No. 3885 describes permitted parking in the three residential-parking zones. If you are a qualified resident with insufficient off-street parking, you may submit a notarized permit application for a residential parking permit. If approved, your permit is valid only in the designated zone where you live. Permits, which will now be displayed on the outside of your rear window, are valid only for the vehicle they are issued, and no more than three permits will be issued to any one residence. A $10 prepayment is required for each permit. Visitor’s permits are also available. Violation of any residential-parking provisions is a misdemeanor.

    Parking in downtown Edmonds is a concern that is frequently evaluated as the City strives to find parking solutions that address and meet multiple types of parking needs. For further detail, please review the ordinances, or contact the City Clerk’s Office at 425-775-2525. “

    Ignored

    1. It’s a wonderful message for our locals and visitors, come enjoy our town for 3 hours then leave, because we don’t want to increase parking capacity and address the issue honestly, keep doing your expensive studies and wasting our tax dollars. One of my friends received a parking ticket this week $40, use to be $25, he had a meeting with me, and then moved his car down the same street an enjoyed our downtown took in lunch. He over stayed his 3 hour limit. Supporting my small business and spending money in our downtown supporting other small businesses. I doubt he will come back into Edmond’s or at least stay and have lunch again. Way to go City tracking peoples movement all over are small town with new software and issuing expensive parking tickets, sends a great message to visitor’s and local’s, well done! The 6 Petanque courts in the heart of our town is a way better plan, got it!

      Ignored

      1. Did you read the comment right above yours? It addresses the parking ordinances.

        “If you intend to park in the three-hour zone, Ordinance No. 3884 advises that you can park your car for three hours only within any 12-hour period within the same block, on either side of the street. Or in other words, if you’re going to move your car after three hours, you must park it in a different block. It is now a parking violation if you re-park your car in the same block, even if it’s on the other side of the street.”

        Ignored

        1. Yes, how are visitors and local people suppose to know this information? After they get there first $40 ticket? When I take my family to the Edmond’s Theater and lunch, I guess I can leave halfway through the movie to move my car across the street. I appreciate the information Melissa, not blaming you for not well thought out Ordinances and parking fee schemes. It’s a net negative for our town and visitor’s impression of Edmond’s. Having 3 hour limit is acceptable on Main Street expanding it to every corner of our town is quite something else, Not to mention the $40 price point Wow Seattle levels, why not make it $500 make sure people don’t return and that should really solve the parking issues.

          Ignored

  15. My first reaction when I saw the attractive design for Mike’s common was “Beautiful, but what about the loss of parking?” I totally agree that we need more parking in Edmonds, it’s just ironic to me that the person asking for it now from another property is one who eliminated it from his own property. It seems to me that what Edmonds needs it a rezoning of the business district that requires parking for new development and no-net-parking loss for redevelopment.

    Ignored

  16. While I’m in total agreement with you on this subject, we can only go forward. With this in mind, we need to stay on top of City Council regarding new construction being responsible for providing parking for their businesses while preserving residential parking.
    Please attend our meeting and share your ideas on these matters.
    Thank you for your interest!
    Julie Stuller

    Ignored

  17. I agree with Michael McMurray that downtown parking is an ongoing issue, though not a new one. However, I’m not in agreement with the idea that the City should revisit the design for Civic Park, particularly in light of the fact that the Edmonds Public Works Department is planning a parking study that will address many different alternatives for improving parking in downtown Edmonds. It seems like the idea of putting a parking lot in Civic Park without considering all parking alternatives within the City is putting the cart before the horse.

    Many urban cities have discovered that it is not cost-effective to take a piecemeal approach to urban parking issues. Mr. McMurray’s proposal to modify the Civic Park design and locate a half-acre parking lot on the west end of the park is an example of such an approach. I believe that parking solutions for Edmonds should be identified in the overall context of city-wide growth objectives, with an eye towards maintaining a good balance among business needs, the integrity of neighborhoods, and green space. We want downtown businesses to thrive, yet we would like Edmonds to have a small town feel with adequate green space. Thus the need for a comprehensive, city-wide parking solution, not a piecemeal plan.

    I try to imagine the conversation that might take place if Mr. McMurray proposed that the City buy up the parking lot of a private business or a church in the downtown Edmonds area to help alleviate parking congestion. I think it would be a very short conversation. Civic Park is a public entity, and the public has vested an enormous amount of time, energy and money into planning what many consider the “crown jewel” of parks in the city’s public park system.

    The design for Civic Park was approved by the Edmonds City Council in March 2017 (not 2016) after more than a year of planning and public commentary. The public process did include parking considerations, and it was visible for all to participate in: notice of public meetings in the newspapers, contractor updates to the City Council at public meetings, and so forth.

    To date, a great deal of money has been invested in the planning and design for Civic Park. Grant money from public and private sources has been awarded to the City to develop Civic Park based on the design the City Council approved just two years ago this month. I think any prudent business person would agree that it would be detrimental to ignore public and grant investor confidence in the City-approved plan and pour more money into engineering it anew.

    I would urge the City Council to focus on a comprehensive plan and a budget to address the downtown parking issue as a whole. It’s way beyond the time to tinker with the well-thought out plan for Civic Park that already addressed parking and traffic issues around the park and was approved by the public and the City Council.

    Patricia Woodell

    Ignored

  18. we. need. parking. That simple. I live in town, own a business in town and try to do all I can to support business in Edmonds. Before investing in creating new attractions, a parking plan to accommodate new visitors should be in place. Please don’t build Civic Field unless we have a parking plan.

    Ignored

  19. Bottom line – how about just telling your visitors that parking is enforced in downtown? If I know I’m going to be longer than 3 hours, I park on a street that isn’t marked 3 hour parking.
    The parking lot by the library/Frances Anderson Center hasn’t been 3 hour parking for several years. I don’t think it’s marked 3 hour parking between Dayton and Walnut along 6th or 7th.
    Yes, there have been times when there hasn’t been parking close to my destination and I’ve changed my plans. That wasn’t the case today. My bf and I went to El Puerto for lunch today and I found parking at 5th and Bell.
    So, if you’re mobile and don’t mind a short walk, there are parking options if you know where to look for them.

    Ignored

  20. Lack of ANTICIPATING the FUTURE growth and planning properly, and being satisfied that all is well today, so it must be well tomorrow is part of the misstep by past and current leadership as it relates to parking. The fact that there is an elevated train system being constructed North along I-5, should be obvious that there is a massive wave of growth coming our way. 40% I hear is the number within 10 years. My example of the Westgate 91 unit building nearing completion and the planned 234th 193 units with a two story parking garage to house its tenants cars, is in the permit process now. Those two examples alone are an additional 300 cars. I hear 6th & 7th streets will have 3 hour parking soon as well so expanding the quick walk with my 6 year old keeps getting pushed out further and further. I would prefer to hang in Edmond’s as long as I like and not be dictated by 3 hour limits like some Sci-fy movie and playing musical chairs with my car all afternoon. Local government restricting my experience of public spaces because of parking limits or lack of designated parking area is really not nice and frankly selfish and apparently self serving with increased parking fees and expanding 3 hour zones for me to try to enjoy these spaces. Using Ballard as an example driving around aimlessly looking for parking, I stopped traveling there to shop and eat out once the experience was no longer pleasing and was more frustrating and annoying, I am sure I am not alone. Hope to see many of you at the meeting tonight!

    Ignored

    1. Before you put forth more uninformed condemnations of the 3-hour parking zones, I suggest that you contact the city’s transportation engineer (Bertrand Hauss) to learn the reasons for their existence – revenue for the city is not one of those reasons.

      Ignored

      1. If that’s true they should have no problem reducing them back to $25 dollars then. I will give them a call! Being a former city council person you would know many people in the government thank you Mr. Wambolt for his contact!

        Ignored

  21. And the beat goes on. I’m curious to know where you were, Mr. McMurray, when all this Civic Field business was being worked out and messaged in the public domain so recently? I’m curious to know; as an infrequent and poorly skilled, but dues paying Petanque player, why your need for parking stalls for your business interest, takes precedence over my interest? I’m curious to know whether or not you realize that Petanque brings many people to the city from elsewhere during tournaments and these people spend money in town? Using your viewpoint, maybe we should just turn the whole “she-bang” into a parking lot and forget the park business. I’m curious to know why we don’t let the parking study take place and figure out how to put parking places in a more appropriate place. The solution is in the works. You are just trying to get your needs put ahead of the solution, in my opinion. Everyday I thank God I got to live in Edmonds when it really was just a sleepy little village by the sea. I’m afraid that ship has sailed folks.

    Ignored

  22. Though I’m not Mike McMurray, I would like to respond to this. I was busy with my life thinking whatever activities people choose for the park will be great, I wasn’t worried. My surprise was that the city planner and council wouldn’t and didn’t have parking as a necessity to the original plan. My mistake.
    Thank you.
    Show quoted

    Ignored

  23. City council meetings and planning meetings are generally open to the public and the Civic Field project was well publicized in all the local media as it was developed. Nothing was a secret. There was quite a bit of controversy over what should go where, etc. The time to discuss parking there is long past. My understanding is that a planning study on the DT parking problem is currently in the works with the planning board. Since you made a mistake the last time around, I suggest you get active in that discussion instead trying to re-hash what has already been decided with little or no push back on the installation of parking (or not) until it became advantageous to an individual or several individuals to have one. I live close enough to downtown that I’m impacted every time there is an event such as the Art Festival and the Taste of Edmonds, and development of Civic Field will cause me more impact. Not a problem, as far as I’m concerned, because I park my stuff on my ample lawn and encourage visitors to the events to park along the roadway near my house. That’s my little answer to the parking problem in Edmonds. Park space is precious. Paving it isn’t the answer.

    Ignored

  24. I encourage the city to revisit a parking solution at the reimagined Civic Field.

    It’s incredible that parking was not originally considered for an in-town venue designed to attract large numbers of people to its core. With all the activities planned, it was truly an oversight.

    But it’s not too late.

    The cost of this “change order” will pale in comparison to the loss of vibrancy our town will
    suffer if we allow ourselves to be so shortsighted. There is so much impacting our Edmonds quality of life, much that we can’t control (increasing noise polution from the expanding use of Paine Field, more trains, less trees, etc). Let’s be smart. THIS is within our control.

    Whether a lot or several levels, we should reframe this solution as a revenue opportunity in itself, in addition to attracting more downtown business and event visitors.

    Let’s address it in an Edmonds Kind of Way – as a chance to reinforce our new arts designation by designing something fun and interesting that visually enhances the area.

    Think outside of the concrete box. Imagine parking inside a landscaped berm, on a terraced “ship” or inside an Orca.

    Regardless of its form, it’s imperative we invest in a parking solution that will keep Edmonds vital for everyone – businesses, residents and visitors alike.

    Ignored

  25. All this talk about parking reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote- “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

    Ignored

  26. I have a real problem with Mr. McMurray pushing for the taxpayers to pay for additional parking downtown when he is taking parking away at his proposed Main St. Commons. I asked Mr. McMurray about parking when I saw the plans for the Main St. Commons as there was little to parking shown. He will be taking away the parking lot that was used for customers of the building’s tenants (Next to Nature and Ombu Salon). He responded that the City didn’t require more parking than he proposed and it costs about $30,000 per space and he didn’t want to have to pay for it. He is proposing to leave only about 10-12 parking spaces, meanwhile increasing the activities in the area. And now he’s pushing for the City (aka the taxpayers) to pay for parking?

    To me, the change should be to the City code that currently requires minimal parking for businesses and residents. Why should the taxpayer pay for this parking?

    Ignored

  27. Right on Tina. There you have what it’s all about in an extremely well written and short to the point comment. You will notice that Mr. McMurray hasn’t personally responded to my curiosity questions presented in my earlier comment. You fellow tax payer folks out there might want to ask yourselves why he hasn’t personally responded. He is the person behind this demand for a “do over” as I understand it. He is the man behind the petition drive as I presently understand it. Mr. McMurray, please correct me if I’m wrong about this. I’m anxious to hear your further thoughts. The so called”ice rink” amenity is an attempt to suck the general public into supporting this scheme, in my opinion. What’s going to get more use and be of more benefit to the community, an ice rink or the already well established Petanque Courts? I strongly urge the Mayor and City Council to ignore this petition drive and stand by decisions made. My coming vote goes only to people who oppose this nonsense and my future business does not go to Mr. McMurray, if he continues with this self serving attempt to re-write the script. My hope is there are lots of other taxpayer folks out there who feel the same way.

    Ignored

  28. I can see your point at first glance! The reality is the property is nearly 70 years old.
    In its current state of existence the property does not attract tenants or would allow occupancy of different type of tenants that would yield enough rents to even pay the property tax and insurance (60% increase this year) and justify the expensive cost of updating the building to current codes.
    The decision on the property has to be tear it down or renovate it? I feel the building is a piece of Edmonds History along with its original owners daughter. Places have meaning in our town, because our town is special and so are the people that live here. So the decision has been made to renovate the space. The parking lot must also be used to pencils out financially and to at least pay for its transformation. If the parking was required in BD1 zone restaurants such as Salt & Iron, Mar-ket, and many new offerings recently would not be a reality. Our entire Main Street would be condos and apartments over time due to the high demand and profitable nature of residential development. If the decision is to scrape the building and start with a clean 1/2 acre of property on Main Street, the decision would have to be condos/ apartments with underground private parking for there residences. I’m guessing 30-60 units could go in this property housing +60 cars maybe more, coming and going on the corner of 6th & Main all the time just my guess. The fact that I am including parking even though I’m not required to, should help prove to you I am sensitive to the parking impact of development in our town, unlike the developer on 9th who could have easily put parking at the base of his units, but choose not to! If you where able to attend the parking meeting I discussed other options as well for this property. I am open too ideas that make financial and community sense. The fact that Seattle is the fastest growing city in the United State with 56 people moving there a day or estimated 20,000 a year should cause concerns about our 18 square mile small town within 15 miles away. Since the 2016 open houses for civic park plan took place there has been more people moved to Seattle than live in Edmonds itself. So the idea that we don’t need to include designated parking on top of the planned leaderships massive up zoning plans is remarkable. The people who have confidence that the city will figure this out, should be aware the city has no money for any parking garages or to acquire property, they even had to reduce the parking study allocation funds itself. The city takes in around 100 million and spends about that, they HAVE VERY LITTLE extra funds and resources for parking. The major capital expenditures future funds are committed to large scale projects like Senior Center, Civic Field, and now financially on the hook for planned connector, not to mention are all under funded and will very easily be over budget. The tDayton Street project of $9 million that I’m guessing will be over budget as well, such is development not blaming the city or there hard working employees we are lucky to have so many talented directors and employees in our town. The idea we can do a study and implement parking ideas is futile and not a priority and not a financial reality. Governments have been doing studies kicking cans down the road since there existence. My proposal is a simple example of a cost effective realistic option if it cost $1 million to add an environmentally friendly pervious paver system parking area, that would only be $17k a stall at 58 parking spaces! And is within the financial realm of city affordability and a real option. It’s an idea worth considering it’s 5% of park space. I appreciate all the peoples post on my opinion write up, even Mr. Wright’s over dramatic idea that I want to basically turn civic field into Alderwood mall Parking lot more or less. We all just care and our passionate about our town, let’s make some smart decisions in this once in a 100 year population explosion. Otherwise we are going to be looking like Ballard pretty quickly. Everybody enjoy this weather it’s amazing!

    Ignored

  29. The park should include parking because many people from outside the bowl are (1) taxpayers paying for it and (2) will drive to the new park, further clogging downtown parking unless the park can accommodate them with off street parking. Attacking Mr. McMurray’s motives is not going to solve the future parking problem created by the current park design. FYI there are others in Edmonds who agree with his idea.

    Speaking for myself only, I am sensing a NIMBY attitude from some of the commenters…as if those of who live distant from the park and therefore did not attend the public meetings or pay much attention to the design (why would we, if we live miles away from the park?) are being unreasonable by suggesting that the design should be modified. Speaking again for myself, I had trusted the professionals at the Parks, Planning and Public Works departments to include essential components like parking in the park plan. My mind is still boggled that they left out off street parking for this otherwise impressive upgrade of the park.

    Ignored

  30. Civic Park Parking
    I did not understand how the City could have spent all the time and money on creating a master plan for the civic park with out providing parking, so I decided to read the master plan and see if I could learn anything.
    What I learned was that there was an apparent prejudice against providing parking, whether it was intentional or not it did exist. It was first illustrated by the list that the City prepared for the first open house. This list (page 24) “Potential New Uses” included 30 items. Parking was not one of them. I do not know why the person that created this list did not include parking, but it would have a prejudicial effect on the selections of those viewing the list.
    The second illustration of prejudice against parking is page 29, the list of activities that the citizens had to use to place pins indicating their selection. Again parking was not included.
    Parking was mentioned on page 55. It states that the design team rejected back-in angle parking for safety reasons and then they kicked the can on down the road by suggesting a parking study, apparently indicating that there were parking concerns for the civic park but they did not want to deal with them.
    In the plan I did not see where there were any parking needs studies or estimates.
    After reading the Plan I got the feeling that City did what it thought was best by giving the citizens the choice but did not consider the fact that it was like turning a kid lose in a candy store. Green fields, petanque courts, soccer, shade trees, all the good stuff, but where is the parent in the room that thinks about the consequence of a sugar high.
    One other point that I got from the Plan was the relationship of the people supporting park activities to people supporting parking. At the first open house there were141 attended (page 28) and another 180 voted online for the activities (parking not included) for a total of 321. Page 29 of the Plan shows that there were 1,063 activities selected meaning each citizen selected 3.31 items. The highest priority on the list was restrooms with 77 votes. Because each citizen voted 3.31 times we need to divide 77 by 3.31 to get a single vote equivalent which equals 27 votes. I figure this out to compare it to the citizens with a single vote for parking. I myself to date have seen 60 signatures on the petitions asking the Council to reconsider adding parking. There are more signatures coming.
    Tuesday April 2, if you are interested in telling the Council how you feel, please join others as we give the petitions to the Council.
    I am sure we can resolve this issue in an Edmonds Kind of Way.

    Ignored

  31. Mr. McMurray, I appreciate you finally putting your name and viewpoints on this since it was apparently all your idea in the first place. I notice you don’t answer the question as to where you were at when all this was being decided in the first place. Now you and your fellow petitioners are demanding a do over. You are now blaming the planning board, council and mayor for not doing their due diligence in regards to parking at Civic Field. This was not a closed door process. You are trying to create a movement where none existed, until you needed to replace parking you are eliminating for your economic benefit. Yes I very much do question your motives. You even state you don’t have extra money to provide more parking for your project. How is that my and my fellow tax payers ptoblem? If you can’t afford your project I suggest you revise it or abandon it. There is a very good under utilized bus system in this County that can bring folks from greater Edmonds and beyond almost right to Civic Field. There is another really good option for your property. Maybe that might be the place for a downtown two story parking garage that’s so badly needed. City can exercise eminent domain, pay you market value, and have pay for use parking right downtown, that would also service Civic Field and pay for itself in the process. What do you think, Mayor and City Council? As for Mr. Zipper ‘s NIMBY comment, Civic Field is more or less right in my backyard, although I don’t see it per se. As I said before, I welcome the parking issues it causes me and no I don’t want any part of it to become a parking lot in any way. If that makes me a NIMBY, guilty as charged.

    Ignored

  32. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qIQJlaOHUQw&feature=youtu.be

    I watched the video linked above last night. It is the Civic Park Kickoff meeting of the Council in which the consultant Walker and Massey did a presentation. I noticed that at the bottom of their list of possible items to include was parking in a category of its own. I also heard three council members mention parking in the brief question period. Is it possible that parking was not included in the list of options that the citizens got to choose from because of a clerical error?

    Ignored

  33. I actually love that this is an issue. It wasn’t too long ago that we were combating the image of “Deadmonds” – and now we are addressing perceived capacity issues. One of the great assignments we addressed while I was on the Economic Development Commission was parking – it is still an on-going assignment, of which I believe Darrol Haug to be very knowledgeable on the topic.

    I personally participated in the public meetings addressing the Civic Field topic – I found them to be attended…but not well-attended. It’s the typical, “not important until it affects me NOW.” And now there is a push to re-open the issue. I am not in favor of this.

    Press on. Progress should not be slowed because a few of you were inattentive or procrastinating to get involved. It’s your job to pay attention – stop deflecting responsibility. Imagine if we took this approach in how we taught future leaders, or our military operations. Catering to those who choose to be disengaged – and then being pressured to “do it again” is costly – on many levels.

    As one who used to have an office location in Downtown – and one who continues to frequent downtown, I’ll agree that it can be a challenge to find parking directly in front of the location one wants to visit. BUT…to find parking downtown has not been an issue. There are options. Some do require folks to walk a block or two…but there is parking. And what better way to enjoy the benefits of Edmonds than walking a block or two.

    Mr. McMurray, we’ve not had the pleasure of meeting. But it would seem to me that you want a solution to an issue you are about to contribute to to be funded by taxpayers. Perhaps I’m misreading your intent.

    As a third generation Edmonds resident, I love that we are finding balance between preserving what makes our city a true destination and a thriving community. Parking is a great problem to have and do know that there are existing parking possibilities that would require existing businesses in downtown to consider opening up the general public…but those are a bit slow moving.

    But…to start over…I’m just glad my parents didn’t parent me with sliding deadlines because I wasn’t paying attention.

    Ignored

    1. Mike I appreciate your comment, but I also am a big believer in pivoting when a fatal flaw is found. The best plans need to be adjusted as additional information is obtained. As a military man, I am sure that you can name off hundreds of times when our military pushed on when they should have stopped and changed their plans. It is very interesting that we are building a park where we hope to attract 100’s of people on a daily basis without adding parking. It sounds like you were involved in this process and identified parking as a significant issue. What was the solution to the parking problem that was developed? Obviously, we would not push this development forward without solving the parking problem. I am interested in understanding the solution to this significant problem.

      Ignored

      1. Tom… I’m in favor of pivoting…but how often? There were several opportunities. I’ve not seen the numbers on projected visitors so I can’t speak to what the right number of parking slots would be the solution. Part of what was developed was the parking marks around town and requiring employees to park farther out from the immediate downtown. To Mr.McMurrays points, parking is expensive.

        Ignored

        1. Mike I would pivot until a reasonable solution presents itself. You stated that when you were on the economic development committee one of the great issues was parking. What did you or your committee do to solve this problem? I don’t think I heard what your committee’s solution was. Maybe that is the disconnect.

          If there is a great solution then I would say that we should go full speed ahead with this park. If the solution has not been figured out, then I would say we should stop developing public land until a complex parking solution has been developed.

          Investing in an amazing park, which in theory will draw more people to the area is not helping the parking problem. If 5% of the park can be used to create 58 parking spots that seems like a good use of the space.

          Our city could use several hundred spaces. Underground parking is expensive. If you can incorporate 58 spots into the park and develop other creative solutions then the price is reasonable. Once the park is built, then it is expensive to start over and rip out and redesign the park to add parking.

          I am sure that an architect could include all of the current park features in 95% of the footprint while creating the 58 or more parking spots. No loss of tennis or pétanque courts or other features. Just parking for those that want to visit our city or park. McMurray’s architect already sketched it out.

          Maybe two years ago was the ideal time, but today is better than next year to evaluate this important issue.

          Ignored

  34. Very disappointing comments coming from Mr. Schindler. 1)Apparently Edmonds residents were “inattentive or procrastinating” while Civic Field was being redesigned. Wow pretty big assumption to be made about the residents of Edmonds who, like myself were busy running a business and /or raising a family.
    Whether it be Civic Field, the Connector, the housing strategy or gateway signs most citizens are now very much aware that they need to attend these meetings.
    What they all have in common is that what we were “sold” certainly doesn’t feel like what we are getting. A park with no parking just doesn’t seem like a good idea for the ENTIRE city of Edmonds.
    2) I find it a bit odd that your message is “stay the course” when Mr.McMurray is making the case that conditions have changed on the ground. I am not a military veteran but a student of history and one of the greatest things about the U.S. military of any branch is it’s flexibility to adapt to conditions on the ground when necessary.
    3) Lastly, many seem to be “pig piling” on Mr. McMurray, (whom I have gotten to know thru this process) as driven by his own personal gain with his “Main Street Commons” development as the sole motivation for pursuing more parking at Civic. Yes, the project will benefit with more parking but the entire city and every business in the downtown core that has minimum to no parking required (restaurants, retail shops, Starbucks, movie theater to name a few) will benefit from more parking and I would certainly hope that most residents would look forward to an additional downtown gathering place for families with the “Main Street Commons” project.
    But to be clear, a large number of residents who live in proximity to Civic Field are pressing the issue also. They asked for his help and he is an excellent planner so he obliged. The Flex uses he and some current Councilmembers support are also excellent ideas to make the space at Civic even better and certainly that should be a positive discussion to have. Let’s not simply slam the door shut forever if conditions on the ground have now changed over 3 years.
    It is unfortunate that Mr Schindler wasn’t able to attend the meeting this last Friday about Civic (as I did not see him there…). I think one might have a much different take on the revisit of this important issue.
    Sincerely,
    John J. Hoag DDS

    Ignored

    1. John…no disrespect intended with my comments…but…I’m unclear where things have changed… except with the development of Mr.McMurrays new development. To your point, the military is very fluid and agile when the situation requires such… I’m missing where this is necessary here. Help me see it…I may be swayed. And like you, I’m running a business (two…and both require travel), sit on a couple boards and am raising a young family. I found time… because the issue was important to me. My grandfather was typically quick to shut down my excuses by saying, “if it was worth a million dollars to you, you would have found a way to make it work.” In this case, this issue was definitely worth my interest in preserving the tranquility of the area while maximizing use.

      Ignored

  35. Thank you Mr. Hoag for coming to the meeting and for your letter above, we really appreciate it.
    As for Mike McMurray, I asked Mike to be involved since he is well informed on the issues of the city workings as I am not. We are extremely thankful he has offered his knowledge, thoughts, and time with us so that this issue can be pursued. I’m not understanding the constant ridicule of him, I’m guessing he may be a threat to some.
    I feel at fault since I was unaware that a city planner and council would not make parking a necessity, therefore I did not attend those meetings. Obviously my misperception.
    Thank you,
    Julie Stuller

    Ignored

  36. I would hate to devote that much valuable park space for parking. How about looking around the edges of the park for parking- maybe 10 head in stalls off of the street instead of 58 – and isn’t 7 th ave wide enough for angle parking on the east of the field? And maybe another 10 stalls and more if angle parking is taken to the north and south of the field.

    Ignored

  37. No one is ridiculing Mr.Mc Murray. Questionong one’s
    motives is not ridicule. Ridicule is attacking someone for something they can’t help or their appearance, etc. Par. Mr McMurray presents an expensive plan to re do the Civic Field Park that just happens to provide parking for his planned business venture about a block away. Gee, what a coincidence. If you Mz.Stuller talked him into this, then shame on you, not the people who oppose it.

    Ignored

    1. Thank you. And let me second your plea that we stop pretending to be omniscient and able to see into other people’s motivations.

      Ignored

  38. Enough with the questioning of peoples motives or attentiveness…those are an attempt to deflect from the main issue. We are building a magnificent park and have ignored the need for park visitors to drive to it and park! The park visitors might need ADA access, or have toddlers in car seats, or maybe they live on Maplewood Drive (like me), etc. I want to bring my granddaughter down there…was she supposed to go to the public meetings and vote for parking as an “amenity”?…she wasn’t even born yet.

    I now understand that parking is not in the plan because “the attentive citizens” did not demand it during the public process. The professionals running the public process are supposed to ensure that essential components are included in a new popular destination park. It still amazes me that they left it out.

    Of course the angle parking suggested by Mike E above would be a good solution. But if we have to wait for the downtown parking study and endless public process to see if “the attentive ones” will agree, the park will be open a long time before the City figures out how to pay for those angle spots. And I for one think that “wait for the downtown parking study” is not an appropriate response from our council. I’d like to see the council step up and get this fixed before the parking study is finalized, by including parking of some sort in the park.

    Ignored

  39. Dear Teresa,
    From John J. Hoag . Could you make one important change in my earlier post? Point # 3) Lastly, many seem to be “pig piling” on Mr. McMurray, (whom I haven’t gotten to know thru this process…
    It should read 3) Lastly, many seem to be “pig piling” on Mr. McMurray, (whom I have gotten to know thru this process…
    The important word is “have” not “haven’t”.
    Thank you.
    John J Hoag DDS

    Ignored

  40. How is questioning the wisdom of re -doing this thing deflecting from the so called real issue of “we made a park without parking?” That area has functioned as a park with only street parking for as long as I can remember. What motivates the sudden idea that parking was somehow overlooked is a legitimate question from concerned citizens. Why these people now protesting didn’t take part in the planning discussions two plus years ago is a legitimate question from concerned citizens. These are not distractions as asserted above.

    “I just assumed there would be parking.” “Oh, well, my Grand Daughter wasn’t born yet, so I didn’t realize we would need more parking there.” “I was busy making a living and taking care of my kids so I couldn’t make it to the meetings but, if I had, I would have insisted we have parking on site.” “The responsible officials should have known better than not to have included parking.” O well then we will get right on re doing this for you.

    Ignored

    1. This discussion is getting awfully close to personal. Let’s state our views, and try to avoid mocking others, “knowing” their motivations, having to have the last word.

      We are, or should be – or should be trying to be community, and that means listening to, and showing some respect of the other person’s opinions. Lately we seem to be more interested in refuting the person, than discussing the idea. Having to say something is not the same as having something to say.

      Ignored

    2. Contrary to the initial post by Mr. McMurray, the Edmonds Pétanque Club is NOT seasonal. We meet year around, and have over 80 members. It’s a wonderful group. The organization was given the Edmonds Citizen of the Year award in 2016. And we don’t have problems parking in this existing park that is simply being reconfigured. It has never required a parking lot.

      Ignored

  41. With all due respect Mr. Brown, how is stating back what people have said to try to get their own way on this issue mocking and getting personal? These folks are faulting everyone who has had anything to do with planning this park, particularly volunteer planning people and elected officials who were just trying to do their best for the city. I’m sure they are taking this a little personal about now. I chose to take your your criticism of my writing mistakes as constructive criticism but, I think it was a little snarky and personal to be totally honest with you. As for the plan presented by Mr. Mc Murray, I probably would have taken it as less self serving had he suggested carving out some parking on the back side of the park along 7th. Ave. that wouldn’t have blown up the whole plan. But he chose to try to marginalize the Petanque group who have cherished and taken care of that spot for years and who are terrific ambassadors for the city at large and all around great people. They will be greatly harmed if this ill conceived do over is allowed to stand. Damn right I’d like to have the last word on this and yes I’m taking it personal.

    Ignored

  42. My intention all along was to make the point that I feel the club should be relocated to another location to help support the Farmers Market due to its close proximity to its eastern location on Bell street. The designers of the Park eluded to that in there first meeting and I was frustrated the plans did not take this into final consideration, as the Farmers Market is turning away people often. I can see how Pétanque club would take that location as more precious ground if they work hard to keep it up all these years makes total sense. I can totally respect that. So I do apologize. I never have thought we should not have Pétanque at the park it looks like fun game for all ages and I was informed it was seasonal, so my mistake, I should have communicated that better. The parking lot can not be located on 7th because of the grant restriction otherwise that would actually be a better location to access our town and you make a great recommendation. I think we all are getting pretty fired up about a park that has not been built or even fully funded yet. Let’s call a truce man! We disagree on revisiting the Park plan so what, but we can agree we both have gotten pretty fired up and care about our town. Have a nice evening Mike

    Ignored

  43. Edmonds City Council Meeting March 7, 2017

    I was referred to the Edmonds City Council Meeting of March7, 2017.
    I think that some of the information in the minutes as follows are relevant to the discussion of parking at Civic Field.
    1) “Councilmember Buckshnis relayed citizens have raised issues about parking and suggested parking be provided in the alley. She recalled parking was never on the table during the master planning process.
    2) “Councilmember Johnson acknowledged parking was beyond the scope of the study, but she recommended conducting a parking study for the park building Phase A or B.”
    3) “Councilmember Johnson Moved, Seconded by Councilmember Buckshnis, to Conduct a Parking Study for the Park before Building Phase A or B”
    4) “upon roll call, motion failed (3-4), Councilmember Johnson, Buckshnis, and Councilmembers Teitzel Voting Yes; and Council President Mesaros and Councilmembers Nelson, Fraley-Monillas and Tibbott voting no.”
    5) “Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she voted no because staff indicated it would be included in the Walker Macy’s scope of work.”
    I can not say for sure, but I believe a study was never done. Did the staff by indicating that Walker Macy would do a study which was not done, unjustifiably influence Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’s vote, which if the staff had not made those false claims, would the vote have been (4-3) in favor of a parking study?

    Ignored

    1. Mr. Simpson, this is quite telling information. Council Person Buckshnis admitting parking never was really taken Seriously during the master planning process more or less. We all in the community kind of figured. They can make it up by making some tweaks to the plans, nobody asking for redo and cause vast impacts to the already great Civic Park Plan especially the number One voted Amenity Petanque is off limits. Council person Mr. Teitzel can you please consider un-recusing yourself in this decision, because you live on the Park Is of no consequence to the people, you voting to proceed with Park study on civic despite living on the park proves what we already suspected that you are fair and a balanced Council person. Plus I can share with community Council person Teitzel was the only Council person who truly responded to the Neighborhood letter of concern last fall by asking Carrie Hite where parking could best be allocated, during last Civic plan update. A person who Lives on the Park that was trying to skew the process would not listen to the people on making needed changes, you have my families and Edmond’s full confidence. I would suspect you would want to be included in a park design you live near, as a thank you for all your hard work is more than appropriate. I expect underpaid Over worked city council people to make some mishaps. I want you to have the opportunity to support the great people of Edmond’s Mr. Teitzel. You always like to say “There is more to the Edmond’s than the Bowl”, So her is a golden opportunity to provide those very citizens with a better statistical chance of enjoying this amazing future addition to our City by providing designated Environmentally friendly “Flex” style parking options.

      Ignored

  44. By the way, so far I’ve been accused (along with like minded thinkers on the matter) of ridiculing, piling on, mocking, being overly dramatic, and deflecting from the main issue. Guess what, I’m a grown up, with a thick skin and I don’t care what I’m accused of. I know that’s what people resort to when they have a weak arguement from the start.

    Ignored

    1. Ah yes, grown-ups ridicule, pile on and mock – and don’t care. But bullying remains a questionable way to convince the other party of the validity of one’s viewpoint. Sometimes presenting a better argument in a courteous and reasoned way works more effectively. Less emotionally satisfying, but it works better in promoting cooperation and community.

      Ignored

  45. You seem like a really intelligent, really nice guy Mike . We are both Edmonds High grads, but me from the real one. Just kidding, GO WARRIORS. Hopefully some day we can have a beer ar the Salish and laugh about all this. It’s now in the hands of the City Council and Mayor. Personally, I just don’t see how a city can govern effectively, if all their decisions are allowed to be second guessed by the latest group of irate citizens. This is at least the third incidence of that. If this continues, there will never be a Civic Park, parking garage or bridge to nowhere (yes I think that’s silly waste of money, but apparently a done deal so I’ll live with it). I too apologize, if I have misjudged your intentions but I firmly believe the city is in big trouble if they agree to revisit this now.

    Ignored

    1. Love the Edmond’s High Joke, I even put a Edmond’s Tiger on my Warrior’s Lettermen’s Jacket in protest, I never made the Cut! Ha Ha It’s clear the Petanque club offers the most community participation and consistent use of the park currently, especially now that I have been informed its year round. Love the passion. I can see how you guys could view my comments as marginalizing your value in some of my rants, was not my intent. My opinion piece makes a point of saying relocate to help benefit the community because of your clubs proximity to the Farmers Market and our Downtown businesses is what I was referring to not the club it self and its value to the community. I realize things are not this simple regarding the Civic Parks Master Layout, it was just a suggestion. The Petanque Club is clearly an asset that’s perfect mix of Community and fun, and should always be included at the Civic park at current planned court amounts, if not more courts now that I see the large community aspect of the Club. If there is Tweak or two to the layout of the Park its not going to be made from the highest voted item and the amenity that clearly offers most public participation. Carrie Hite has already stated that NW corner would be logical place for Flex space. I will let the professional fuss over the plans if there is a change. I have know doubt Pétanque at Civic Park will be around long after we are both gone as it should be. I will take you & Mr. Majer up on that Beer Sometime, I’m buying…………Cheers!

      Ignored

      1. Love to have that beer. After or before a game of pétanque – your choice. Offer is open any time of year. Be kind you two, I’m a Meadowdale Chief graduate.

        Ignored

  46. Parking in downtown Edmonds has always been an issue esp. when the Car Show, the Taste, Edmonds Arts Festival and 4th of July are going on. Lots of people park up on 9th or other streets and walk to the events. Or, in the case of the Edmonds Arts Festival, park at the old school on 100th and take the shuttle.

    How about using public transportation – several Community Transit routes service the downtown area – 116, 130 and 196. Just plan your outings accordingly. http://www.commtrans.org

    Ignored

  47. Parking in Edmonds is a growing issue and for many of us we are disappointed that we must park 2-3 blocks away from our favorite restaurant, watering hole, or entertainment. Yes, we need to think about how we allocate our scares parking spaces between all the competing folks: DT employees, DT residents, Edmonds residents who want to come DT and to our visitors who come to enjoy or town. The council has authorized a full parking study to outline a balanced approach to providing more parking for all the competing folks. That study should generate some new and thoughtful ideas to create more parking and more efficiently allocate the space we have.

    We should all remember a few of the facts that let us get this parcel in the beginning. It was owned by the school district and leased to the city for under $100 a year. When the SD decided to sell the surplus property, they and to get it appraised and then make it available to other public entities at a reduce rate. (10% below market as I recall). The size of the property would have commanded a tidy sum from a developer. The city did some research on titles and learned that we had a road easement running E/W right in the middle of the property. The city had long abandoned the idea of a road they but were able to use that to reduce the value of the appraisal. The city benefited from the lower appraisal, but the SD did not.

    With the reduced cost of the land the city was able to get funding from sources who wanted to keep the land a park and open space. Some changes were made at the time of sale to remove the road easement and some “swapping” occurred to account for the various parcels to be carved up in such a way that the grant funds would be getting what they wanted, park land.

    The intent to the grantors was to make all the space open park land. The grantors have done a lot of good elsewhere in Edmonds and to now come up with other ideas that are not consistent with the grantor’s intent would not be in the city best interest for future grants. Tampering with the plan for Civic Park could be costly in several ways. We do not have enough funding for the total plan at this time so to tamper with the plan now could have a negative impact on finding added funds.

    When the parking study is complete, we may find a need to create new parking around town and the money for that effort will be more clearly understood at the end of the study. It would likely be easier and more cost effective to buy land near civic field and create parking rather then paying for changes to the plan and to run the risk of getting sideways with our funding sources for Edmonds projects.

    Ignored

  48. Well researched and reported Mr. Haug. Thank’s so much for bringing some sanity to what has seemed to some of us a pretty insane idea. Your measured and well thought out input on this puts the rest of us to shame. The potential economic pitfalls of messing with this thing, at this late date are massive, as your comment makes clear.

    Ignored

  49. Due to too much caffeine, I’m awake and decided to amuse myself by reading thru all this again. I see Mr. Brown has added bullying to my supposed list of sins; completely misconstruing the comment I made, that he is alluding to. As far as I’m concerned a bully, next to a child molester, is the lowest form of human life. Since when is it a crime or “bullying ,” to question someone’s motives.? Police science is based on questioning motives. That’s how they solve mysteries. Mr. McMurray isn’t even upset with me for questioning his motives. This gave him an opportunity to further explain himself and correct some of his misconceptions. I totally respect him. I accept your apology in advance Mr. Brown.

    Ignored

    1. The great comments and communication between Mr. Wright and Mr. McMurray is exactly what a “Comments Section” should be. I always enjoy the information exchanged with each other, and sometimes feel like I am listening on a telephone of days gone by “party line”. Mr. Brown is the self-appointed “virtue-signaling” moderator for Edmonds News. He has a habit of suggesting what words, or phrases to not use. It is ironic that it is he who ultimately comes off as the “bully” or kill joy of lively dialogue.

      Ignored

      1. I am not going to defend any particular commenter here but I want to say that as the moderator I appreciate the wide range of diverse comments and perspectives on the site. Everyone is valued (unless of course they violate the commenting policy).

        Ignored

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *