Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites This document is a summary of the public comments received during the November 2004 public comments on potential skatepark sites around the City. They are a compilation of handwritten and web-based comment forms, as well as comments from people who attended the series of three public workshops on the project. Members of the Skatepark Leadership Advisory Team (SPLAT) read and reviewed the comments on each site. Each wrote up a few of the site summaries below. Basic Details about the Meetings: Three Public Workshops were held on Wednesday 11/10/04 and Saturday 11/13/04. • Total attendance at these three workshops was roughly 75 people. Staffing details: • Twelve committee members, including each of the representatives for the Neighborhood Coalitions joined us for at least one of the meetings. • A total of eleven PP&R staff volunteered time (some for several meetings) to help staff the events. • The noise control office had a staff person join us for two out of the three meetings. • Neighborhood Association members, school principals, users, parents and concerned citizens were in attendance On-Line Survey Comments from the Public • The majority of folks who attended the meetings chose to fill out their comment forms on-line, as we received very few paper comment forms back from those in attendance at our meetings. • A total of 654 comments were received on 35 potential sites. • 103 people responded to the general questions about use of skateparks and demographic information. • Of those that filled out the demographic survey: • 62% were over the age of 30 • 23% were under the age of 20 • 49% skateboard • 19% ride BMX • 4% in-line • 13% were parents who participate • 27% were parents or grandparents • 9% had never been to a skatepark Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 1 of 19 About BMX Bikes and Skateparks People were asked several questions about bikes and skateparks, in order for the SPLAT committee to better understand this important issue. When asked “Do you feel that bikes should be allowed access to Portland’s skateparks?” • 56% said yes • 74% had experience of using skateparks with other user group • 47% reported that experience Neutral/Positive When asked about preferred management approach to ‘skatespots’ • 42% supported shared access at all times • 11% supported separate sessions • 30% supported separate facilties • 16% had no strong opinion When asked about preferred management approach to ‘district skateparks’ • 38% supported shared access at all times • 9% supported separate sessions • 24% supported separate areas within the park • 19% supported separate facilities • 11% had no strong opinion When asked about preferred management approach to ‘regional skateparks’ • 39% supported shared access at all times • 2% supported separate sessions • 32% supported separate areas within the park • 18% supported separate facilities • 10% had no strong opinion When asked to recommend how the money should be spent to build the first two parks: • 43% - Two parks that would be used by both groups, either shared or separate times • 22% - One park for skaters only and one park for skaters and bikers to use at different times • 13% - One park for skaters only and one park for skaters and bikers to use at the same time • 14% - One park for skaters only and one park for bikes only Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 2 of 19 Preferred Sites When asked to rank the top five sites in order of preference each site was ranked in someone’s top 5 this many times: 1. Parkrose High School – 31 2. Alberta - 25 3. ODOT Steel Bridge – 24 4. ODOT Eastbank – 20 5. Lents – 16 6. ODOT Mississippi - 15 7. Westmoreland – 15 8. Powell Park - 14 9. ODOT I-84 – 14 10. Fernhill – 13 11. University Park – 13 12. ODOT I-405 - 12 13. Gabriel - 12 14. Pier – 12 15. Willamette – 12 16. Woodstock - 12 17. Colonel Summers – 11 18. Argay – 9 19. Clinton – 9 20. Kenton – 8 21. Montavilla – 8 22. Ventura – 8 23. Beech – 6 24. Ed Benedict – 5 25. Thompson - 5 26. BES WWTP – 4 27. Gates Property 3 28. Berrydale – 2 29. Brentwood – 2 30. Glenfair - 2 31. Bloomington – 1 32. Holly Farm – 1 33. Parklane - 1 34. Glenwood - 0 Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 3 of 19 Site Summaries: Members of the Skatepark Leadership Advisory Team (SPLAT) read and reviewed the comments on each site. Each wrote up a few of the site summaries below. The sites are listed alphabetically. Alberta Park (NE 19th & Killingsworth) Alberta Park received a good amount of support for consideration as a skatepark. Of those commenting online – 40 – people supported the site more than 3:1, and at the public meetings it received 17 votes in favor, with no one opposing the site for consideration. The site has many advantages that people commented on. They see the skatepark as a positive attractor and this fitting a need in the Park. This is seen as a service being provided in a needy part of the City for kids who are looking for recreational outlets. There is a strong neighborhood in the area, including a Friends group that takes part in stewardship of the Park, and supports the idea. They took a poll of neighbors and found that there was support for a skatepark. People commented on the proximity to bathrooms and the Fire Station as plusses, as well as good access to transit. Some disadvantages discussed include a loss of greenspace, traffic on Killingsworth, proximity to the basketball pavilion and pre-existing uses for that space in the park. There are occasional outdoor concerts and off-leash dogs using this area (though the park has a designated off-leash area elsewhere.) Argay Park (NE 141st & Failing St.) Nine comments from the public were submitted, along with input from the public workshop held at Parkrose High School. Input was varied, although it tended to be negative. Comments focused on the isolated nature of the site, gang activity in the area, and an existing concern over safety. Stated advantages include many skateboarders live nearby, and ease of transportation to the park. Those who provided written comments were evenly split, with 5 favoring the site and 4 opposed. Beech Park Property (NE Fremont & 131st Place) Very few (5) people commented on this property, and most did not like the idea. It is an undeveloped park property, which therefore would not be developed into a skatepark for some time, if at all. It would need to be considered as a possibility during the Master Plan process, expected in 2008. Consequently, one of the concerns expressed about this site, is that it would take a longer time for construction (if at all). Also of concern is its proximity to Parkrose High School, which is a nearby promising site. There is limited access, at this point and also limited visibility. On the plus side, there are many children at nearby schools who would benefit from a skatepark if one were placed here. The fact that it is City property, without much traffic and with good transportation options all were considered good aspects of this site. Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 4 of 19 Berrydale Park (SE 92nd & Taylor) Overall this park seemed to be a strong candidate for a Skate Spot. Public Meeting Input – very positive. This Neighborhood Skate Spot site was discussed at the Parkrose High School public meeting. This site was listed third in a ranking of the four most popular Skate Spots considered at this meeting. Three of the four break-out groups did not provide written comments. One group provided three positive comments about access, visibility and location. There were general comments of concerns about security and lighting, but none specific to Berrydale Park. It drew eight votes of support and no opposition at this meeting. SPLAT Site Study Input – very positive. SPLAT site study lists ten advantages and two disadvantages. Advantages include immediate construction potential, good visibility, limited off-site impact/distance to neighbors, good bus access and on-street parking. Disadvantages include no off-street parking and no restrooms. On-Line Input – positive (3/5 comments in favor). On-line positive comments echoed the Site Study. Negative comments did not seem to be specific to site, they were more general concerns such as noise and non-specific fear of skating activities. Other uses that may conflict: outdoor volleyball pick-up games and possible off-leash site. BES Sewage Treatment Facility (N. Columbia Blvd.) At each of the three public workshops, this site was discussed, as it is being considered for a regional skatepark. During these meetings, there was much discussion about the pros and cons for this site, but when people completed their discussion and selected one site that they did not like, this site was universally disliked (it received 25 votes cumulatively against it during the three workshops.) Only 12 people filled out comment cards (either on the web or on paper) to specifically comment on this site. Of those, four favored this site, the rest did not. Comments from these forms, and during the public workshops indicated that this site did pose a positive opportunity in that it was a very large area, with a high-density housing development soon to be built nearby. The visibility is good, with passive observation potential.