Park Plan - City of Ridgefield

Transcription

ADOPTED dec e m be r 2 0 0 6
Ridgefield
comprehensive
park & recreation plan
moore iacofano goltsman, inc
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Ridgefield appreciates the efforts and input of the numerous
Ridgefield residents who provided input into this plan.
In addition, the following officials and staff contributed regularly to the
development of the plan.
CITY COUNCIL
Gladys Doriot
Scott Hanson
Gary Adkins
Chad Sessions
David Standal
PARKS ADVISORY BOARD
Marie Bouvier, Chair
Morning Stalcup, Vice-Chair
Jon Forsberg
Sean Kearns
Crystal Terry
Vern Veysey
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Celia Antonini
B.J. Babcock
Bill Baumann
Ken Harrison
Tevis Laspa
Merrilee Lee
Raul Mareno
Amanda Melroy
Dan Rush
David Standal
Chris Swindell
Vern Veysey
Allene Wodeage
CITY STAFF
Sam Crummett, Senior Planner
Justin Clary, Public Works Director/Interim City Manager
Steven Wall, City Engineer
Tad Arends, Public Works Department
Fred Crippen, Public Works Department
Eric Pennala (former City employee)
Kevin Snyder (former Community Development Director)
Ridgefield Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Master Plan Overview...................................................................... 1
1.2
Planning Process ............................................................................. 1
1.3
Public Involvement .......................................................................... 2
1.4
Plan Organization ........................................................................... 3
1.5
Supporting Documentation.............................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING CONTEXT AND RECREATION NEEDS
2.1
Overview.......................................................................................... 5
2.2
Community Overview....................................................................... 5
2.3
Land Use and Development............................................................. 7
2.4
Park Inventory................................................................................. 8
2.5
Recreation Facility Inventory.......................................................... 14
2.6
Regional Resources........................................................................ 17
2.7
Community Recreation Values and Priorities................................. 19
2.8
Current and Future Park Needs..................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
3.1
Overview........................................................................................ 25
3.2
Vision for the Future...................................................................... 25
3.3
Goals and Objectives...................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 4: PARK, FACILITY, AND TRAIL RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
Recommended Park System .......................................................... 31
4.2
Park System Overview ................................................................... 31
4.3
Park Design Guidelines ................................................................. 32
4.4
Site-Specific Park Recommendations............................................ 37
4.5
Recreation Facilities Recommendations......................................... 45
4.6
Trail, Pathway, & Greenway Recommendations............................ 50
CHAPTER 5: ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Park and Recreation Services......................................................... 63
5.2
Finance and Budgeting.................................................................. 65
5.3
Park and Trail Planning................................................................ 67
5.4
Park and Trail Design.................................................................... 68
5.5
Maintenance .................................................................................. 69
CHAPTER 6: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
6.1
Overview........................................................................................ 71
6.2
20-Year Capital Facility Plan ......................................................... 71
6.3
Capital Project Funding Sources .................................................... 74
6.4
6-Year Capital Project Funding Strategy........................................ 75
6.5
6-Year Capital Improvement Plan ................................................. 77
FIGURES
Figure 1: Ridgefield Comprehensive Park and Recreation
Master Planning Process................................................................................1
Figure 2: Regional Context .............................................................................................5
MAPS
Map 2.1: Existing Parks and Facilities ..........................................................................11
Map 4.1: Park Plan.......................................................................................................33
Map 4.2: Trails, Paths, and Greenways Plan ................................................................51
TABLES
Table 1: Population Growth, 1990-2004 ........................................................................6
Table 2: Population Projections......................................................................................7
Table 3: Amount and Percent of Land by Planned Use ..................................................8
Table 4: Summary of Existing Park Land .....................................................................13
Table 5: Summary of Sports Facilities by Type .............................................................15
Table 6: Other Publicly Owned Resources.....................................................................17
Table 7: Summary of LOS Standards by Park Type ......................................................20
Table 8: Park Land Needs by Type ...............................................................................21
Table 9: Park Design Guidelines ..................................................................................35
Table 10: Trail Types ....................................................................................................53
Table 11: Path Types ....................................................................................................53
Table 12: 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan......................................................................72
Table 13: 6-Year Capital Project Funding Scenario ......................................................77
Table 14: 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................78
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Park Inventory
Appendix B: Community Survey Summary Report
Appendix C: Recreation Needs Assessment
Appendix D: Review of Potential Funding Sources
Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc.
815 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97204
p. 503-297-1005
f. 503-297-3195
www.migcom.com
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
1.1
MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW
Ridgefield began the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan in
October 2005 to provide a logical, comprehensive blueprint for the
development of the City’s park system. The City has experienced
rapid growth in recent years, and is projecting a tenfold increase in
population over the next twenty years.
This Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan was developed with
the input and direction of Ridgefield residents. It identifies a vision
for Ridgefield’s park system and presents recommendations for
achieving that vision. The plan inventories and evaluates existing park
and recreation areas; assesses the need for additional park land,
greenways, trails, and recreation facilities; establishes direction for
operations and maintenance; and offers specific policies and
recommendations to achieve the goals and objectives.
1.2
PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process for this comprehensive plan included four
phases, as detailed below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Ridgefield Comprehensive Park and Recreation Planning Process
I. Analysis
Winter 2005/Spring 2006
III. Plan
Development
II. Needs Assessment
Summer 2006
Summer/Fall 2006
IV. Plan Refinement
& Approval
Fall/Winter 2006
Phase I - Analysis: In the initial stage of the project, a complete
inventory of park and recreation resources in the Ridgefield planning
area (defined as the proposed urban growth area or UGA) was
compiled. This information – along with additional data about the
community such as demographics, population projections, natural
resources, climate, and land use – was analyzed and compared with
neighboring communities, Clark County, and the State of
Washington.
Phase II - Needs Assessment: The Needs Assessment phase
included gathering public input by surveying the community,
contacting organized sports groups, and hosting a public workshop.
Community demand for park and recreation facilities and services
was determined by incorporating community input into a level of
Page 1
service analysis. Levels of service (LOS) were recommended, then
compared to the existing resources and both existing and projected
populations. This analysis presented a clear picture of the current
and future needs of the community.
Phase III - Plan Development: During Phase III, the planning
team used policy directions determined in Phases I and II and
worked with the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and City staff
to identify major directions for the plan. The consulting team
analyzed all of this information to formulate goals, objectives, and
specific recommendations into a plan framework, and then to
develop an Administrative Draft Comprehensive Park and Recreation
Plan for PAC and staff review.
Phase IV - Plan Approval: After the planning team refined the
Administrative Draft based on PAC and City staff comments, the
Draft Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan was reviewed by the
Planning Advisory Committee, the Parks Advisory Board, and City
Council, and it was approved.
1.3
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City of Ridgefield recognizes that community insight and input
into the comprehensive planning process ensures that the future park
system will meet community priorities and will be used and embraced
by the public. Community input for this Comprehensive Plan was
primarily gathered in four ways, summarized below.
•
Planning Advisory Committee: The Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC), composed of a diverse range of community
members including Parks Advisory Board and City Council
representatives, provided guidance throughout the planning
process. The PAC was also asked to review and comment on
reports, survey results, and needs assessment findings to provide
the consultant team with feedback and direction.
•
Community Recreation Survey: A self-administered survey was
conducted in Ridgefield between February and April of 2006.
The consultant team designed both adult and youth
questionnaires, which the City sent to all households inside the
existing urban growth area. The results provided important
insight into community priorities and needs.
•
Organized Sports Group Questionnaire: A questionnaire was
distributed to local organized sports groups to find out about
team sport participation patterns, field use, and needs in
Ridgefield.
Page 2
•
Public Visioning Workshop: A public visioning workshop,
held to allow citizens to express their ideas about the future of
Ridgefield’s park system, was hosted in April 2006.
In addition to the public involvement opportunities during the plan
development, a public hearing will provide additional opportunities
for public input during the plan adoption phase.
1.4
PLAN ORGANIZATION
This Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan is divided into six
chapters, described below.
Chapter 1: Introduction: Chapter 1 provides an overview of the
document organization, planning process, and public involvement
effort.
Chapter 2: Planning Context and Recreation Needs: Chapter 2
describes the planning context – the physical and political
characteristics that form the framework for recommendations made
in this Plan. Characteristics described include Ridgefield’s regional
context, climate, natural resources, demographics, and planning
issues. This chapter also includes an inventory of existing park, open
space, and recreational areas in the Ridgefield planning area, as well
as an analysis of recreation programs offered by the City and the
costs of park and recreation services. In addition, it explains the
methodology used to assess and quantify park and facility needs in
Ridgefield, along with a summary of the City’s future park and facility
needs.
Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives: Chapter 3 presents Ridgefield’s
vision for the community’s park system and goals and objectives to
achieve that vision.
Chapter 4: Park, Facility, and Trail Recommendations: Chapter
4 offers recommendations and policies for the development or
redevelopment of parks, recreation facilities, trails, and greenways.
Chapter 5: Administrative and Operations Recommendations:
Chapter 5 provides recommendations for administration and
operation of Ridgefield’s park and recreation system.
Chapter 6: Implementation: Chapter 6 identifies the cost of all
capital projects listed in the plan, suggests a financing strategy, and
recommends a six-year capital improvement plan.
In addition to the main body, the Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan includes four appendices that provide additional
technical and detailed information about Ridgefield’s park system, the
planning process and implementation. These are:
Page 3
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
1.5
Park Inventory
Community Survey Summary Report
Recreation Needs Assessment
Review of Potential Funding Sources
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
During the planning process, discussion papers were prepared to
present and evaluate the critical demographic, physical, and social
factors that impact the decision-making process. These discussion
papers included:
• Discussion Paper #1: Planning Context
• Discussion Paper #2: Existing Park and Recreation
Resources
• Discussion Paper #3: Community Survey Summary Report
• Discussion Paper #4: Needs Assessment
The four discussion papers are available under separate cover from
the City of Ridgefield.
Page 4
CHAPTER 2:
PLANNING CONTEXT AND RECREATION NEEDS
2.1
OVERVIEW
This chapter presents the context for park and recreation planning in
Ridgefield, and summarizes the community’s recreation needs. It
begins with an overview of the community, including its land use,
infrastructure, and population characteristics. The remainder of the
chapter covers recommended park classifications, the inventory of
existing park and recreation facilities, recommended level of service
standards, current and future park needs, and community recreation
needs.
2.2 COMMUNITY OVERVIEW
Regional Context and Planning Area
The City of Ridgefield is located in southwestern Washington, in the
northwestern corner of Clark County on the Interstate 5 (I-5)
corridor. La Center is the closest neighboring city, and Vancouver is
located approximately 11 miles to the south. Portland, Oregon is
about 15 miles south of Ridgefield on I-5. The City is bounded by
Lake River and the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge to the west.
To the east, the city limits extend beyond the Interstate. Figure 2
depicts the city limits within the regional context.
Figure 2
Regional Context
Page 5
The primary planning area includes the existing urban growth area
(UGA) of the City of Ridgefield. The secondary planning area
includes the UGA proposed in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan which
extends beyond the current city limits north, south, and east of the
city. During the planning process, this planning was modified based
on discussions with neighboring jurisdiction La Center. Regardless
of whether or not the UGA expands as proposed after the County
process is completed, the planning area for this comprehensive park
and recreation plan addresses Ridgefield’s long-term growth vision.
Population Trends and Projections
Since 1990, Ridgefield has more than doubled its population, and the
community continues to grow faster than Clark County and the State
of Washington. Table 1 presents Ridgefield’s population growth from
1990 to 2004, and compares the City’s growth to that of Clark
County and the State of Washington. As this table indicates, Clark
County is also experiencing a very rapid rate of growth.
Table 1
Population Growth 1990-2004
City of Ridgefield, Clark County, Washington
Year
City of
Ridgefield
Percent
Increase
Clark
County
Percent
Increase
State of
Washington
Percent
Increase
1990
2000
2004
1,297
2,147
2,602
-65.5%
21.2%
238,053
345,238
392,403
-45.0%
13.7%
4,866,692
5,894,121
6,203,788
-21.1%
5.3%
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2004 population estimates, 2000 Census, 1990 Census, Ridgefield
Comprehensive Plan
Ridgefield is expected to continue its high rate of growth, through
both in-migration and annexation. In addition, numerous
subdivisions are in various states of buildout. As the homes in these
subdivisions are completed and occupied, Ridgefield’s population
increases. The 2024 projection of 26,200 residents was the planning
figure set by the City of Ridgefield in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan.
This estimate of future population was used when calculating future
park and recreation needs.
Page 6
Table 2
Population Projections
City of Ridgefield
Year
Population Projection
2000
2004
2024
2,147
2,602
26,200
Sources: US Census Bureau, 2000, City of Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan, 2005
Despite this current and projected growth, Ridgefield is a small town
that still retains its character and rural feel. Ridgefield adopted a parks
and recreation plan and used that plan to expand and renovate
Abrams Park. Since that time, the plan was not updated to reflect the
growth and changing needs of the community. As a result, the park
and open space inventory is small and only a few minor parks have
been acquired since the city began to grow. Now, the rapid
population growth is fueling the need for all types of infrastructure,
including parks, which in turn requires that long-range planning both
be regularly updated and utilized.
2.3
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Land use plays an important role in the location, distribution, and
availability of park and recreational facilities. In terms of recreation
planning, residential areas need parks to fulfill the day-to-day
recreation needs of community residents. Higher density residential
areas may have different recreation needs than lower density areas.
While commercial and industrial areas typically do not generate as
much need for parks and recreation facilities, there may be specific
park needs for these areas, depending on the types of development
and the City’s goals for these areas.
Current residential growth is concentrated in the northern and
southern areas of Ridgefield and continues at a steady pace. Industrial
growth is planned for the eastern portion of the City, in the areas
around Interstate 5. Future expansion of the Urban Growth Area will
primarily be to the south and east due to the physical constraints of
the Lake River to the west and the City of La Center to the north.
Table 3 describes the amount of land designated for the major use
categories according to the City’s comprehensive plan.
Page 7
Table 3
Amount and Percent of Land by Planned Use
City of Ridgefield
Unincorporated portion
of Ridgefield Urban
Growth Area
Type of Use
Acres
Percent
Acres
Percent
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Park/Open Space
1,770
620
857
262
50.4%
17.7%
24.4%
7.5%
3,273
1,421
3
217
66.6%
28.9%
0.1%
4.4%
Total
3,509
100%
4,914
100%
Source: City of Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan, 2005.
According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, at the projected 2024
population within the existing boundaries, the City of Ridgefield
would have three times the residential land that currently exists, but
less than two times the parks and open space acreage.
2.4
PARK INVENTORY
Ridgefield provides and maintains a basic system of parks that
supports a range of experiences, including both active and passive
recreation. City-provided athletic fields are available only at Abrams
Park, and include one large soccer field, two small soccer fields, one
T-ball field, and two baseball fields. Other athletic fields in Ridgefield
are provided at school sites. Ridgefield also provides a well-sited
skate park at a central downtown location that is one of the most
used recreation facilities in the City. A downtown community center
is owned and operated by a non-profit group. The City does not
currently offer recreation programs, although organized sports are
provided by private groups and the School District offers some
additional programming for adults through the community education
program.
Park land is classified to assist in planning for a community’s
recreation needs. A park system is composed of a hierarchy of
various park types, each offering recreation and/or natural area
opportunities. Separately, each park type may serve only one
function, but collectively the system will serve the entire needs of the
community. Classifying park land by function allows a community to
evaluate its needs and plan for an efficient, cost effective, and usable
park system that minimizes conflicts between park users and
neighbors.
Page 8
After reviewing the Comprehensive Plan park classifications, the
master plan consultant team recommended the following
classifications to describe the existing park system more fully and to
capture the breadth of the potential future park system:

Regional Parks

Community Parks

Neighborhood Parks

Pocket Parks

Special Use Areas

Greenways.
This plan incorporates these six classifications, each of which is
defined as follows.
Regional Parks
Regional parks provide visitors with access to unique features and
attractions, often accommodate large group activities, and have
infrastructure to support special events and festivals. Regional parks
may include active facilities such as sports complexes and may also
incorporate natural features. Their service area usually includes an
entire large community or several small communities. Regional parks
are usually 50 acres or larger.
Community Parks
Community parks are planned to provide active and structured
recreation opportunities, as well as passive and non-organized
opportunities for individual and family activities. Their target
audience is residents within one mile’s driving, walking, or biking
distance. These parks often have sport fields or similar facilities as
the central focus of the park, and require more support facilities, such
as parking and restrooms.
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and park,
designed primarily for non-supervised, non-organized, recreation
activities. Their target audience is neighbors within 1/2 mile walking
or biking distance. Visitors usually spend an hour or less at these
parks.
Pocket Parks
Pocket parks are small parks, less than one-half acre, often designed
as play lots to serve nearby small children and their parents.
Amenities are usually limited to small playground facilities, small
open grass areas, and minimal site furnishings. While this plan
recommends against pursuing additional pocket parks, Ridgefield has
acquired several of these in recent years. The existing sites have little
to no opportunity for expansion.
Page 9
Special Use Areas
Special use areas are miscellaneous park lands or stand-alone
recreation sites designed to support a specific, specialized use. This
classification includes stand-alone sports field complexes, waterfront
facilities, community centers, community gardens, aquatic centers, or
sites occupied by buildings. Specialized facilities may also be provided
within a park of another classification
Greenways
Greenways are undeveloped lands primarily left in a natural state with
recreation use as a secondary objective. Greenways are usually owned
or managed by a governmental agency and may or may not have
public access. This type of land often includes wetlands, steep
hillsides, or other similar spaces. In some cases, environmentally
sensitive areas are considered as open space and can include wildlife
habitats, stream and creek corridors, or unique and/or endangered
plant species. Greenways may serve as trail corridors, and generally
support only passive recreation; any active recreation that occurs is a
secondary use.
Undeveloped Park Land
This is undeveloped park land owned by the City and planned for
park use in the future.
Park Land Inventory
Map 2.1 on page 11 depicts the locations of Ridgefield’s parks. Table
4 shows Ridgefield’s park inventory by classification. In addition to
developed park sites, this inventory includes undeveloped and
planned sites. Appendix A contains a detailed inventory of each of
Ridgefield’s park facilities.
Page 10
Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan
Carty
Lake
Existing Trails
Community Park
MAIN
Heron
Ridge Park
Neighborhood Park
Pocket Park
Greenways
Pocket
Park 1
Kayak
Launch
Golf Course
Pocket
Park 2
Abrams Park
Davis
Park
Special Use
Other Open Space
UNION RIDGE
ELEMENTARY
Slope >15%
Wildlife Refuge
L
a
Boat
Launch
k
e
Ridgefield
Community
Park
River and Waterbody
R
VIEW RIDGE
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Railroad
i
PIONEER
v
e
School
r
Existing UGA
Proposed UGA
Pocket
Park 3
Proposed UGA Taxlots
RIDGEFIELD
CEMETERY
I
N
I
G
E L D
A L
F E
E
Map 2.1: Existing
Parks and Facilities
ST
E F
I O
D L
F U
UR
G
T
L
E
LH
HIL
R I D
N A
W I
R
G
ee C r
ee
0
250
500
Feet
1,000
November 2006
k
Table 4
Summary of Existing Park Land
Ridgefield Planning Area
Existing Park Land
Total Park Land
(acres)
Regional Parks
0.0
Community Parks
Abrams Park (18.1 acres)
Neighborhood Parks
Davis Park (0.49 acre)
Ridgefield Community Park (0.5 acres)
Heron Ridge Park (1.5 acres) (under construction)
Pocket Parks
Pocket Park #1 (Bellwood Heights) (0.34 acre)
Pocket Park #2 (Bellwood Heights) (0.28 acre)
Pocket Park #3 (Cedar Ridge) (0.2 acres)
Special Use Areas
Ridgefield Community Park including skate facility
(0.3 acre)
Greenways
Total
18.1
1.0
1.5 under
construction
0.8
0.3
22.5
44.2
Page 13
2.5
RECREATION FACILITY INVENTORY
The most functional types of athletic facilities are those adequately
developed and specifically designed to serve particular functions.
However, since sports facilities are often used for activities for which
they were not designed, the facilities in Ridgefield were inventoried
based upon actual use rather than intended use.
In Ridgefield, athletic facilities were inventoried in the following
categories:
Ball fields (youth and adult)
Multi-use fields
Soccer fields (full-size)
Football fields
Basketball courts
Tennis courts
Gymnasiums
Tracks
Skate parks.
The athletic facilities in Ridgefield’s parks are heavily used, and have
varying levels of quality. However, school sites provide the majority
of athletic facilities available in the community. Table 5 contains an
inventory of sports facilities categorized by type, including school
facilities that serve the community.
Facilities are inventoried based on their design, not their use.
Because fields have been limited in Ridgefield, areas not designed as
athletic fields are being used for games and practices. The inventory
in Table 5 was determined in consultation with the local sports
organizations, the main field users in Ridgefield. Unofficial areas,
although they may be used by the leagues, are not included in Table
5.
Page 14
Table 5
Summary of Sports Facilities by Type
#
Location
Ball Fields
3
Abrams Park
1
View Ridge Middle School
1
Ridgefield High School
5
TOTAL (Ball Fields)
Soccer Fields
1
Abrams Park
1
2
4
Comments
1 youth field, 2 softball fields
1 baseball field
1 softball/baseball field – not available for public use
1 large field - league also sets up small fields on grass
areas in park
TOTAL (Soccer Fields)
Football Fields
1
1
TOTAL (Football Fields)
With grandstand
Outdoor Tennis Courts
4
4
TOTAL (Tennis Courts)
Outdoor Volleyball Courts
1
1
TOTAL (Volleyball Courts)
Outdoor Basketball Courts
1
Ridgefield Community Park
1
Heron Ridge Park
1
Pocket Park #2
2
Union Ridge Elementary
6
9
TOTAL (Basketball Courts)
Gymnasiums
1
Union Ridge Elementary School
1
1
2
TOTAL (Gymnasiums)
Half court shared with skate park
Half court, under construction in late 2006
Half court
Half court facilities
Used for RSD-sponsored programs
Tracks
1
1
TOTAL (Tracks)
Surrounding football field
Skate Parks
1
Ridgefield Community Park
1
TOTAL (Skate Parks)
Portable features, shares space with basketball court
Page 15
Trails
Except for pathways within developed parks, Ridgefield has very few
developed public trails in its inventory. There are a number of
planned trails, and some of these are used as paths although they
were never formally constructed as trails. The Wildlife Refuge
contains 3.2 miles of trails including a two-mile self-guided hiking
trail and a 1.2 mile seasonal hiking trail. The City of Ridgefield has
0.76 miles of trails in Abrams Park and along Gee Creek. Trails also
exist in the Bellwood Heights, Heron Ridge, and Wishing Wells
subdivisions.
Indoor Facilities
Ridgefield Community Center is incorporated as a non-profit
501(c)(3) and operated by a group of Ridgefield residents. The Center
provides limited services to the citizens of the community and houses
the Ridgefield library. Generally, the Community Center is used by
the City of Ridgefield and other organizations for meetings and other
gatherings, including City Council meetings. There may be
opportunities to expand the use of this facility for classroom-based
recreation programs.
The Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge headquarters is located near
the Community Center and adjacent to Davis Park at 301 N Third
Avenue. The headquarters is primarily used as office space and is not
available for recreation purposes. However, the headquarters is
scheduled for relocation in 2006, leaving this building vacant.
School Facilities
Schools are an important resource for recreation facilities such as
sports fields, playgrounds, and gymnasiums. The Ridgefield School
District is the public school organization serving Ridgefield. Within
Ridgefield, Ridgefield High School, View Ridge Middle School, and
Union Ridge Elementary School are important sites for community
recreation, as well as education. In addition, the Ridgefield School
District provides community programming for the public, in addition
to its interscholastic and intramural athletic programs for district
students.
Page 16
2.6
REGIONAL RESOURCES
Resources within the Ridgefield Planning Area
The Port of Ridgefield and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provide
important recreation resources within the Ridgefield planning area.
These resources are listed in Table 6.
Table 6
Other Publicly Owned Resources
Resource
Owner
Ridgefield Cemetery
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge
Boat Launch
Kayak Launch
City of Ridgefield
US Fish and Wildlife
Port of Ridgefield
Port of Ridgefield
9.79
5,150.001
0.18
0.10
5,106.100
Total
1
Acres
The Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge is outside the proposed Ridgefield UGA.
The Ridgefield Cemetery is owned and operated by the City, and the
Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance. The
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge is located immediately west of
Ridgefield and serves as a primary reserve for migrating waterfowl on
the Pacific Flyway. The Port and the City of Ridgefield have
cooperated to develop water access on the Port’s Lake River
frontage. This area, which the Port currently maintains, is located
near Ridgefield’s downtown.
Other Nearby Resources
Ridgefield’s location in Clark County provides community residents
with access to a broad range of nearby recreation resources. This
proximity to regional recreation means that Ridgefield is not the sole
recreation provider in the area and gives residents a choice for leisure
services. Residents of nearby areas also come to Ridgefield for some
recreation opportunities, such as La Center residents use of the
sports fields in Abrams Park.
The Ridgefield planning area enjoys proximity and easy access to
several park and recreational amenities around Clark County outside
the proposed urban growth area. Local county facilities include Mud
Lake Park (undeveloped at present), East Fork Lewis River
Greenway, Clark County Fair Grounds, Clark County Amphitheater
and Convention Center, and Whipple Creek Park/Trail. The
Washington State Department of Natural Resources owns and
Page 17
operates the Woodland Special Campground, located three miles east
of Woodland on county road 38. Paradise Point State Park
encompasses 88 acres and 6,180 feet of freshwater shoreline on the
East Fork of the Lewis River immediately east of Interstate 5. It is
owned and operated by the Washington State Parks and Recreation
Department. The National Park Service operates and maintains the
164-acre Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, which is located in
Vancouver near the Columbia River. The Tri Mountain Golf Course
is a public course owned and maintained by Clark County.
Private Development
Open spaces held by private homeowners’ associations can provide
additional opportunities for park and recreation facilities. Typically,
land within a residential development that is not suitable for
construction is retained as open space to bolster their open space and
trail networks. Numerous residential developments in Ridgefield are
in various stages of completion, and several contain open space
networks. Some developments own and maintain pocket parks, with
Taverner Ridge an example of a privately owned pocket park.
Page 18
2.7
COMMUNITY RECREATION VALUES AND PRIORITIES
As part of the comprehensive park and recreation planning process, a
community recreation survey was distributed throughout the
community to provide information about community values,
priorities, and needs. A summary of the key results is presented
below, with a complete report contained in Appendix B.
Survey results indicate that, overall, Ridgefield residents care about
their park system and believe that parks and recreation are important
to their community’s quality of life. Residents are active and
participate in a number of active recreation pursuits. The top three
activities are enjoying the outdoors or nature, walking or biking for
exercise, and participating in family activities. However, survey results
found that the community has significant unmet park and recreation
needs that need to be addressed, especially as the city continues to
grow.
Residents are primarily interested in upgrading existing parks and
developing new parks. Their top three priorities for new park
development are large, multi-use parks, a linear trail system, and
protected natural open space. These correlate with the deficits of the
current park facilities, especially the lack of trails within the city.
Citizens also want more connectivity between natural areas and
pockets of development, with trails being a linchpin to link
neighborhoods with community destinations.
In terms of park facilities, residents’ top three choices are a citywide
trail system, indoor recreation space, and sports fields. They prefer a
paved, multi-use trail system for exercise, recreation, and
experiencing nature. Ridgefield citizens also would like to see a multipurpose indoor recreation center that contains an indoor swimming
pool and multi-use gym.
According to the survey results, Ridgefield youth use parks for
different reasons than adults do. Top reasons for youth park use are
playing sports and meeting friends. Youth also feel that Ridgefield
needs some new facilities and would like to see a swimming pool and
more sports fields. Ridgefield’s youth have different levels of
participation in recreation activities than the adults, with playing
video games by far the most popular activity among youth. Again
unlike adults, three of the top 10 activities for youth are organized
sports, including soccer, basketball and football. However, similar to
Ridgefield’s adults, Ridgefield youth value nature and trail-related
activities, with seven of youth’s top 20 activities being nature- and/or
trail-related activities.
Page 19
2.8
CURRENT AND FUTURE PARK NEEDS
Ridgefield has significant park and recreation needs that were
identified in the needs assessment conducted by MIG. This
assessment quantifies the need for park and recreation facilities in the
community by establishing and applying a recommended level of
service (LOS) standard to determine current and future park facilities
needs. This section summarizes the findings of the needs assessment
in the areas of parks, recreation facilities, greenways, and trails.
Complete results of the needs assessment are located in Appendix C.
Table 7 provides a summary of the level of service standards for
active park facilities in the Ridgefield area. The recommended LOS
standards for community parks and neighborhood parks in the
Ridgefield planning area are slightly higher than the standards
contained in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan for these park types.
Table 7
Summary of LOS Standards
By Park Type
LOS (acres/1,000 residents)
Park type
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks
Pocket Parks
Regional Parks
Special Use Areas
Total
Existing
LOS Standard
2006
Actual LOS
New LOS
Standard
5.0
1.5
6.96
0.19
5.27
1.56
---6.5
0.58
0.00
0.11
7.84
---6.83
Table 8 shows park land needs by type. Applying the proposed LOS
standard to the 2024 population indicates that Ridgefield will need an
additional 160 acres of community and neighborhood park land to
serve future needs.
Page 20
Table 8
Park Land Needs by Type
Park Land Holdings
Park type
2006
Actual
2006
Need
2006
Surplus
(Deficit)
2024
Need
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks
Pocket Parks
Regional Parks
Special Use Areas
18.1
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.3
13.7
4.06
----
4.4
(3.06)
----
138.1
41.0
----
Community Parks
The LOS standard indicates a need for 13.7 acres of community
parks as of 2006. While Abrams Park is 18.1 acres, exceeding this
amount, its geographic service area leaves a significant portion of
residents needing a community park because they lack access to
Abrams. The total projected need for community park land in 2024 is
138 acres, representing a need for 120 additional acres of community
park land.
Neighborhood Parks
The LOS standard indicates a need for a total 4.06 acres of
neighborhood parks in 2006. Since there is only one acre of existing
neighborhood park land, Ridgefield has a shortage of 3.06 acres. The
projected need for neighborhood park land in 2024 is 41.0 acres. This
represents a need for 40 acres of new neighborhood park land.
Pocket Parks
Due to their small size and limited recreation opportunities, pocket
parks exist at the expense of alternate recreation amenities desired by
Ridgefield residents near their homes. These parks are also costly to
maintain on a per acre basis, creating maintenance inefficiencies.
Thus, they are not recommended for the future. No level of service
standard is recommended for pocket parks, and this type of park
should be used only as a park of last resort, where others are not
possible.
Regional Parks
Given the size and nature of regional parks, their service area usually
includes one large community or several small communities. Thus, no
level of service is recommended for regional parks in Ridgefield,
although the city should work in collaboration with neighboring
Page 21
communities and Clark County to explore opportunities for future
regional park facilities.
Special Use Areas
Special use areas include miscellaneous park lands or stand-alone
recreation sites designed to support a specific, specialized use. In
Ridgefield, future special use facilities are planned to be
accommodated in future community or regional parks. No standalone special use areas are recommended for development, thus no
level of service standards are recommended for this park type.
Recreation Facilities
This section describes the current and future need for specific types
of recreation facilities provided by the City of Ridgefield. Facilities
addressed in this section include baseball/softball fields, soccer fields,
gymnasiums and specialized facilities. These ratios are guidelines,
intended to help the City keep up with growth.
Baseball/Softball
The analysis indicated that Ridgefield should increase its service level
to provide one baseball/softball field per 550 residents. Based on this
standard, the city currently needs five baseball/softball fields (one
more than is currently available). The projected 2024 need is for 48
baseball and softball fields.
Soccer Fields
The analysis of soccer fields indicated that Ridgefield should maintain
its current service level to provide one large soccer field per 520
residents. (The existing five fields meet the guideline.) The projected
2024 need is for 51 soccer fields.
Gymnasiums
There is a need in Ridgefield for gymnasiums to support recreation
activities. Ridgefield’s future population of 26,200 could be
adequately served by joint use of school gymnasiums, if an agreement
can be reached to provide gym use on weekends and after 5 p.m.
weekdays. There is no formal agreement in place for joint use of
school facilities.
Specialized Facilities
Since specialized facilities are generally incorporated into parks in
response to community demands, level of service recommendations
are not established. Current specialized facility needs that were
identified in the community survey include improvements to the
skate park, more river access, an indoor swimming pool, water
playgrounds, off-leash dog areas, and community garden space.
Page 22
Greenways
Greenways are undeveloped lands primarily left in a natural state that
may serve as trail corridors. The recommended LOS standard for
greenway land in the Ridgefield planning area is 8.65 acres per 1,000
residents. There is a current need of 22.5 acres of greenway areas,
which is satisfied by existing greenway holdings. The projected 2024
need for greenway land is 195.5 acres, which amounts to 173.0 acres
of additional greenway land.
Trails
Currently, Ridgefield has only 1.67 miles of developed trails within
the planning area. Of this, approximately 1.3 is owned by the city,
and .37 is owned by the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. The
recommended LOS standard for off-street trails in the planning area
is 0.64 miles per 1,000 residents. Using this standard, the projected
2024 need for off-street trails in Ridgefield is 16.8 miles, representing
15.5 miles of additional trails.
Page 23
Page 24
CHAPTER 3:
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
3.1
OVERVIEW
The vision, goals, and objectives described in this chapter define the
park and recreation services that Ridgefield will provide. These were
derived from input received throughout the planning process, from
city staff and officials, the Planning Advisory Committee, community
members, and other service providers. Taken together, the vision,
goals, and objectives provide a framework for the Comprehensive
Park and Recreation Plan.
3.2
VISION FOR THE FUTURE
The public outreach efforts during the comprehensive park planning
process provided feedback from a variety of City residents regarding
their vision, needs, and preferences for parks and recreation services.
Through these efforts, a vision for the future emerged:
Ridgefield envisions an interconnected community with a park, trail, and greenway
system that contributes to the City’s small town character, provides a variety of
recreation opportunities, and is an integral part of the community.
This vision provided the foundation for all goals, objectives,
recommendations, and guidelines in the following chapters within
this Plan.
3.3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals and objectives form the framework for the Comprehensive
Park and Recreation Plan. A goal is a general statement describing an
outcome the City wishes to provide. Goals typically do not change
over time unless community values shift. Objectives are more specific
statements that describe a means to achieving goals, and are
measurable. Objectives may change over time. Recommendations are
specific actions implemented to achieve the goals and objectives, and
are contained in subsequent chapters of the plan.
Page 25
Goals
Through the planning process, seven goals were identified for the
City of Ridgefield’s park and recreation system:
Goal 1: Preserve land for parks and natural open space to provide
for Ridgefield’s growing population.
Goal 2: Provide well-designed, accessible, and safe parks, recreation
facilities, and natural open space areas.
Goal 3: Maximize opportunities for public enjoyment of local and
regional resources, including waterfront access.
Goal 4: Provide opportunities for walking and biking by connecting
parks, open space, schools, neighborhoods, downtown, and regional
destinations.
Goal 5: Provide efficient and high quality stewardship of parks,
Goal 6: Be an efficient and effective provider of the park and
recreation services desired by the community.
Goal 7: Encourage and support public involvement in park and
recreation issues.
Objectives
Objectives are listed below, organized by goal. Objectives are
numbered for reference to correspond to the goals.
Goal 1: Preserve park land and natural open space to provide
for Ridgefield’s growing population.
1-A:
Proactively seek park land identified within this plan, in both
developed and undeveloped areas, to secure suitable locations
for new parks.
1-B:
Protect open space, especially creek corridors and steep
slopes, to maintain Ridgefield’s rural feel.
1-C:
Secure trail corridors to ensure that community connections
are provided in developing areas.
1-D:
Ensure that development standards provide for adequate
parks and recreation facilities.
1-E:
Secure adequate park land in developing areas to serve future
residents.
1-F:
Preserve areas with critical or unique natural features, such as
stream corridors, wildlife habitat, and wetlands.
Page 26
1-G:
Establish mechanisms so that new development is
responsible for providing or paying for the park and
recreation facilities needed to serve increased population.
Goal 2: Provide well-designed, accessible and safe parks,
recreation facilities, and natural open space areas.
2-A:
Provide a variety of active and passive recreational
opportunities within Ridgefield’s park system.
2-B:
Develop a park system with access and convenient locations
for residents and local employees. Provide a neighborhood or
community park within ½ mile walking distance.
2-C:
Meet the need for athletic fields based on the demand created
by the population of Ridgefield.
2-D:
Incorporate community input and account for changing
recreation trends as Ridgefield parks are built or renovated.
2-E:
Adopt and follow park design and development guidelines.
2-F:
Accept only those parks and facilities that are consistent with
the City’s Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan.
2-G:
Ensure that year-round recreation opportunities, such as
indoor facilities or covered outdoor recreation areas, are
available in the community.
2-H:
Coordinate with private and non-profit providers, such as
organized sports leagues, to ensure they have adequate
facilities and space to provide recreation services.
Goal 3: Maximize opportunities for public enjoyment of local
and regional resources, including waterfront access.
3-A:
Partner with Clark County and LaCenter and other
stakeholders to provide regional facilities.
3-B:
Partner with the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge to
improve community access to natural areas, achieve trail
connectivity, and coordinate seasonal and annual events.
3-C:
Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, Clark County, and
the Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation District to provide
a regional greenway network and coordinated trail alignments
that provide continuous walking and biking access between
regional parks and other key destinations.
3-D:
Provide opportunities for public access to the waterfront by
coordinating with the Port of Ridgefield to improve access to
Page 27
the boat and kayak launches and discussing opportunities for
waterfront parks, open space, and trails.
3-E:
Provide water trails along Lake River, and tie these into the
state’s water trail program.
Goal 4: Provide opportunities for walking and biking by
connecting parks, open space, schools, neighborhoods,
downtown, and regional destinations.
4-A:
Develop an interconnected pedestrian and bicycle system that
connects the community.
4-B:
Connect the City’s pedestrian and bicycle system with
regional systems.
4-C:
Develop a network of off-street trails using natural open
space areas, parks, utility corridors, and other features. This
network can be supplemented with on-street connections
where needed.
4-D:
Provide trails along Gee Creek and Lake River and
connecting to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge.
Goal 5: Provide efficient and high quality stewardship of parks,
5-A:
Maintain park and recreation facilities in a manner to make
them safe, attractive, and a positive part of the neighborhood
and City.
5-B:
Develop maintenance frequency protocols that maximize the
life of the City’s park and recreation assets.
5-C:
Maximize efficient use of the maintenance budget.
5-D:
Consider the maintenance costs and staffing levels associated
with acquisition, development, or renovation of parks or
natural open space areas, and adjust the annual operating
budget accordingly for adequate maintenance funding of the
system expansion.
5-E:
Provide better tracking of the costs of maintaining Cityowned facilities by their function, including public buildings,
infrastructure (e.g. well-heads), parks and natural areas, and
the cemetery.
Page 28
Goal 6: Be an efficient and effective provider of the parks and
recreation services desired by the community.
6-A:
Encourage collaboration among local art, business, education,
tourism, city beautification, and recreation interests.
6-B:
Monitor the availability of additional recreation services as the
community grows. Consider adding events or recreation
programs as warranted.
6-C:
Partner with the Ridgefield School District to maximize
public use of recreation facilities on school sites, especially
athletic fields and gymnasiums, and to encourage provision of
community education programming at schools.
6-D:
Maintain an operating budget that reflects what the
community needs to preserve park assets and can afford
within budget constraints.
6-E:
Maximize operational efficiency to provide the greatest public
benefit for the resources expended, which may include
considering contracted services.
6-F:
Tailor services and operating hours to community needs, so
that policies, work schedules, and administrative direction
support public use of parks and services.
6-G:
Develop staff growth by encouraging participation in
professional organizations, educational classes, and training
seminars.
6-H:
Explore the possibility of forming a Metropolitan Parks
District to provide stable park maintenance funding.
Goal 7: Encourage and support public involvement in park and
recreation issues.
7-A:
Support the Parks Advisory Board as the forum for public
discussion of parks and recreation issues.
7-B:
Provide public review opportunities in park planning and
design decisions.
7-C:
Establish publicity efforts to inform citizens of the
recreational opportunities available in local neighborhoods
and City-wide.
7-D:
Review local park and recreation preferences, needs, and
trends every three years.
7-E:
Encourage citizen involvement and participation in
maintaining and restoring the quality of parks, such as adopta-park programs, sports group partnerships, and Scout
projects.
Page 29
Page 30
CHAPTER 4:
PARK, FACILITY, AND TRAIL RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 RECOMMENDED PARK SYSTEM
This chapter provides detailed recommendations for Ridgefield’s
future park system, and serves as a companion to the
recommendations on administration and operations in Chapter 5.
The park system recommendations implement the vision, goals, and
objectives presented in Chapter 3.
This chapter presents design guidelines for parks, and
recommendations organized by parks, recreation facilities, greenways,
and trails.
4.2 PARK SYSTEM OVERVIEW
To implement Ridgefield’s vision, goals, and objectives for parks and
recreation, a park system is recommended that:
• Includes improvements to Ridgefield’s existing parks to meet
the needs of current residents;
• Emphasizes acquiring or securing adequately sized future
park sites in advance of development, before suitable parcels
become scarce;
• Provides a citywide greenway network;
• Incorporates a trail and path network to link parks, schools,
neighborhood, and other destination points; and
• Addresses community recreation facility needs.
The proposed park system is depicted on the Park Plan map, shown
on the next page. The Park Plan is a graphic representation
illustrating the overall concept for where future parks and greenways
should be located in Ridgefield. Some important notes about the Park
Plan map are:
•
Park Identification System: Each existing and proposed park site
and trail linkage is identified with a reference number on the
Park Plan and the Trails, Paths, and Greenways Plan (shown
later in this chapter), such as CP-1. These identifying
numbers are incorporated into the recommendations
discussed on the following pages, as well as in the capital
project cost tables in Chapter 6. The letter at the beginning
denotes the park or facility type, and the numbers are
sequential. The letter abbreviations are:
CP
Community Park
NP
Neighborhood Park
RP
Regional Park
SU
Special Use
GW
Greenway
T
Trail
P
Path
Page 31
•
Proposed Park Locations: On the plan map, asterisks identify
proposed park sites. The asterisk indicates the general vicinity
for a particular park. The actual location will be determined
based on land availability, acquisition cost, park development
standards, and a property owner’s willingness to sell.
•
Proposed Trail and Path Routes: Proposed trail and path routes
are identified on the Park Plan. The general route alignment is
shown on the plan, but the actual alignment or right-of-way
will be determined based on land availability.
•
Park Names: Where names are used to reference proposed
park sites and trail corridors, names are for reference
purposes only and are not yet approved by City staff or the
City Council.
4.3 PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES
Park site selection, design, and development should support the
function and purpose of each park classification to ensure that
diverse recreation opportunities are provided, community recreation
needs are met, and conflicts are minimized. In this section,
guidelines are provided for each park classification. These are
presented in table format, with guidelines for community parks,
neighborhood parks, special use areas, and greenways. No guidelines
are provided for pocket parks, because these are not recommended
for the future park system. Guidelines are also not provided for
regional parks, because the plan anticipates that Ridgefield will only
participate in regional park development as a partner. For each
classification in the table, the following information is provided:

Definition: A definition is presented to describe the park type.

Size Standards: A minimum size, acceptable size ranges, and
minimum usable area is provided for each park type. Minimum
usable area describes the minimum developable acreage.

Site Selection Criteria: These criteria address street frontage
and access.

Required Amenities: Amenities that must be provided are
listed for each park type.

Other Amenities to Consider: Other appropriate amenities
that should be considered during the master planning and design
process are listed for each classification.
Page 32
NE
RP-1
Comprehensive Plan
TIM
NP-2
NP-5
CP-2
NP-3
HERON
RIDGE PARK
NW MAIN
NP-1A
DAVIS PARK
NP-4
CP-3
CP-1
ABRAMS PARK
SU-2
WATERFRONT
PARK
I-5
Carty
Lake
N E 11 T H AV E
PLANKHOUSE
N W 4 5 T H AV E
er
v
N W 5 1 S T AV E
Ri
D
N R
NP-1B/SU-1
RIDGEFIELD
COMMUNITY PARK
PIONEER
CP-5
NP-6
S 5TH ST
REFUGE
HU
RS
T R
D
NP-10
Proposed
Special Use
Park
Greenway
Network
City-owned
Greenways
Golf Course
School
Wildlife
Refuge
River and
Waterbody
Railroad
Map 4.1: Park Plan
I-5
NP-9
Existing Park
Pocket Park
Existing
UGA
Proposed
UGA
Proposed
UGA Taxlots
CP-8
NP-8
Proposed
Off Road
Trail
Other Open
Space
CP-7
Cambel
Lake
Proposed
Neighborhood
Park
Neighborhood
Park
CP-4
S H
ILL
Proposed
Regional
Park
Community
Park
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
Proposed
On Road
Pathway
Proposed
Community
Park
CP-6
NP-7
RIDGEFIELD
Existing
On Road
Pathway
Existing
Off Road
Trail
N E 1 0 T H AV E
ke
N W 7 1 S T AV E
ME
La
0
0.25
Miles
0.5
November 2006
Table 9
Park Design Guidelines
Park Type
Community Parks
Definition
Community parks are planned to provide active and structured recreation
opportunities, as well as passive and non-organized opportunities for individual
and family activities. Their target audience is residents within 1 mile driving,
walking, or biking distance. These parks often have sport fields or similar facilities
as the central focus of the park, and require more support facilities, such as parking
and restrooms.
Size Standards
Minimum Size: 20 acres
Size Range : 20-50 acres. Some existing
community parks may be smaller than the
recommended minimum.
Site Selection Criteria
Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and park, designed primarily Minimum Size: 2 acres
for non-supervised, non-organized, recreation activities. Their target audience is
neighbors within 1/2 mile walking or biking distance. Visitors usually spend an
Size Range : 2-5 usable acres. Additional
hour or less at these parks.
acreage may be provided in natural areas,
but will not develeoped with neighborhood
park amenities
Other Amenities to Consider
Playground equipment (multiple age groups)
Open lawn (minimum 100'x100')
Sport courts (minimum 1 basketball court)
Athletic Fields (minimum 2 fields)
Picnic shelter (to accommodate 25+ people)
Permanent restrooms
Off-street parking
Landscape improvements, including trees
Internal paved path system
Site furnishings
Water sprayground
Skate park/skate facilities
BMX/freestyle facilities
Sand or grass volleyball courts
Small sporting facilities (horseshoes, bocce, etc.)
Off-leash dog area
Natural areas
Community gardens
Indoor facilities
Other amenities appropriate to park's function
Playground equipment (multiple age groups)
Open lawn (minimum 75'x75')
Picnic shelter
Landscape improvements, including trees
Internal paved path system
Site furnishings
Sport courts (basketball, tennis, volleyball)
Multi-use athletic field (casual play, no scheduled games)
Natural areas
Community gardens
Off-street parking
Other amenities appropriate to park's function
Site and location requirements depend upon specialized
use proposed, and may include criteria determined
through an economic feasibility and operations cost study
Specialized use facility (indoor or outdoor)
Site furnishings
Restrooms (permanent structure)
Parking, on or off-street
Outdoor amenities that support the primary special use,
such as:
Playground equipment
Water sprayground
Open lawn area
Picnic shelter
Multi-use fields
Athletic fields (baseball, softball, or soccer)
Skate park/skate facilities
Sand or grass volleyball courts
Community gardens
Off-leash dog area
Natural areas
Site should have access to a public street or trail, to public
land, or contribute to the City's greenway network
Trails
Site furnishings
Map kiosk at trailhead
Interpretive signs or exhibits
Viewpoint
Picnic shelter
Outdoor classroom or gathering space
Interpretive center or building
Restrooms
Off-street parking
Site should front a public street, with a minimum of 200'
of frontage for visibility.
Access should be provided via collector or arterial street
with sidewalks and bicycle lanes
Minimum Usable Area: 15 acres
Neighborhood Parks
Required Amenities
Site should have 200' of frontage on a public street on at
least two sides.. If a natural area is provided on one side,
frontage is necessary on only one side.
Access should be provided via a local or collector street
with sidewalks.
Minimum Usable Area: 1.5 acres
Special Use Areas
Greenways
Special use areas are miscellaneous park lands or stand-alone recreation sites
designed to support a specific, specialized use. This classification includes standalone sports field complexes, community centers, community gardens, aquatic
centers, or sites occupied by buildings. Specialized facilities may also be provided
within a park of another classification.
Minimum Size: Adequate to accommodate
special use and supporting facilities
Greenways are undeveloped lands primarily left in a natural state with recreation Minimum Size: Adequate to accommodate
use as a secondary objective. Greenways are usually owned or managed by a
natural resource and connectivity needs
governmental agency and may or may not have public access. This type of land
often includes wetlands, steep hillsides, or other similar spaces. In some cases,
environmentally sensitive areas are considered as open space and can include
wildlife habitats, stream and creek corridors, or unique and/or endangered plant
species. Greenways may serve as trail corridors, and generally support only passive
recreation; any active recreation that occurs is usually a secondary use.
4.4
SITE-SPECIFIC PARK RECOMMENDATIONS
This section includes recommendations for each existing and
proposed park site depicted on the Park Plan Map.
Abrams Park (CP-1)
Abrams Park is located on Gee Creek and provides the major
gathering place for the existing Ridgefield community. The park is
just east of downtown Ridgefield and has historically been the City’s
major park. It contains play equipment, picnic tables, benches,
athletic fields, restrooms, and a kitchen facility. Abrams Park is
envisioned to remain a major community gathering place. To
support its community park function, improvements to Abrams Park
are recommended, beginning with a master plan to guide future
capital projects at the site.
Abrams Park is aging and many of its facilities are in need of
replacement or upgrade. Improvements to park layout are also
needed. A plan for this park will help the City make decisions about
which repairs are worthwhile. For example, if the master plan calls
for relocation of a structure, major investment in that structure would
not be a wise use of funds.
Recommendations
•
Create and implement a master plan for Abrams Park that
includes:
Diversification of uses so that this centrally located
community facility is not dominated by athletic fields;
Improved functional relationship of the park elements
(restroom location, shelter location, parking, etc.);
An internal paved pathway system;
Linkage of Abrams Park to Mayor’s Meadow open space
and creation of a trailhead facility along Pioneer at
Mayor’s Meadow;
Improvement of picnic and shelter facilities to update
amenities and accommodate larger groups and events;
Improve formal trail access to and through the park,
especially between Abrams Park and neighborhoods to
the north and east;
Overall upgrade of facilities; and
Consideration of the need for on-site caretaker facilities.
•
As new athletic fields are constructed elsewhere in Ridgefield,
phase out some of the Abrams fields in accordance with the
master plan.
•
Replace the playground equipment in accordance with the
master plan. The existing wood structure is very popular,
Page 37
but does not meet current standards and is difficult to
maintain.
•
Implement the master plan in phases as funding allows.
New Community Park (CP-2)
A new community park is recommended in the vicinity of 51st north
of the Bellwood Heights subdivision. This community park can serve
the majority of residences that would be added with the proposed
urban growth area expansion. This park can also serve a
neighborhood park function for residents of Bellwood Heights.
Acquire a suitable site in the vicinity shown on the plan map in
accordance with the design guidelines. In addition to community park
amenities, this site should be designed to support park use by nearby
neighbors. Design and construction should occur as the area
develops.
A new community park is recommended in the vicinity north of
Pioneer near the Cedar Ridge development. This community park
can serve the residents of Cedar Ridge and additional residential
development along Pioneer between NW 31st Avenue and NW 51st
Avenue. It will also serve as a neighborhood park for residents within
½ mile.
As with site CP-2, acquisition of this site must be pursued, followed
by design and construction.
A new community park is recommended in the vicinity along
Hillhurst Road near the Taverner Ridge and Wishing Wells residential
developments. This community park can serve the residents of these
developments and others that take form along the Hillhurst Road.
This park will also serve as a neighborhood park for residents within
½ mile.
As with the other proposed community parks, acquisition of this site
must be pursued, followed by design and construction.
A new community park is recommended in the vicinity of the Ridge
Crest mixed-use development in the southwest quadrant of the South
45th Avenue and Pioneer Street intersection. This mixed-use area of
Ridgefield will likely develop with office/industrial uses, with pockets
of retail and residential uses. This park will serve as a neighborhood
park for those residents within ½ mile and a community park for
employees and residents within a mile.
Page 38
must be pursued, followed by design and construction. Special
consideration should be given to the needs of office and industrial
workers, which may differ from the needs of residential users.
A new community park is recommended in the vicinity of South 5th
Avenue between I-5 and NE 10th Avenue (County designation)/ 85th
Avenue (City designation). This area of Ridgefield is planned for
commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. Segments of South 5th
Street are planned for neighborhood commercial uses and the
agricultural area will have a low-density residential component. A
community park in this location will serve as a community gathering
place east of I-5 and a neighborhood park for nearby residents.
must be pursued, followed by design and construction. Since this is
the only community or neighborhood park proposed east of
Interstate 5, careful consideration of the needs of potential future
users should be given during the design phase to ensure that the park
serves the community well.
A new community park is recommended in the vicinity of Carty
Road east of Hillhurst Road and SW 31st Avenue. This community
park can serve the residents of Gee Creek Highlands development
and additional residential development near Carty Road. This park
will also serve as a neighborhood park for residents within ½ mile.
must be pursued, followed by design and construction.
A new community park is recommended in the area south of Carty
Road and west of I-5. This community park can serve the residents
that locate on the southern edge of Ridgefield near the Clark County
Fairgrounds. This park will also serve as a neighborhood park for
residents within ½ mile.
must be pursued, followed by design and construction. A
community gathering place should be designed into this site, and is a
critical element in this location because of its relatively long distance
from Ridgefield’s core.
Page 39
Davis Park (NP-1A)
Davis Park is a small half-acre park in downtown Ridgefield that
provides several of the amenities that residents expect of a
neighborhood park. When coupled with Ridgefield Community Park
(one block away to the south), the two serve as a neighborhood park
for residents in and near downtown Ridgefield. Access to the park is
very good. The park is well-used, but is also old, with poor
accessibility within the park and aging play equipment. While the
existing amenities do not meet the design and development
guidelines, the site serves an important need and should be enhanced
and expanded to increase public use.
This plan recommends that, in the long term, Ridgefield Community
Park be converted to other uses as part of a downtown revitalization
effort. Some of the features at Ridgefield Community Park should be
incorporated into the expanded Davis Park to accommodate this
change.
Recommendations
•
Secure use of the parcel where the Ridgefield National
Wildlife Refuge office was formerly located (301 N. 3rd
Avenue) .
•
Create and implement a master plan for Davis Park that
includes:
Addition of a basketball court or half-court;
Replacement of play equipment;
A shelter structure and restrooms;
Improved street edges;
Removal of the chain link fence;
Consider the addition of a sprayground and/or a
permanent skate park to this site;
Incorporation of power service and other elements to
support community activities at the site;
Addition of internal pathways that connect amenities and
provide universal accessibility.
Implement the master plan in phases.

•
Ridgefield Community Park (NP-1B and SU-1)
Ridgefield Community Park is a special use facility that functions in
conjunction with Davis Park (one block to the north) to provide
neighborhood park amenities for Ridgefield residents in and near
downtown. Permanent features in the park include a picnic shelter,
benches, and a basketball court. Portable skate features are set up on
half of the basketball court. The amenities offered at Ridgefield
Community Park are heavily used and should be retained in or near
Page 40
downtown. That said, the downtown neighborhood parks should be
consolidated into one site. This plan recommends that Davis Park be
redesigned to accommodate the amenities currently at Ridgefield
Community Park, because the current location of Ridgefield
Community Park could be a key development opportunity site in
future downtown revitalization efforts.
Recommendations
•
Relocate skatepark facilities to another location that is still
centrally located, but allows for the construction of
permanent, concrete facilities that can accommodate
anticipated population growth. Davis Park may be an
appropriate site.
•
In the long term, develop current location as a mixed-use
development that supports the desired character of
downtown and provides continuity to the downtown built
fabric.
New Neighborhood Park (NP-2)
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the vicinity of the
intersection of SW 71st Avenue and 291st. This neighborhood park
can serve residents in the northwest corner of the City that are
outside of walking distance from Davis and Abrams Parks. Acquire a
suitable site in the vicinity shown on the plan map in accordance with
the design guidelines. If possible, this park should be connected to
the greenway.
Heron Ridge Park (NP-3)
Under construction in late 2006, Heron Ridge Park is located within
Bellwood Heights development. At about 1.5 acres, this park is
larger than most pocket parks but it does not meet the minimum
guideline for a neighborhood park established in this plan. Heron
Ridge provides important opportunities in an area that is not wellserved by other parks. If it could be expanded in the future,
additional amenities could be incorporated to meet the minimum
standard for neighborhood parks.
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the northern section
of the planning area, northwest of the intersection of NE 31st Avenue
and NW 289th. This neighborhood park can serve residents along the
northern edge of the City who live west of I-5. This area is currently
zoned for agricultural use. Land should be acquired as soon as
possible, but the park should not be developed until residential
development begins.
Page 41
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the vicinity southwest
of the NE 45th Avenue and NW 289th intersection. This
neighborhood park can serve residents who are not within walking
distance of other neighborhood or community parks. This area is
currently zoned for agricultural use. Land should be acquired as soon
as possible, but the park should not be developed until residential
development begins.
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the vicinity of the
Hillhurst residential development along Hillhurst Road. If located
south of the Hillhurst development, this neighborhood park can
serve the Hillhurst residents and neighbors to the south. Given that
this park is a high priority, a suitable site should be acquired as soon
as possible, with design and development occurring in conjunction
with residential development in this area. This park is in the vicinity
of the main entrance to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. It
may be possible for this neighborhood park to serve a dual purpose,
where in addition to serving neighborhood needs, it also serves as a
gateway to the Wildlife Refuge. If this can be accomplished, this park
may serve as a combination special use and neighborhood park.
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the vicinity of Gee
Creek near the intersection of SW 10th Way and South 35th Place.
This neighborhood park can serve the residential area east of Gee
Creek, south of Pioneer Street, and west of NW 31st Avenue.
Acquire a suitable site in the vicinity shown on the plan map in
accordance with the design guidelines, and design and develop the
park as residential development occurs.
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the area west of the
Hillhurst Road and Carty Road intersection. This neighborhood park
could be located next to or on part of the Ridgefield School District
site intended for a future high school. Land should be acquired as
soon as possible, or an agreement with the school district should be
signed about a park at this site. The park should not be developed
until residential development begins.
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the northeast of the
intersection of 31st Avenue and 219th. As with many of the future
residential areas in Ridgefield, this area is currently zoned for
agricultural use. This is a longer term development area. Through
the development approval process, land should be acquired and the
park should be developed along with residential development.
Page 42
A new neighborhood park is recommended in the area northeast of
11th Avenue and 219th Avenue along the southern edge of the
planning area. This area is currently zoned for agricultural use. As
with the neighborhood around site NP-8, this is a longer term
development area. Through the development approval process, land
should be acquired and the park should be developed along with
residential development.
New Regional Park (RP-1)
The projected population of the Ridgefield planning area will not
support the development and operation of a regional park. However,
Ridgefield residents could benefit from a regional facility that is
developed in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. It is
recommended that the City of Ridgefield collaborate with La Center
and Clark County to develop a regional park with a multisport
complex. A logical location for such a facility is east of I-5 north of
the Tri Mountain Golf Course.
New Special Use Park (SU-2)
Public input into the planning process revealed that the community
strongly values access to the Lake River waterfront. It is
recommended that the City of Ridgefield develop a waterfront park
facility near downtown to provide waterfront access for the
community. This could occur in partnership with the Port of
Ridgefield, as the Port moves forward with redevelopment plans for
the waterfront. The waterfront park should provide a viewpoint and
sitting areas, and could incorporate boat or kayak access to Lake
River. With some improvements, the existing Port boating facilities
could serve this function.
Pocket Parks
The pocket parks in Ridgefield include two in the Bellwood Heights
development and one in the Cedar Ridge development. It is
recommended that the City of Ridgefield monitor opportunities to
expand existing pocket park facilities to provide a greater variety of
amenities and increase both capacity and service area of these four
sites. Specifically, the City should explore opportunities to provide
amenities for both children and adults, in various stages of life.
As previously stated in this plan, Ridgefield should not add any new
pocket parks to its inventory because these are inefficient to operate
and provide very limited recreational opportunities.
Other Park Sites
Ridgefield is fortunate to have a wealth of park and recreation
resources in and around the city that are owned by other agencies.
Page 43
These sites provide a variety of opportunities for Ridgefield residents,
and contribute to the City’s park system. The recommendations
below address Ridgefield’s actions on these sites.

Other Resources: Capitalize on local resources owned and
operated by others such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Port of
Ridgefield. At minimum, the City should note the locations of
these sites on the City’s park map and provide links on its
website, so that Ridgefield residents are aware of the
opportunities provided by these other agencies.

Other City-owned Lands: The City owns other lands, such as a
site at South Main, that should be evaluated for potential
development with overlooks and as trailheads.

Port of Ridgefield Boat and Kayak Launches: The Port of
Ridgefield currently owns and operates a boat launch and kayak
launch along Lake River. The launches provide the best existing
public access to the waterfront. It is recommended that the City
of Ridgefield coordinate with the Port of Ridgefield to improve
the kayak launch and to improve access to both the boat launch
and kayak launch. The recommended new special use waterfront
park could be located adjacent to or expand upon one of these
facilities.

Schools: Schools are an important resource for recreation
facilities such as sports fields, playgrounds, and gymnasiums. The
Ridgefield School District is the public school organization
serving Ridgefield. Existing schools with recreation facilities
include Union Ridge Elementary, View Ridge Middle School, and
Ridgefield High School. During the planning process, the City
Council and School Board met to discuss the potential for
expanded partnerships, and agreed that the existing interlocal
agreement between the two agencies should be updated. The
City and School District should update this agreement to specify
public use of recreational facilities at school sites. This agreement
should also support locating new community and neighborhood
parks adjacent to schools to efficiently serve the recreation needs
of students and the general public. Shared facilities, or colocation, must increase efficiency while not neglecting the needs
of either user group.

Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge: The Ridgefield National
Wildlife Refuge is highly valued by Ridgefield residents –
community survey results indicated that 90% of residents have
visited the Refuge, and community involvement revealed that
Ridgefield residents desire improved access to the Refuge. The
City should coordinate with the Refuge to improve access and
way-finding to the Refuge’s recreation opportunities. The Refuge
Page 44
intends to initiate a planning process in the near future. The City
should actively seek involvement as a stakeholder in this effort,
and should provide Refuge staff with the Comprehensive Park
and Recreation Plan as well as plan maps.

Welcome Center: The Welcome Center is a concept developed
to provide a visitor information center for the Ridgefield
National Wildlife Refuge in downtown. The Welcome Center
should be considered as part of the City’s downtown planning
process, to be undertaken in the future. Since PIF money was
used to secure the site, the project must demonstrate benefit to
the whole community.

Cathlapotle Plankhouse: The Cathlapotle Plankhouse is a
cedar plankhouse constructed on the Refuge, and provides a
place for programs and interpretation. This site offers resources
for Ridgefield residents, as well as a tourism attraction.
4.5
RECREATION FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS
Ridgefield’s existing recreation facility inventory consists primarily of
athletic fields and a skate park. The following recommendations
address athletic facilities, other outdoor recreation facilities, and
gymnasiums to meet Ridgefield’s growing recreation needs.
Athletic Facilities
Athletic activities in Ridgefield are offered by private organizations
and through the Ridgefield School District Community Education
program. Sports are important recreation activities in Ridgefield, and
the following recommendations address current and future needs.
•
Provide Functional Athletic Fields: The most functional types
of athletic fields are those adequately developed and specifically
designed to serve particular functions. However, for various
reasons (e.g., facility shortages or poor condition), sport facilities
are often used for activities for which they were not designed.
Descriptions of different types of athletic facilities are provided
below. Ridgefield should build new athletic fields to meet these
dimensional standards, and should retrofit existing fields to the
extent possible when fields are renovated.
•
Regulation baseball field dimensions: 320’+ outfields, 90’ baselines,
grass infield; permanent backstop and support facilities.
•
Youth baseball field dimensions: 200’+ outfields, 60’ baselines,
dugouts. Grass infield not required; permanent backstop and
support facilities.
Page 45
•
Softball field dimensions (Slow-pitch): 250’ minimum outfield women, 275’ minimum outfield - men, 60’ baselines; (Fast
pitch) 225’ outfield, 60’ baselines; skinned infield; permanent
backstop and support facilities.
•
Youth softball field dimensions: 200’+ outfields, 60’ baselines,
dugouts. Skinned infield; permanent backstop and support
facilities.
•
Regulation soccer field dimensions: 195’ to 225’ by 330’ to 360’;
grass or all weather surfacing; adequate perimeter space;
permanent or portable goals.
•
Youth soccer field dimensions: Varies according to age: U14 (60
yds. x 110 yds.) - U6 (20 yds. x 30 yds.); permanent or
portable goals.
•
Guidelines: Use the following guidelines for sports field
provision:
• 1 baseball/softball field per 550 residents
• 1 soccer field per 520 residents
•
Roles in Sports Provision: The following are the recommended
roles for sports provision.
Page 46
•
City of Ridgefield: The City’s main role is to be a provider
of fields. The City will be responsible for providing basic
quality fields and assigning blocks of time to different
leagues. If the City takes on the responsibility of field
preparation, user fees may be implemented.
•
Organized Sports Groups: Organized sports providers are
responsible for providing sports programs, scheduling
fields within allotted blocks of time, and providing for
desired field amenities, such as covered dugouts,
electronic scoreboards, etc. Field preparation may
continue to be provided by the organized sports groups
with guidelines set by the city.
•
Other Jurisdictions: Other jurisdictions such as Clark
County, Battleground, or La Center should be responsible
for contributing to the regional sports field inventory, and
potentially for partnering with Ridgefield on a regional
park and sports complex.
•
Abrams Park Field Upgrades: As part of the recommended
park improvements, the fields at Abrams Park should be
improved. During the master planning effort for Abrams Park,
alternative field configurations should be evaluated, including
configurations that provide fewer fields.
•
New Fields in Community Parks: Sports fields should be
provided in each of the proposed new community parks to meet
community needs for these facilities. Multiple fields should be
provided at each site, with the field mix based on the guidelines
listed above, with consideration given to geographic dispersal of
athletic facilities in the community. Overlaying baseball/softball
fields with soccer fields, using synthetic turf surfacing, and
lighting the facilities are ways to maximize field availability.
•
Sport Complex at New Regional Park: Partner with Clark
County and La Center to provide new baseball/softball fields and
soccer fields on a site in the vicinity north of Tri Mountain Golf
Course and east of I-5. The City should contribute financially to
this site, which will help serve Ridgefield’s growing population
and increasing demand for athletic fields.
•
School District Partnerships for Athletic Fields and Indoor
Courts: Coordinate with the School District on development of
athletic fields and indoor gymnasiums at new school sites to make
sports facilities and gymnasiums available to the general public.
An agreement should be developed between the City and School
District that spells out joint use responsibilities and policies,
including financial and maintenance responsibility.
•
Outdoor Basketball Courts: Outdoor basketball courts should
be provided in all community parks. Full or half-courts should be
considered in neighborhood parks where the park configuration
allows and where neighbors desire these facilities.
•
Outdoor Tennis Courts: Ridgefield currently has no tennis
courts available in public parks. Outdoor tennis courts should be
considered at new community parks, if desired by residents.
•
Outdoor Volleyball Courts: Ridgefield currently has no outdoor
volleyball courts. These should be considered for inclusion in
future community parks if desired by residents.
•
Skateboard/BMX Facilities: Ridgefield should replace the
portable skate park features at Ridgefield Community Park with a
permanent concrete park at a central location. No specific capital
improvements are recommended at the skate park facility in its
current location. The City should incorporate a permanent,
Page 47
concrete skate park that provides a variety of challenges into the
park system as a replacement and upgrade to the existing facility.
This facility should be designed with the input of local skaters,
and should be suitable for development in phases. The City
should also consider incorporating small-scale skateboard/BMX
features into neighborhood and community park sites.
Other Outdoor Recreation Facilities
During the planning process, community members expressed interest
in a variety of other outdoor recreation facilities. Ridgefield’s parks
currently have traditional recreation amenities such as playground
areas, but lack a range of other recreation facilities. The following
recommendations address providing additional outdoor recreation
facilities in Ridgefield:
•
Spraygrounds: Spraygrounds are water play features that are
very popular and provide a means of integrating aquatics into
parks at a relatively low cost. Ridgefield should provide at least
two spraygrounds in community parks, one north of Pioneer
Street and the other south of Pioneer Street. Although a
neighborhood park, Davis Park may be a good site for a
sprayground because of its downtown location. New community
park sites CP-5 or CP-7 may also be good sprayground sites for
south of Pioneer Street.
•
Off-Leash Dog Area: An off-leash dog area provides a location
where residents can exercise dogs. A one- to two-acre site should
be reserved in an existing or planned community park, in a
location away from natural resource areas, for future
development of an off-leash dog area. An off-leash area should
be fenced with a double-gated entry, have nearby parking, and
include amenities such as pooper scooper stations, water,
benches, and trash cans. The site should also be safe, not isolated,
and noise impacts on neighbors should be considered.
Page 48
Indoor Recreation Facilities
Indoor recreation facilities can be particularly important in the rainy
Northwest. Many residents expressed a need for indoor facilities.
•
Ridgefield Community Center: Ridgefield Community Center
is operated by a non-profit group, and also houses the Ridgefield
Library. This building offers two multi-purpose rooms currently
used for community meetings and activities. The City should
work with the non-profit group to maintain this community asset.
•
Indoor Pool: Community members are very interested in an
indoor swimming pool. Although this is a top priority for some
community members, a swimming pool is likely too costly for
Ridgefield to build and operate until the City grows substantially
in size. A well-designed public pool can serve 20,000 or more
residents. At this time, Ridgefield is too small to generate enough
demand to support an indoor pool without a significant operating
subsidy. As the city population grows, this should be revisited.
Meanwhile, the City should reserve a place for an indoor pool —
and potentially a full-service community center — within one of
its future community parks. Communities that do not reserve
space for a pool often find that there are few suitable sites
remaining when the population has grown large enough to
support one. The City should also consider collaborating with the
Ridgefield School District to provide a swimming pool at a new
school site.
Page 49
4.4
TRAIL, PATHWAY, & GREENWAY RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations provided in this section establish a trail,
pathway, and greenway system for Ridgefield that provides east-west
and north-south linkages throughout the planning area between
neighborhoods, recreation opportunities, and other key community
destinations. Greenways will protect natural areas and critical habitat
throughout the Ridgefield area, provide buffers between
neighborhoods and hubs of development, and reserve critical
connections for a proposed trail network.
Trails, Pathways, and Greenways Network
Ridgefield’s trail and pathway system will connect all parts of the city
to each other, with linkages to downtown, schools, neighborhoods,
and park sites. The off-street trail system focuses on recreation
opportunities, while also serving non-motorized transportation
needs. The on-street pathway system meets transportation needs, but
also supplements the off-street system by providing linkages and
offering a connection where no off-street connection is possible.
Trails will also be a feature of most greenways. Wherever possible,
linkages should exist between individual developments and the
citywide trail and pathway system, to connect the City’s system into a
regional network that includes Clark County and Ridgefield National
Wildlife Refuge trails. The network is depicted on the map on the
next page, with individual trail segments described later in the
document.
Page 50
Comprehensive Plan
NE
RP-1
TIM
T-1
NP-3
SU-1
T-3
CP-3
T-8
CP-1
NP-1
P-8
P-4
PIONEER
P-4
NP-6
Proposed
Park
P-11
Community
Park
P-17
Neighborhood
Park
P-15
P-12
Greenway
Network
Existing Parks
CP-6
S 5TH ST
CP-5
T-2
WILDLIFE
Trail
Type 2
Other Trail
P-4
NP-7
P-6
NATIONAL
Pathway
Type 2
*T-11 Water Trail
T-4
RIDGEFIELD
Trail
Type 1
P-10
T-2
*T-11
Pathway
Type 1
P-16
P-9
City-owned
Greenways
Golf Course
Pocket Park
Other Open
Space
School
Wildlife
Refuge
CP-4
REFUGE
S H
ILL
T-6
T-9
HU
T-7
RS
P-5
N E 1 0 T H AV E
NW MAIN
T-2
P-2
P-3
T-10
I-5
NP-5
CP-2
P-1
SU-2
NP-4
P-7
NP-2
Carty
Lake
T-5
N E 11 T H AV E
PLANKHOUSE
N W 4 5 T H AV E
er
v
N W 5 1 S T AV E
Ri
D
N R
ke
N W 7 1 S T AV E
ME
La
T-5
T R
D
Existing
UGA
Proposed
UGA
CP-7
T-2
CP-8
Map 4.2: Trails, Pathways
& Greenways Plan
P-18
I-5
NP-9
Railroad
Proposed
UGA Taxlots
P-13
NP-8
River and
Waterbody
NP-10
P-14
Cambel
Lake
0
0.25
Miles
0.5
November 2006
Trail and Pathway Planning and Design
Policy statements and design guidance for trail planning and design
are contained in this section. These guidelines are intended to assist
the City in developing a trail and pathway system that is user-friendly
and functional.
Trail and Path Types
The following trail and path hierarchies should be implemented in
Ridgefield. Table 10 describes the three trail types in Ridgefield.
Table 11 summarizes the three path types.
Table 10
Trail Types
Trail Type
Trail Type 1
Trail Type 2
Trail Type 3
Level of Use
Most heavily used
Provides major community and
regional connections
Moderate use
Provides community connections
More localized use
Appropriate for trails within
subdivisions and linking to the
community system

Trail Description
Paved
10-12’ width
2’ shoulders on both sides
Paved or unpaved,
depending on context
8-12’ width
2’ shoulders on both sides
Paved or unpaved
6-8’ width
12” clearance on each side
In general, the City will own and maintain Type 1 and Type 2 trails,
with Type 3 trails owned and maintained by other entities such as
homeowners associations. The City will own and maintain all three
types of paths
Table 11
Path Types
Path Type
Path Type 1
Level of Use
On high traffic volume streets
Path Description
Separated from roadway
10-12’ paved width pathway
Path Type 2
On moderately high to high traffic
volume streets
On local streets or lower traffic
volume streets
Sidewalk
4-6’ wide bicycle lane
May or may not have
sidewalk
Bicycle shares roadway, road
is signed for shared use
May have traffic calming,
where appropriate
Path Type 3
Page 53
Planning
•
Provide a minimum of 0.75 miles of off-street trails per 1,000
residents in Ridgefield.
•
Develop a signage plan for the trail system, and implement it.
The signage plan should include kiosks with system maps,
trailhead signs indicating distance and difficulty, and trail signs
posted along the route.
•
Maximize the use of utility corridors and other linear features for
trail corridors to achieve multiple benefits, where feasible.
•
During the land development approval process, dedication of
right-of-way for recreational trails shown on the Trails, Pathways,
and Greenways map should be required.
•
For Type 1 and 2 trails, a minimum 25’ wide right-of-way should
be secured, with 44’ to 50’ optimum.
•
Whenever possible, recreation pathways and trails should be
separated from the roadway.
•
Additional trail easements or dedications should be sought to
complete missing trail segments, link parks, and expand the
overall trail network into areas that are already developed. If no
other means can be found to provide missing links, on-street trail
links should be used.
•
Local trails should be required in residential subdivision planning
and should connect to the City’s trail system and neighboring
local trails. Trail locations can be determined during the land use
review process.
•
Multi-use trails are the preferred trail type for Ridgefield, because
they have the potential to serve the broadest spectrum of the
public, including walkers, hikers, runners, and cyclists. Multi-use
trails can even serve equestrian users. Trails should be planned,
sized, and designed for multiple uses, except where
environmental or other constraints preclude this goal.
•
Centralized and effective trailhead areas should be provided for
trail access. These sites should include parking, orientation and
information signs, and any necessary specialized unloading
features. Primary trailheads should have restrooms and trash
receptacles, while secondary trailheads might only have some
parking and signage. Secondary trailheads may have 3-8 parking
spaces, whereas primary trailheads may have 20 or more parking
spaces. Trailheads can be incorporated into community parks in
many cases.
Page 54
Design
•
Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions, surface
drainage, and other physical limitations that could increase
construction and/or maintenance costs. Hazard areas such as
unstable slopes and critical habitat should be avoided.
•
Route trails to minimize user shortcut potential.
•
If the trail runs adjacent to a sensitive area, at minimum the
buffer specified in the Critical Areas Ordinance should be
provided.
•
Trails should be located and designed to provide a diversity of
challenges. Enhance accessibility wherever possible, the high
priority being loop or destination opportunities on portions of
trails near staging areas.
•
Where routes use existing streets, the pathway should be designed
to minimize potential conflicts between motorists and trail users.
•
Wayfinding and orientation signage should be provided to
facilitate trail users. Signage should be provided at each major
intersection and trail entrance, and should include route and
mileage information.
Recommended Trail Network
The off-street trail corridors depicted on map 5.2 (denoted with a T)
represent conceptual linkages. Specific trail alignments will be
determined based on development patterns, topography, and other
considerations. Trail type is indicated in the discussion of each
segment.
•
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Connector Trail (T-1)
This Type 1 trail will be approximately 0.25 miles in length and
provide a vital connection between Ridgefield and the Ridgefield
National Wildlife Refuge. The trail extends northwest from Main
Street to the existing trail in the Refuge.
•
Gee Creek Trail (T-2)
Upon completion, this Type 2 trail will be approximately 5.2
miles in length and provide public access to Ridgefield’s most
contiguous greenway. The trail also provides the major off-street
north-south connection through the planning area. The portion
of the trail in Abrams Park and extending south to Pioneer Street
currently exists. When completed, the trail will extend from Main
Street south to NW 219th Street. The crossing of Pioneer Street
should receive special attention as this will likely be the major
pedestrian and bicycle connection between the northern and
southern sections of Ridgefield.
Page 55
•
Bellwood Heights-Neighborhood Park 3 Connector Trail (T-3)
This Type 3 trail will be measure approximately 1.6 miles in
length when completed and provide a connection between the
existing trail running along the southern edge of the Bellwood
Heights development and two proposed neighborhood parks
(NP-3 and NP-4). The trail will be an extension of the existing
trail segment connecting Pioneer Street to the Bellwood Heights
development. It will use the proposed greenway alignment and
run parallel to stream corridors.
•
Reiman Road-NW 31st Avenue Connector Trail (T-4)
provide a connection between the existing trail running south
from Bellwood Heights to Pioneer Street (T-3) and NW 31st
Avenue. The trail will provide access to a greenway alignment and
run parallel to a stream corridor. It will provide access to a
proposed neighborhood park (NP-6) from new residential
development.
•
Interstate 5-La Center Connector Trail (T-5)
This Type 1 trail will be approximately 4.5 miles in length, and
provide a connection between La Center and a proposed
neighborhood park (NP-3) in the north, to the I-5/SR 501
interchange and proposed Gee Creek Trail in the south (T-2).
The trail will utilize greenway alignments and run parallel to a
creek corridor.
•
Hillhurst-Lake River Connector Trail (T-6)
This Type 2 trail will be approximately 1.0 mile in length and
provide an east-west connection between the Hillhurst Road and
Lake River. The trail should extend south and west from the
proposed community park along Hillhurst Road (CP-4) along the
creek and west to the regional trail (T-10) and Lake River. It will
utilize greenway alignments and run parallel to a creek corridor.
•
Hillhurst-Ridgefield HS-Gee Creek Connector Trail (T-7)
provide a connection from Hillhurst Road to the Gee Creek trail
(T-2) and greenway through or adjacent to Ridgefield High
School grounds.
•
Bellwood Heights-Gee Creek Connector Trail (T-8)
Upon completion, this Type 2 trail will be approximately 0.9
miles in length and provide an east-west connection between the
Bellwood Heights development and Gee Creek. The portion of
the trail running along the southern edge of Bellwood Heights
already exists. There is poor connectivity in the street network
Page 56
through this area. An extension of the existing trail will provide
access to Gee Creek, Abrams Park, and downtown Ridgefield.
•
Lake River Regional Connector Trail (T-9)
This Type 1 trail will be approximately 2.4 miles in length within
the planning area, but will extend south to connect to the regional
trail network proposed by Vancouver-Clark Parks and
Recreation. The trail will provide access to a major greenway
along Lake River.
•
CP-2 Connector Trail (T-10)
This Type 2 trail will connect new community park CP-2 with
Abrams Park and the Gee Creek trail, creating a loop through the
greenway system.
•
Lake River Water Trail (T-11)
To capitalize on Ridgefield’s unique water resources, the City
should coordinate with Clark County and the Ridgefield National
Wildlife Refuge to develop a program of routes for nonmotorized watercraft on Lake River and other back channels of
the Columbia River. Launch points and routes should be
indicated on maps, which should also provide information about
waterfront facilities and points of interest (historic sites visible
from the water, significant habitats, etc.).
Page 57
Proposed Pathways
The pathways are depicted on the Trails, Pathways, and Greenways
Plan map (denoted with a P). Pathway type is indicated in the
discussion of each segment.
•
Main Street Pathway (P-1)
This Type 2 pathway will be approximately 1.0 mile in length and
extend the length of Main Street. It will provide the major northsouth pedestrian and bicycle connection through downtown
Ridgefield. The pathway will provide access to Davis Park, the
Community Center, and downtown.
•
Division Street Trail (P-2)
This Type 2 pathway will be approximately 0.4 miles in length
and run along Division Street between Abrams Park and Main
Street. An improved pathway treatment on or along Division
Street will also provide improved access to Union Ridge
Elementary and View Ridge Middle Schools.
•
W Mill Street Pathway (P-3)
and will connect downtown and Lake River via an overpass. This
pathway will likely be provided in conjunction with an upgraded
crossing that replaces the multiple on-grade street crossings of
the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. This path will provide
key pedestrian and bicycle access to the Port of Ridgefield boat
launch and Lake River.
•
Pioneer Street-S 5th Avenue Pathway (P-4)
and provides pedestrian and bicycle access along the major eastwest connection through Ridgefield. Due to the traffic volumes
and speeds along Pioneer and S 5th Avenue, this pathway should
be separated from the roadway by a landscaped buffer.
•
S Hillhurst Pathway (P-5)
and run south from Pioneer Street along Hillhurst Road. Due to
the traffic volumes and speeds along Hillhurst Road, this pathway
should be separated from the roadway by a landscaped buffer. S
Hillhurst pathway will provide pedestrian and bicycle access to
two proposed neighborhood parks (NP-5 and NP-7), a proposed
community park (CP-4), and Ridgefield High School.
•
S Refuge Road Pathway (P-6)
and provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access to the
Ridgefield National Wildlife refuge via S Refuge Road. The
Page 58
pathway should extend south and west from the proposed
neighborhood park (NP-5) near the intersection of Refuge Road
and Hillhurst.
•
NW 291st Street-NW 289th Street Pathway (P-7)
and provide an east-west pedestrian and bicycle connection along
the northern edge of the City. The pathway will run east from
Main Street to NW 51st Avenue along NW 291st Street and NW
289th Street. The pathway will jog south at NW 61st Avenue.
•
NW 61st Avenue Pathway(P-8)
and provide a north-south pedestrian and bicycle connection
between NW 289th Street to the north and the Bellwood Heights
development to the south. The pathway will also provide access
to an existing and proposed trail corridor (T-3) and a proposed
community park (CP-2).
•
NW 45th Avenue Pathway (P-9)
and serve as the major north-south pathway axis through
Ridgefield. The pathway will run on or adjacent to NW 31st
Avenue from La Center to the north to S Hillhurst Road in the
south.
•
N 36th Court Pathway (P-10)
The alignment of this Type 2 pathway is negotiable, but should
connect the proposed community park (CP-3) to Pioneer Street.
The pathway could run on or adjacent to N 36th Court or another
north-south roadway depending on the actual siting of the
community park. The pathway will likely be approximately .25
miles in length.
•
Ridge Crest North-South Pathway (P-11)
This Type 2 pathway should run on or adjacent to the proposed
north-south arterial in the Ridge Crest development. The
expected length of this pathway is 0.7 miles. The pathway will
provide pedestrian and bicycle access to a proposed community
park (CP-5) and employment centers in the proposed
development.
•
Ridge Crest East-West Pathway (P-12)
This Type 2 pathway should run on or adjacent to the proposed
east-west arterial in the Ridge Crest development. The expected
length of this pathway is 0.5 miles. The pathway will provide
pedestrian and bicycle access to the proposed development from
NW 31st Avenue.
Page 59
•
NW Carty Road Pathway (P-13)
and provide a pedestrian and bicycle corridor east from a
proposed community park (CP-7) to the Gee Creek Trail (T-2)
along NW Carty Road.
•
NW 219th Street Pathway (P-14)
This Type 1 pathway should run on or adjacent to NW 219th
Street and provide a pedestrian and bicycle corridor along the
southern edge of the planning area. The pathway will provide
access to the Gee Creek Trail (T-2), the I-5 Pathway (P-15), and a
proposed neighborhood park (NP-9).
•
Interstate-5 Regional Pathway (P-15)
The Type 1 portion of this regional pathway within the planning
area will be approximately 2.6 miles in length. While the
proximity to I-5 will not provide the most ideal pedestrian or
bicycle experience, the alignment adjacent to I-5 will provide
another major north-south connection and access to the regional
trail network proposed by Vancouver-Clark Parks and
Recreation.
•
NE Timmen Road-NE 10th Avenue Pathway (P-16)
and run north and south on or adjacent to NE Timmen Road
and NE 10th Avenue. The pathway will provide a north-south
pedestrian and bicycle connection along the eastern edge of the
planning area.
•
NE 259th Road Pathway (P-17)
The portion of this Type 2 pathway within the planning area will
be approximately 0.5 miles in length. This pathway will provide
access into Ridgefield for rural residents east of the City. The
pathway will extend east from NE 10th Avenue and should
connect to other regional trails to the east.
•
NW Carty Road to NW 219th Street Pathway (P-18)
This Type 2 pathway connects pathways P-13 and P-14,
increasing connectivity in this future growth area.
Trail and Pathway Strategy
It will take time to build Ridgefield’s proposed trail network.
However, there are pieces of the network already in place that can be
used by the public. The following recommendations provide an
Page 60
interim strategy while Ridgefield works toward achieving the
envisioned trail and pathway network.
1. Provide signage along existing trail segments. There are
segments of trails throughout Ridgefield, sometimes
connected and sometimes separated from other segments.
Providing signage will educate potential users about routes
and encourage use.
2. Use Type 3 pathways to provide interim connections.
Type 3 pathways can be used where streets exist but there are
no bike lanes or developed off-street pathways. Putting
signage in place will provide interim routes to make the
system more usable and assist residents in getting around the
community.
3. Provide a map of existing routes. A map should be
developed and periodically updated to inform the community
of the available trail routes.
Greenway Network
The greenway network in Ridgefield includes wildlife habitat, stream
and creek corridors, and unique and/or endangered plant species.
The network includes those areas protected by the Critical Areas
Ordinance, and incorporates subdivision open space corridors. On
April 27, 2006, the Ridgefield City Council passed Ordinance No.903,
adopting the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. The Critiical Areas
Ordinance meets Ridgefield’s requirements under the Growth
Management Act, and provides for protection of critical habitat
within Ridgefield’s planned growth area. This Comprehensive Parks
and Recreation Master Plan acknowledges and incorporates
Ridgefield’s Critical Areas Ordinance and Map as part of the Plan.
During the planning process, Ridgefield residents expressed a
significant interest in a park system that provides for passive
recreation opportunities. For this reason, the City’s vision and goals
for parks and recreation address a park system that incorporates
natural areas through the greenway network. In addition to
protecting habitat and maintaining ecologic benefits (e.g., stormwater,
air quality), the greenway system provides educational and
stewardship opportunities and is the primary framework for off-street
trails. Greenways may support other types of passive recreation, such
as viewpoints and wildlife viewing areas. Any active recreation that
occurs should be considered a secondary use to the protection of the
natural habitat.
The proposed greenway system is depicted on both the Park Plan
(Map 4.1) and Trails, Pathways, and Greenways Plan (Map 4.2). As
Page 61
previously noted, this greenway system incorporates the Critical
Areas as well as other green corridors.
To minimize maintenance demands, it is recommended that the City
encourage greenways be held as development common areas
whenever possible. Acquisition should only occur for lands that
would otherwise not be protected, or for critical connections.
Acquisition should also be based on willing sellers.
Ridgefield should provide the greenway network depicted on the
Park Plan, and provide a minimum of 8.65 acres of greenways, held
publicly or privately, per 1,000 residents.
Page 62
CHAPTER 5:
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES
The City of Ridgefield is a small town that has been responsible for
the provision and maintenance of parks, a function that is carried out
by the City’s Public Works Department. To respond to the rapid
growth in Ridgefield, this plan is intended to prepare the City for the
future, and anticipates an expansion of the City’s responsibilities in
providing park and recreation services to respond to future increased
demand.
1. Establish park and recreation responsibilities. In the
short term, the City’s role should include:
•
Assessing park and recreation needs in the
community;
•
Maintaining a quality park system;
•
Coordinating with other agencies on parks, facilities,
and services; and
•
Developing and improving parks, facilities, and trails.
As the City grows, the City should periodically reevaluate its
role to determine whether an expansion of services is
warranted, such as adding recreation programs or community
activities.
2. Periodically evaluate organizational structure. The
Public Works Department is currently responsible for parks
maintenance, as well as maintenance of other City
infrastructure such as streets, sewer, and water. As more
parks are acquired, the City should continue moving to a
dedicated crew of parks maintenance staff, rather than crews
shared with streets and sewer. In the future, the City may
need to consider other organizational structures, such as a
parks division or department. The formation of a
Metropolitan Parks District may also be considered. Whether
a district or department is created, a director will eventually
be needed.
3. Support the Parks Advisory Board. The Parks Advisory
Board should be the main body for public discussion of parks
and recreation issues in Ridgefield. The role of the Parks
Advisory Board should be expanded to include review of
plans for public parks proposed by developers and creation
of the annual work plan for parks and recreation.
4. Increase public awareness of park and recreation
resources. This planning effort indicated that there is a lack
of awareness of available resources on the part of current
residents; with the City’s rapid growth, new residents will also
need information about parks and recreation. Ridgefield
Page 63
should update its website with a map of existing parks and
trails and information about amenities available at each of the
parks. Recreation information, such as links to the websites
of local sports leagues, would also be helpful. The City
should also consider designing printed park and trail maps or
brochures. This plan also recommends a citywide signage
program, discussed later in this chapter, which will also
increase awareness when implemented.
5. Allocate staff time to leverage park and recreation
resources. Ridgefield has a limited budget, but the City
should allocate staff time strategically to projects that can
extend City resources. This includes dedicating staff time for
grant preparation, especially for Interagency Committee on
Outdoor Recreation grants. Staff time should also be
allocated for volunteer recruitment and management, as well
as fundraising. Although volunteers require management at
the City’s expense, successful volunteer efforts can net many
hours of free labor and result in an overall financial gain.
Volunteers can be especially effective at greenway and trail
projects, such as the ongoing Gee Creek restoration efforts.
Volunteerism also helps community members gain a sense of
ownership of the park system. Donations have not been a
significant revenue source for Ridgefield, but the community
is very supportive of parks and recreation. Some staff time
spent organizing fundraising efforts could help to implement
capital improvements. For example, a City staff member
could put together a brochure on Davis Park to seek
donations, both cash and in-kind, for park improvements.
6. Expand on partnerships. The City should expand on
partnerships to further leverage local park resources. The
following partnerships should be the City’s focus over the
next six years:
Page 64
•
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. Ridgefield should
coordinate with Refuge staff on planning efforts, as
well as continue partnering on events and activities
such as the Cathlapotle Plankhouse, the Welcome
Center, and Birdfest.
•
Ridgefield School District. Ridgefield should update its
interlocal agreement with the School District, and
should coordinate planning for new parks with school
facility planning.
•
La Center and Other Jurisdictions. Ridgefield should
discuss with La Center and other potential partners,
such as Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation, the
possibility for a regional park with a sports complex
to serve northern Clark County.
7. Develop an annual action plan. Each year, an annual
action plan and work program should be developed for parks
and recreation that identifies key plan implementation items
for the coming year. The Parks Advisory Board and staff
should participate in setting the priorities and specific work
tasks for the coming year. At the end of the year, an
evaluation should be made to measure performance.
5.2 FINANCE AND BUDGETING
1. Update the Park Impact Fees. Update the City’s Park
Impact Fees (PIF) to ensure that new development is paying
for its fair share of park infrastructure needs. The fees
established in 2003 are based on a much lower land cost and
park development cost than is the reality in Ridgefield today.
The PIF should be based on the improvements
recommended in this Plan. The credit component of the
Park Impact Fee ordinance should also be reviewed during
the PIF update, and simplified if possible to increase certainty
for both developers and Ridgefield residents. According to
state statutes, the City must provide a credit for the value of
improvements made by developers or dedicated by
developers if they are on the capital facilities plan and are
required as a condition of approval.
2. Evaluate charging Park Impact Fees for non-residential
uses. Ridgefield charges a PIF for residential uses only.
When the impact fees are updated, the City should consider
charging fees for non-residential uses. With Ridgefield’s
emphasis on mixed uses and employment, employment areas
will be served by and will benefit from planned parks.
3. Continue to budget for the Ridgefield Cemetery
separately from parks maintenance. Cemetery
maintenance is carried out by the same staff who maintain the
parks. In order to keep an accurate accounting of the cost of
park maintenance, the Ridgefield Cemetery should continue
to be budgeted separately, with staff time accounted for
separately from staff time spent on parks maintenance. If
necessary, cemetery fees should be reevaluated to ensure that
revenues cover the cost of cemetery operations and
maintenance.
4. Evaluate user fees. The City has user fees established for
parks, and these go into the General Fund. Events (200 or
more people) are $500 per event, or $250 for non-profit
organizations, with a clean-up fee of $200 and a refundable
deposit of $250. There is a user fee of $25 for the first hour
plus $15 for each additional hour for park rentals, with a
refundable deposit of $50 for less than 200 people.
Page 65
Currently, user fees do not generate much revenue due to the
limited facilities available. User fees from parks should be
allocated to parks maintenance. As more picnic shelters are
added to the system, the City should determine a reservation
fee for these facilities that at minimum recoups the
maintenance cost associated with private events. In the
future, if the City takes on more maintenance of athletic
fields, user fees for sports fields could be considered.
5. Use existing sources and pursue new sources of revenue.
Ridgefield currently uses Park Impact Fees and the General
Fund as the main sources of park funding. While the City has
a Real Estate Excise Tax in place, this has not been used for
parks and recreation improvements, but it could be. Other
sources of revenue should be explored, such as private grants,
sponsorships, naming rights, and corporate partnerships.
Identifying new sources and diversifying revenue will require
staff time.
6. Update the costs in the parks capital facilities plan
annually. Update the costs in the parks capital facilities plan
annually, based on the same index used to increase sewer and
water fees.
7. Update the Capital Facilities Plan. Update the City’s
capital facilities plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Park and Recreation Plan.
8. Evaluate feasibility of a Metropolitan Park District for
Ridgefield. A Metropolitan Park District is a special tax
district, authorized under RCW 35.61.210, with a board of
park commissioners. A park district has taxing authority, and
can levy up to $0.75/$1000 of property value. Formation of
a district may be initiated by the local governing body or by
citizen petition, and must be approved by a majority of
voters. If a district were proposed that included only City of
Ridgefield land, the Ridgefield City Council could adopt a
resolution submitting a ballot proposition to establish the
district.
If Ridgefield seeks establishment of a park district that
includes only Ridgefield land, members of the City Council
could be designated to serve as the board. If a park district
contains the entirety of a city, any land that is annexed to the
city will also be annexed to the park district. This means that
Ridgefield could establish a park district with a boundary that
follows city limits, and then the district boundary would be
expanded each time the city boundary is expanded without
requiring a special vote. Ridgefield would also have the
option of turning over its park land to the district, or keeping
ownership. The district could have its own maintenance
Page 66
crews, or could contract with the City to provide park
maintenance using city crews.
The primary advantage of a Metropolitan Park District over
City-supported park systems is the dedicated funding for
parks and recreation (both capital projects and operations).
When cities provide park and recreation services, there are a
number of competing priorities for General Fund resources,
including public safety. A park district has a dedicated
revenue stream that can only be used for park and recreation
purposes. However, a park district would result in an overall
increase in taxation for Ridgefield residents.
If a park district is established, Ridgefield would have the
option of turning over its park land to the district, or keeping
ownership. The district could have its own maintenance
crews, or could contract with the City to provide park
maintenance using city crews.
5.3 PARK AND TRAIL PLANNING
1. Update the Comprehensive Plan. Update the Parks
section of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Revise section
9.1, and update sections 9.2 and 9.3 with the communitydriven vision, goals, and objectives contained in this plan.
2. Revise Title 18 (Development Code) to support the
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Ridgefield’s
Development Code is not set up to implement the
community’s vision for parks, as recommended in this
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Short-term, an
immediate fix is needed to require planned unit developments
and subdivisions to be consistent with this Plan. Long-term,
the development code’s effectiveness at addressing public
parks, recreation facilities, and trails should be reevaluated as
part of an overall development code update. Establishment
of a park and open space zone should be considered, as
should requirements for trail and park land dedication and
modifications to the subdivision and planned unit
development codes.
3. Update the Transportation System Plan. The
Transportation System Plan should be updated to incorporate
the pathways recommended in this Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan.
4. Accept only park land and trail rights-of-way (R.O.W.)
consistent with this plan. Accept only those sites
consistent with this Plan. The City should acquire parks in
the locations indicated on the Park Plan map, and ensure that
the sites are adequately sized with suitable access. As
development proposals are made, land dedications or
Page 67
easements should be secured for trails as shown on the Trails,
Paths, and Greenways Plan map to provide a network of
bicycle and pedestrian trails.
5. Actively seek opportunities for land acquisition
consistent with this Plan. Land costs have been increasing
rapidly in Ridgefield. The City should actively seek
opportunities to acquire or preserve land for parks. The City
should also keep financial resources available to take
advantage of opportunities quickly when they arise.
6. Evaluate the Capital Improvement Plan annually. The
six-year Capital Improvement Plan should be evaluated
annually and adjusted as needed.
7. Update the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan
every six years. Ridgefield’s plan will need to be periodically
updated. In order to maintain compliance with the Office of
the Interagency Committee (IAC). The IAC is a Washington
agency that creates and maintains recreation opportunities
and protects and preserves lands. The IAC is the agency
responsible for managing multiple grant programs for
recreation and habitat enhancement, and requires a plan as
part of the grant criteria. To maintain eligibility for IAC
grants, Ridgefield should update the plan at least every six
years.
8. Develop and implement a citywide park and trail
signage program. Improved wayfinding is needed
throughout Ridgefield, to identify public parks and mark trail
and path routes. A citywide signage program should include
the design of signs and standards for sign locations.
5.4 PARK AND TRAIL DESIGN
1. Implement the parks and trails design guidelines.
Follow the design guidelines contained in Chapter 4.
2. Use professional assistance. Use professionals to master
plan and design Ridgefield parks. In addition to design of
City-built parks, trails, and greenways, professionals should be
involved in the review of developer park plans. Professional
input is critical to obtaining parks that become community
assets for the future. The City should consider establishing
an on-call contract with a landscape architect with park
design and development experience to review developersubmitted plans as needed.
3. Coordinate parks capital project location decisions, such
as trail locations, with other City infrastructure to
maximize maintenance resources. The maintenance of
parks and recreation projects that are co-located with sewer,
Page 68
water, and stormwater infrastructure can be partially
addressed through maintenance of the infrastructure. For
example, a sewer line maintenance road may also serve as a
trail.
4. Base capital project decisions on lifetime maintenance
impacts. Capital projects decisions should include an
evaluation of lifetime maintenance impacts. Since
maintenance funding is more difficult to obtain than capital
funding, design decisions should take maintenance costs into
effect. For example, spending more on higher quality
materials upfront can sometimes reduce lifetime maintenance
costs and extend the lifespan of assets.
5. Consider ease of maintenance in design decisions. New
parks should be designed to facilitate maintenance. For
example, paths should be used to separate different materials,
such as turfgrass and planting beds. Involving maintenance
staff will help with this, as will using professionals to design
or to review designs.
6. Incorporate labor-saving technology. Incorporate laborsaving technology into parks to facilitate maintenance, such
as computerized irrigation, automatic lights and locks, etc.
Although there is a higher upfront cost for these elements,
they will result in lower maintenance costs over the lifetime
of the park.
7. Integrate stormwater facilities into parks. When
stormwater facilities are required in parks, these should be
integrated into the design of the park. For example, the
edges of a stormwater facility can be designed to be
curvilinear, rather than rectilinear. The stormwater pond area
can be stepped, with some areas experiencing more frequent
inundation and other areas remaining dry except in large
storm events. However, stormwater facilities required for
private development should not be incorporated into parks.
5.5 MAINTENANCE
1. Budget adequately for asset preservation. Inadequate
maintenance funding will result in depletion of the City’s park
assets. At minimum, the City should allocate $5,000 for each
developed acre of park land to provide adequate park
maintenance funding. If possible, a greater level of funding
should be allocated. Since the City is growing rapidly and
park system expansion is anticipated, the budget per acre
should be evaluated in two years to determine if it is
adequate, and be adjusted if necessary.
2. Review and update the parks maintenance standards.
The Public Works Department has prepared standards for
Page 69
parks maintenance, identifying tasks that should be
accomplished with frequencies for each task. These
standards should be reviewed and updated to ensure that they
reflect the City’s level of financial support for maintenance, as
well as accommodate the full range of facilities provided as
the park system grows. In time, the City should consider
tiered service levels, with one set of tasks and frequencies for
neighborhood parks and one for community parks.
3. Schedule for peak times. As maintenance staff increases,
schedules should be staggered to provide maintenance staff
on weekends and in the evenings, the peak demand time for
parks.
4. Periodically evaluate maintenance operations.
Ridgefield’s parks are currently located within a small
geographic area. However, the City is anticipated to grow
significantly. As the City and park system grows, staff should
periodically evaluate whether maintenance is structured
efficiently. For example, are satellite yards needed? If so,
space should be identified on city-owned land or integrated
into parks.
5. Evaluate maintenance funding options. Ridgefield has
been growing, its park system has been expanding, and it has
been challenging to keep up with increased maintenance
demand. Funding of maintenance is an issue. Residents
expressed willingness to pay for parks and recreation in the
community survey (see Appendix B for details), so options
such as a Metropolitan Park District or a Park Utility Fee
should be explored. The Metropolitan Park District was
described earlier. Park utility fees apply the concept of a
utility fee for services such as water and sewer to city parks.
A fee is assessed on all businesses and households in the city
for use of parks. Park utility fees differ from water and sewer
fees because usage cannot be easily metered.
Park utility fees have a potential to be a significant and stable
revenue stream for local jurisdictions. Park utility fee revenue
will grow with population growth, and local jurisdictions can
increase the fee to reflect increased costs of providing park
facilities. For example, Medford, Oregon has implemented a
park utility fee of $0.31 per unit per month, which is included
in properties’ water bills and will be used for operations and
maintenance costs.
Page 70
CHAPTER 6:
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
6.1
OVERVIEW
This chapter presents the 20-year parks capital facilities plan and the
six-year capital improvement plan, along with a funding strategy.
This chapter is intended to be regularly reviewed and updated, with
annual review of the CIP.
6.2
20-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Ridgefield’s Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan presents a
vision for the park system at the build-out of the community, which
may be longer than 20 years. The capital facilities plan presented in
Table 12 represents the City’s 20-year plan for parks and recreation.
This table is organized by categories:
• Community parks;
• Neighborhood parks;
• Other parks and facilities;
• Regional parks; and
• Trails.
Within the parks capital facilities plan, land acquisition costs are
based on $200,000 per acre inside the UGA and $100,000 per acre
outside the UGA. Preliminary project costs are planning level costs
in 2006 dollars. These should be adjusted annually, and periodically
revisited as master plans and other elements are refined. For the
purpose of planning, project costs for construction projects include
design and construction documents, as well as construction costs.
Trail costs are based on trail construction costs of $355,000 per mile,
in areas where standard equipment can be used and where no
environmental constraints are in place. This assumes paved trails, but
does not include signage, boardwalks, bridges, railings, and other
structures.
Page 71
Table 12
20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
CP-1 Abrams Park
CP-1 Abrams Park
CP-2
CP-2
CP-3
CP-3
CP-4
CP-4
CP-5
CP-5
CP-6
CP-6
CP-7
CP-7
CP-8
CP-8
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
New Community Park
Master plan
Phase I implementation. Design and construction of new
playground equipment, restroom replacement, Gee Creek trail
improvement, parking lot upgrades
Phase II and later implementation - update after master plan
completion
Acquisition of a 20 acre site
Design and construction of community park CP-2
x
NP-1B Ridgefield Community Park
NP-2
NP-2
NP-3
NP-4
NP-4
NP-5
NP-5
NP-6
NP-6
NP-7
NP-7
NP-8
NP-8
NP-9
NP-9
NP-10
NP-10
New Neighborhood Park
Heron Ridge Park
$2,000,000
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Neighborhood Parks Subtotal
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$2,000,000
$6,000,000
$2,000,000
$6,000,000
$72,050,000
Secure Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge office parcel
Master plan
Design and construction
No improvements recommended
Acquisition of a site - 3.5 usable acres
Design and construction of neighborhood park NP-2
No improvements recommended
$50,000
x
Community Parks Subtotal
Neighborhood Parks
NP-1A Davis Park
NP-1A Davis Park
NP-1A Davis Park
Preliminary Project Cost
Other
Project Description
Existing
Site
Community Parks
CP-1 Abrams Park
New park
Type
x
x
x
$250,000
$8,000
$2,000,000
x
$0
$350,000
$2,000,000
$0
$350,000
$2,000,000
$700,000
$2,000,000
$700,000
$2,000,000
$700,000
$2,000,000
$700,000
$2,000,000
$350,000
$2,000,000
$350,000
$2,000,000
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
$22,458,000
Table 12
20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
Preliminary Project Cost
Other
Project Description
Existing
Site
Other Parks and Facilities
New park
Type
SU-1 Skate Park
New skate park - design and construction of a permanent,
concrete park within a city park site
x
$500,000
SU-2 New Special Use Park
Design and construction of waterfront park - urban park with
walk-in non-motorized boat access. Assumption that land is
provided by the Port of Ridgefield.
x
$3,500,000
__
Greenway Improvements
__
School District Partnerships
__
Off-leash area
__
Spraygrounds
Budget for greenway improvements - native plantings by
volunteers, overlooks, benches, soft surface trails ($10,000 per
year for 20 years)
Partnership contributions to Ridgefield School District for public
use of school fields and gyms
x
$200,000
x
$500,000
2 acre fenced off-leash enclosure. Includes water service, double
entry, and a gravel parking area. Does not include land
acquisition.
x
$75,000
2 spraygrounds at existing sites
$500,000
Other Parks and Facilities Subtotal
Regional Parks
RP-1 Regional Park
Partnership contribution for regional park
$5,275,000
x
Regional Parks ubtotal
$7,500,000
$7,500,000
Trail Improvements
-
Trail sign program
Development of a trail sign program and implementation
x
$50,000
T-1
Wildlife Refuge Connector
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
T-8
T-9
T-10
Gee Creek Trail
Bellwood Heights-NP-3 Connector
Reiman Rd-NW 31st Ave Connector
I-5-LaCenter Connector
Hillhurst-Lake River Connector
Hillhurst-Gee Creek Connector
Bellwood Heights-Gee Creek Connector
Lake River Regional Connector
Lake River Water Trail
0.25 miles
5.2 miles
1.6 miles
1.4 miles
4.5 miles
1.0 miles
0.4 miles
0.9 miles
2.4 miles
Water trail route - includes signage, no facilities
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
$89,000
$1,846,000
$568,000
$497,000
$1,598,000
$355,000
$142,000
$320,000
$852,000
$25,000
Trail Improvements Subtotal
$6,292,000
Total, All Projects
$113,575,000
6.3
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES
Ridgefield has not allocated funding for capital improvements in the
park system in recent years, although the City has taken ownership of
parks built by developers, such as the pocket parks at Cedar Ridge
and Bellwood Heights. The City is projecting significant growth in
the coming years and will need major improvements to the park
system to serve the needs generated by new growth. In addition, the
community’s vision for the park system includes upgrades to the
existing facilities, requiring increased capital projects funding.
The City currently has a few sources for capital improvements
available, but does not use all of them. These sources are
summarized below.
•
Park Impact Fees (PIF): Park Impact Fees are fees imposed
on new development to pay for capital projects required to
accommodate impacts on the City’s infrastructure. Projects
funded with impact fees must be on an adopted capital facilities
plan. Communities can credit developers for providing land or
making improvements identified on a capital facilities plan. Thus,
developers can contribute to the park system in lieu of payment.
Ridgefield has an impact fee in place for parks. The PIF rates are
$1,933.09 per single family residence and $1,533.14 for multifamily units, set in 2003. Ridgefield has a policy of granting PIF
credits only if the park is built before building permits are
pursued. The intent of this policy is to encourage developers to
build parks before the houses.
Based on a projection of PIF revenues, the current PIF rate will
not collect enough revenue to pay for the parks required to serve
new development.
•
General Fund: The General Fund is the City’s primary source
for operating revenue. Revenue comes from a variety of sources,
including charges for services (plan check fees, development fees,
hearings examiner fees, cemetery lot sales); sales tax; licenses and
permits (building permits, business licenses, franchise fees);
property taxes (increasing as development occurs); and other
revenues for which a special fund has not been created
(intergovernmental revenues, fines, interest, park user fees, etc.).
While General Fund revenues have the greatest flexibility, these
funds have not been used in recent years for parks capital
projects, although the General Fund provides parks maintenance
funding. Given the many financial obligations of the City, the
General Fund cannot be depended upon to provide a significant
stream of capital project funding. However, the General Fund
Page 74
can be an important source of funds when grant matches are
needed or where other funding is not available.
•
Grants: Grants have not been used for parks capital
improvements in the past three years. While grants provide
outside money, these opportunities are competitive and they
require staff or volunteers to track grants, write requests, and
complete documentation.
•
Donations: The City has not pursued donations in recent years
for park improvements. However, local service groups and
sports leagues have done improvements, mainly at Abrams Park.
•
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET): Real Estate Excise Tax, or
REET, is a tax on the sale of real estate that is typically paid by
the seller of property. The Washington state tax rate is .0128
percent, and a locally-imposed tax is also authorized with
restrictions on rate and uses depending on jurisdiction size and
Growth Management Act (GMA) status. All cities and counties
may levy an additional quarter-percent tax. This is commonly
called REET 1. Cities and counties that are planning under GMA
have the authority to levy a second quarter-percent tax (REET 2).
Ridgefield currently levies REET 1 and REET 2 for a rate of
0.50%, the same as most other Clark County communities.
REET has not been used in Ridgefield to fund park
improvements, although it is an increasingly significant revenue
source. It could be used to fund park improvements, in
accordance with Washington statutes.
6.4
SIX-YEAR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING STRATEGY
Ridgefield’s capital project funding level, as of 2006, is not adequate
to support development of a quality park system in accordance with
the City’s vision. The following strategy is intended to provide
increased capital project funding for the first six years of plan
implementation.
1. Adjust the PIF. The current PIF was established based on
significantly lower land costs than the 2006 market ($35,000
per acre rather than $200,000 per acre), and a much lower
level of park development than the community desires. The
existing PIF, even with annual increases, will generate
revenue to pay for only 15-20% of the cost of new
community and neighborhood parks over the lifetime of the
plan. The City should pursue an update of the PIF as soon as
possible based on the recommendations in this plan.
Page 75
In the City of Vancouver, the PIF averages about $4,300 per
single family home. In unincorporated Clark County, the PIF
is about $4,200 per household. Based on an assumption that
Ridgefield will charge a rate averaging $4,500 per unit with
300 new units per year, the PIF would generate $1,350,000
per year, or $8,100,000 over six years.
2. Dedicate REET funds annually for park system
improvements. In 2005, $538,534 was generated in REET
revenue, and the City projected exceeding that figure in 2006.
If development continues at its current pace in Ridgefield,
REET will continue to be a significant revenue source for
capital projects. The City currently has obligations for some
REET funds for debt service on a police operations center
and police station. Even with the debt service obligations,
there are additional funds available.
The City of Vancouver, Clark County, and other smaller
Clark County cities, including Camas, use REET funds for a
variety of park improvements. Ridgefield should allocate
some REET revenues for parks and recreation capital
projects, including land acquisition to the amount permissible
under the REET statutes. If Ridgefield allocated $250,000
annually in REET funds over the next six years, $1,500,000
would be generated for park improvements.
3. Dedicate a small amount of General Fund dollars for
parks capital improvements. Sometimes grants require
matches or there are projects that cannot be funded in other
ways. To implement the plan, the City should allocate
$10,000 from the General Fund for greenway improvements
annually, and as needed, allocate additional funds for grant
matches if needed. The six-year capital funding scenario in
Table 14 assumes $60,000 over six years for greenway
improvements, plus another $400,000 over the six years for
other projects, for a total of $460,000 over six years.
4. Pursue IAC grants, including dedicating staff time to
grant preparation. The City should pursue IAC funding in
the 2009 and 2011 cycles, keeping in mind that the
application process starts in 2008 and 2010. To accomplish
this, the City will need to assign a staff person to pursue this.
Based on an assumption that Ridgefield will successfully
pursue grants in 2009 and 2011, the six-year capital project
funding scenario includes $600,000 from grants.
Page 76
5. Pursue donations, both cash and in-kind, dedicating
staff time to manage this effort. Based on an assumption
that Ridgefield will increase its efforts to seek donations, the
six-year capital project funding scenario includes $60,000
from donations.
Table 13 below summarizes the six-year capital project funding
scenario, based on the funding strategy described above. This
strategy is projected to generate about $12.5 million for park
improvements.
Table 13
Six-Year Capital Project Funding Scenario
Funding Source
2007 PIF beginning fund balance
PIF revenues, 2007-2013
REET funds, 2007-2013
General Fund, 2007-2013
Grants, 2007-2013
Donations, 2007-2013
6.5
Total
$1,846,773
$8,100,000
$1,500,000
$460,000
$600,000
$60,000
$12,566,773
SIX-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Ridgefield has many park needs. While all of the projects included
within the parks capital facilities plan are community priorities
designed to meet the goals and objectives of the plan, a short-term
capital improvement plan is needed to guide the first phase of
implementation. Table 14 provides a Six-Year Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for years 2007-2012, based on the funding scenario
outlined in Table 13. This should be reviewed and updated annually,
as part of the development of the annual work plan.
Page 77
Table 14
Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan
Project
--
Trail sign program
T-1
T-2
NP-1A
CP-1
CP-5
NP-2
NP-6
Wildlife Refuge Connector
Gee Creek Trail
Davis Park
Abrams Park
New Community Park
NP-6
--
Greenway Improvements
--
Sprayground
--
Off-leash area
--
Page 78
School District Partnerships
Description
Development of a trail sign program and
implementation
Completion of link to Refuge from downtown
Partial completion of Gee Creek trail
Design and construction
Master plan
Acquisition of site - 3.5 usable acres
Design and construction of neighborhood
park NP-6
Budget for greenway improvements - native
plantings by volunteers, overlooks, benches,
soft surface trails ($10,000 per year for 6
years)
1 sprayground at existing site
2 acre fenced off-leash enclosure. Includes
water service, double entry, and a gravel
parking area. Does not include land
acquisition.
Partnership contributions to Ridgefield School
District for public use of school fields and
gyms
Total
$50,000
$89,000
$192,773
$2,000,000
$50,000
$4,000,000
$350,000
$700,000
$2,000,000
$60,000
$2,500,000
$75,000
$500,000
$12,566,773